The Edge Of Our Universe, second post :)

Hello all

If the universe has an edge then the following applies.

Mass has an effect on time flow. The mass of the universe has an effect on time flow. The mass of the universe is nowhere near the edge of the light coming from said universe. Light from said universe will be red shifted. The question is; How fast is the time flow outside the universe?

We must also ask if the permittivity and permeability of space is a function of the universe or a function of the space the universe is expanding into.

IF THERE IS NO SPACE THERE IS NO SPACE-TIME. ITS AS SIMPLE AS THAT.

Hi again Montec,

You ask some inciting questions.

1. The "edge" could just be a change of energy state and dimensionality, not a
physical change.

2. I don't understand the logic of the red shift of light ....from what? Red shift is
observed from physical stellar objects accelerating/moving away from us.
No receding light emitters, no red shift.

3. Is there "time flow" if there is no sequential change of energy state or moving
point of reference?

4. If energy can propagate from one location to another doesn't that require
energy to conform to the environment it is propagating into or conversely,
for "space" to adapt or change to accept a flow of energy? I would think "yes" to
the question of permittivity and permeability. Perhaps a natural side effect
of the presence of energy is p & p.

LL

This post has been edited by Laserlight on May 14 2007, 05:04 AM

Laserlight. Billions of trillions of stars radiating infra red energy for billions of years and it doesn't just vanish. The microwave spectrum overlaps the infra red spectrum and it is just a matter of a little red shifting with photons travelling over cosmic time to turn infra red into microwaves, so the CMB.

The BB creation of the CMB is laughable.

Hello Laserlight, et al.

There is another mechanism for red shifting light. Light coming out of a gravity well will be red shifted. Light going into a gravity well will be blue shifted. These shifts relate to the variation in time flow from the inside of a gravity well to the outside of a gravity well. So from gravity to no gravity will produce a red shift.


Also if the amount of mass/gravity is not constant then the flow of time will not be constant. If the universe losses mass then the rate of time flow will speed up. This would appear as a red shift when looking at light emitted in the past.

Hi Montec,

Red/Blue shift has to do with a change of velocity from an external
relative point of observation, so I agree with your comment about how
gravity effects the shift from the perspective of the observer. If the
wavefront of the universe is expanding at the speed of light and it is moving
away from us and can't be seen, then those photons are not in our visual plane
or else we would see the edge of the universe. We could mathematically compute
the diameter of the universe by doubling the speed of light over 13.7B years,
from a common centerpoint.

The amount of mass is constant and equivalent to the amount of energy
in the universe. E=mc^2. The universe isn't losing mass or energy, it is just
redistributing it over a larger volume, it is spreading out over time and distance.
Time is a linear measurement relative to the speed of light and the speed of light
is constant in a vacuum, so time is constant.

LL

Hi Kaneda,

The original theory of the CMB is that it is the echo reflection of the BB from the
edge of the universe...energy reflecting (feedback) from the edge of the cavity of
the universe. So your statement is sort of in line with that theory, and actually
supports the concept of the BB.

BB

Hello Laserlight, et al.

I have yet to find an equation or experiment that allows EM radiation to influence/change the potential energy tensor established by gravitational fields. I am still looking, but until I find evidence of said interaction I cannot believe with 100% certainty that EM waves generate gravity.

It is true that energy cannot be destroyed and this includes the energy contained in mass but this does not mean that all energy can generate gravitational fields.

If I believe that all energy, no matter what form, generates a gravity field then the gravity field will still decrease as the EM radiation expands into space. This is a result of moving from a more dense energy field to a less dense energy field and by supposition a higher gravity field to a lower gravity field. Higher to lower generates a red shift.

Discussion or rebuttals welcome.

Based on most of the things I've come across on this topic, I'd have to say that I'm currently with Nick.

.
.

Although, Kaneda's idea may be plausible and it does make sense that red shift may have been interpreted before, such as in GRB interpretations, as I've brought up here.

---

By the way... classic Nick response

IT IS LUDICROUS TO NITPICK AN IDEA.

It is my opinion that this universe is an hypersphere.

This post has been edited by Latrosicarius on May 14 2007, 06:43 PM

This is all theory, of course, but:

There are more types of redshift than Doppler redshift. There's also cosmological redshift caused by the expansion of space, and gravitational redshift, caused by high gravity fields. And of course, there's relativistic redshift caused by the source object moving at a high percentage of c.

Montec,

You know me from another board and my position that gravity is the displacement
of space by the content of the energy (mass) that fills that space. The gravity that
a system contains is directly proportional to the total energy (mass) contained in
the system and it follows the ISL (inverse squared law). Energy and mass
can be considered direct equivalents according to E=mc^2.

The strength of gravity at any point in space is directly proportional to the energy
content in that volume of space.

The density of the energy content that a volume contains is directly proportional
to the space it displaces and the intensity of the gravitational field that it generates.

For example: a marble has a fixed energy density associated with its
mass (energy), and the marble also displaces its own gravitational field.
The gravitational field that it generates around it is directly proportional to its
mass (i.e., energy content).

The concept of gravity works because any two objects are displacing the
space between them according to the total energy that exists between their
masses, so they move toward each other. The more energy density that exists
between two masses the more space that energy will displace, and the faster the
masses will move toward each other. As the masses accelerate as they move
closer together the relationship to the ISL inverts and squares, since the energy
density content between them will increase with decreasing distance.

In a system that is unbalanced by competing forces, such as centrifugal force, as
the space between objects is displaced, the objects move closer together.
They are "attracted" due to the imbalance of forces due to displacement of the
space between them.

How do you measure the displacement of volume? It is a net change of total
volume to the relative fixed volume that fills the space that is available.

IMO, there are no "gravity waves" it is purely energy density per unit volume
of space, where energy displaces the spacetime it occupying.

My point being, that the gravitational field at any point in space is equal to the
energy content that occupies that displaced space.

Comments, discussion?

This post has been edited by Laserlight on May 14 2007, 08:11 PM

I have a natural reluctance to use creationist sites but the truth is still the truth, even when uttered by liars. Like last time I reported it here, this site gave the best account of what happened so I again use it as it is still the best :


http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/4643


The BB fails yet again, and with it, one of the main dogmas of the BB, the CMB. I didn't support the BB but said the CMB is down to old starlight.

This post has been edited by kaneda on May 15 2007, 02:57 PM

Kaneda,

I think we are in agreement on the topic of the BB, it is one of several theories
regarding "creation" of the universe. There is still the issue of the red shift
of far away galaxies that emit light which indicates that they are moving away
from us at fantastic speeds.

LL

We will never know how the universe originated because all of the knowledge used to create it is external of the universe, held by the "creator" of the problem.

Imagine the number 17. 17 can be calculated an infinite number of ways and it can be used within an infinite number of problems to define an infinite number of systems. The number is a real solution but its origin is entirely unknown unless defined by a user. one apple, two apples, three apples, etc. 3+14 = 17. x-3=14. 17+3 = 20. All real ways to use the number 17.

The universe is nothing more than another 17.

The universe could be the ultimate solution or it could simply be just another input into a larger system.

We will never know because we are not privey to the ultimate use of the universe. We do not know its purpose therefore we can not define it in absolute terms. Everything is speculative, even when the math works out.

Hi AB,

You make a valid argument. I prefer to think of your analogy as x=17, where
x could be all possible correct solutions. The idea is to solve for all possible
correct solutions to equal unity (1=1). This implies, as you have stated,
that there could be unlimited variables that provide the solution set.

FWIW, it is hard to be serious when dialoging with someone with your moniker...
It's funny, but sort of lacks "credibility" from a serious perspective.

Regards,
LL