Jump to content
Science Forums

RodneyBelieves

Members
  • Content Count

    20
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  1. At the time you asked me this, I did not understand how observation led us to postulate that the Expansion of the Universe is accelerating. I had read that it was because very distant objects, relativistic recession velocities, were too dim compared to the calculated distance. Until the other day, I didn't understand that. It was when I read a statement by Dr. Adam Weiss that at very large distances General Relativity had to be taken into account. I then tried to find a basic equation for luminosity in Relative terms. When I found it, I think I see the "explanation" of acceleration you as
  2. Thanks for your time. You made me to feel like my thinking and my question are off the wall, but have discovered my question is very valid. It's probably my ability to express it that's lacking. I think I found the help I was looking for elsewhere, or at least pointing me in the right direction. Even so, I am grateful for whatever time you gave me. This is what I found ... "Want to know something that’s kind of messed up? If that was the only thing that was different from Newtonian gravity, Einstein’s theory would be wrong. The predictions that we’d get for planetary orbits, based on w
  3. In a nutshell, the researchers used the detection of gravity waves to triangulate to where the waves came from. Within seconds came light from the same source. For certain the light was pointing back to the location of the emission point. If the detectors were able to triangulate back to the same position in space, then the gravity waves did not tug the detectors toward the location of the emitting object, but toward the location where the emitter was at the time of emission. Neither the light nor the gravity waves provide any information about where the emitting object has moved to at t
  4. So the ripples are just an echo of the action from the source but no real force? Even waves on water exert a force on anything in the water. A distant disturbance creates the wave and the water propagates the energy. When the wave arrives at the object it pushes it up and down and maybe away from the original disturbance. It's the water that moves the object within it. I asked if gravity waves are the source of the exertion force, pulling the object in its path back toward the location of emission. If so, for every force there is an equal and opposite reaction. If the object has moved aw
  5. I have a question about the discovery of gravity waves. You sound like a good source of info. When light propagates away from its emitting object, the object moves on from the emission point, but the gravity waves point forever back to that spot, frozen in time, unless bounced or lensed. I would assume that the discovery of gravity waves causes one to wonder how gravity works. Once a gravity wave is emitted from the mass, the mass moves on. If a gravity wave is propagating through the universe at light speed it is pointing back to the point of emission as it goes. It will pull whatever
  6. The universe does not have to be physically expanding to explain galaxies receding from us. In fact, if all mass were moving away from a center in a very simple pattern of inertia, it could easily offer that observation -- as well as acceleration, dark flow, undiscernible expansion at local ("close") range, etc. Would welcome any feedback... http://hubbleconstantatthespeedoflight.com/
  7. If the universe is rotating, why must there be a drag on mass within it? The universe might be rotating, but if there is a drag then that implies a friction between mass and space. If there is such a friction then how does mass move through space under inertia without eventually coming to a stop? If there is a friction when space moves around a mass then there is a friction when mass moves through space. But, observation suggests that mass moves frictionless through space.
  8. I built a simulator to explore expansion of space through a specific pattern of motion, away from a clear center. It began to yield observations that are being reported by astronomers. I built a website to record my development of the simulator and what it generated. http://hubbleexpansion.com/ I also posted an "Alternative Theories" entry suggesting that this pattern of expansion motion could be an explanation of why Dr. Hubble saw everything receding from us, how everything could just be drifting away from a center and produce just such a relative motion experience. In other words, spa
  9. I read about another observation in our Universe report by NASA scientists. The minute I read it I perceived an observation coming out of my simulator that sounds a lot like it. This motion is generated in my simulator when the observer is moving out of sync with the pattern. It is a perceived expansion within the greater expansion, a very localized observation, just like the one being reported by NASA. They named it "Dark Flow". https://www.nasa.gov/centers/goddard/news/releases/2010/10-023.html Here is a plot that I posted on my website that illustrates it:
  10. In this article, I read that astronomers used Gravitational Lensing to measure the Hubble Value: https://phys.org/news/2019-01-astronomers-images-quasars-hubble-constant.html I then added code to my simulator of Steady Rate expansion to track observed light that is deflected by an object to an observer. It turns out that multiple images from an object emitted at the same moment in time all yield the same Hubble Constant value to any observer. In other words, yet another hit for this model. This model would predict what these scientist saw and offer an alternative interpretation of the d
  11. And I am offering that it a red shift due to relative motion between objects diverging away from a center in a specific pattern. It seems to offer every observation people have told me it has to offer, so far. Interesting comment about gravity. I just days ago posted, on a physics "help with questions" page, questions about acceleration within expansion because I wanted to know the specific observations that led Cosmology to postulate it. Someone mentioned that the Hubble Value should not be called a constant. I then wondered out loud if G might not be a constant. "For that matter, th
  12. Your question motived me to revisit my discovery of an observed acceleration within the relative motion between objects involved in a steady rate expansion. It also motived me to add simulations of this pattern of motion as if the actual expansion of the sphere is an acceleration. I just added some updates to my website: I discovered that the acceleration observed within the “relative motion” (within a steady rate expansion) between two receding objects diminishes with increased distance. My model also suggests that the acceleration observed within relative motion (whether steady rate expans
  13. Your question about acceleration has opened a new door for my simulations. I have struggled with science declaring that expansion is accelerating. I had not given much thought to my model explaining acceleration, but I had seen an acceleration under the right circumstance. In my model, that acceleration is presented to the observer within the relative motion, but there is no acceleration of the expansion motion. Until now, I never made that connection to what is being observed. But now, I wonder. My website had already offered an explanation of acceleration, but I had missed the connection to
  14. I have been thinking about your question of acceleration within this model. I just came up with how to word it to you: If you scan my website for "Gravity and a new illusion, Acceleration" you can read how I came to what I am about to say... In this model, all objects are expanding away from a center at steady rates. That rate depends on distance from center, and the pattern of motion presents all observers within the view of that expansion as if they were standing at center. Therefore, the illusion of being at center, yet he is not, (unless he is by chance standing at center). This w
  15. Flummoxed: Concerning the balloon analogy: what I am offering is that many current ideas and theories don't have hard proof. Among my experiences in the years of completing a degree in physics, 35 years ago, there was a single day that has molded a part of my understanding of scientific work. That day, our instructor drew a straight line on the board and randomly placed dots above and below it. He then proceeded to show us a technique to create a function that would yield the positions of those dots. You could do it with any combination of dots, but the more dots the more complicated the
×
×
  • Create New...