Do you believe in Multiverse theory?

Post Reply New Topic

The first experiments are simply experiments on photons, that travel at the speed of light, and thus are part of things that are confined to the laws of electromagnetic fields. That doesn't prove that particles that are not confined to these laws cannot travel at any speed.

Additionally, it is actually impossible to directly measure the the velocity of photons, so we actually don't know their exact velocities, only the effect they have when we observe them (their wavelength). If the frequency gets lower and the velocity gets higher, the wavelength could go unchanged. Alternatively, the energy is conserved (a law of nature), and thus when they get transfered to something we can observe, their wavelenghts must correspond to their total energy, and thus we see this wavelenght irrespectively of their velocity.

The last experiment is a little trickier to explain, but it could very well be that the frequency of the atomic oscillator changes because of the movements, and that these oscillations are also confined to the laws of electromagnetic fields. I don't think it actually proves that time itself has changed.

The interesting thing is that if the energy of photons is always preserved, regardless of reference system, this leads to another interesting thing. The red-shift seen from distance stars would not be doppler-effect (because energy is preserved), but the energy must somehow be lower after their long travel in space. That would mean photons slowly lose energy when travelling vaste distances in space. This energy would be transfered to the sorrounding (energy is always preserved).

Most importantly, this takes care of the apparent expansion of our universe, and so also discards "Big Bang" since there is no real expansion.

I have enough problems with the Singleverse story.

In my view Physics was taken over by Creationists,

There are three things, Electromagnetic Waves, Matter, and Time/Gravity.

The first moves at a constant speed, the second just sits around, and the third does not move, but is everywhere within it's domain.

This was good enough, and a lot of good work was done.

Then someone came and said, My God created this in a burst of light.

Since then, not much has happened. Trying to prove Creation, has lead to some strange twisting of facts, ignoring others, all in support of a Single Creation.

The main conflicts, if there had been a Big Bang, there would be a center void, bangs are like that, and a beach ball skin of ejecta, going into nothing, as nothing except maybe Photons slow down in space, it would still be going into blackness at near the speed of light. I do not see a center, or an edge, nor do the best scopes. As far as we can see in all directions, there is stuff.

If Electromagnetic Waves formed Particles, we could build a Hydrogen Machine that would solve all our energy problems.

Time/Gravity are forces we are not allowed to play with. It is a field with a domain, and nothing changes that. It is true clocks run slower when moved farther out in the Gravity Well, as we and the Russians discovered when the first nine Mars Probes slammed into the planet. Deep Probes also reported that Earth Time was incorrect.

Newton did some good work from what he could see Gravity doing, Time seems to follow the same pattern. There are no Time or Gravity Waves, accept it, move on. Time/Gravity are a field domain of Matter.

There are no Universal Constants without Universal Conditions. Earth Time is not a Universal Standard. When it slows by half out on the edge, light does not go twice as fast.

Our whole view of the Universe, the distances, are being viewed through a distortion of Universal Creation.

It seems much more likely it was just always there. The Fifteen Billion years since the Big Bang makes the same sense as the Earth was Created 4016 years ago. Once it was a big number, but now we know that is not enough time to explain what we can see through telescopes, which are now seeing stuff at that distance that looks just like local stuff.

Soon we will be seeing stuff 20 Billion light years away. Science will claim that the Devil is holding up a big mirror, just to destroy Faith.

Geology was of two schools two hundred years ago, gradual change over long times, or sudden changes every now and then, with gradual change between. As it was right after the French Revolution, the issue was decided by the Queen, who said, "There will only be slow and gradual change, leading to a higher form of life." Geology dropped the nine major dieoffs, the evidence of sudden change, and that is the world Darwin grew up in.

His Evolution was Politically Correct, it is full of holes. The fossil record does not support it.

Once Science was done at home as a hobby, the good old days. Then it was directed by the Queen, confined to Universities, who were all founded by Religious Orders.

My computer was Patented by Tesla in 1903, who also spoke of screens, where everyone on the planet could speak to all others. Philo Farnsworth stole the idea to make a system of control of content. Marconi used 11 of Tesla's patents to patent radio, a controllable version of Tesla's WiFi plan. Tesla did win the lawsuit.

Government and Religion keep Science under control, mostly by outright lies, backed by Science.

If Science had retained 10% of the income produced, they would all be Bill Gates.

Expansion is as real as rain. Saul Perlmutter and his team not only verified expansion, but has shown the rate of expansion is increasing. No one really knows why for sure.

ruveyn

How? By looking at red-shifts? Not valid.

I agree. We don't need creationists creating "unified" theories of everything as the only goal is to show that some human-like creature created the world, which was disproved before creationists entered the scene.



Yes, Big Bang is so full of holes that it is incredible that anybody could believe in such a story. The biggest hole is that Big Bang was a block hole, and that the forces of gravity would make sure that not even photons could escape, and much less could this black hole "explode" and create the universe. Every rationally thinking being should see the holes, unless they want to see a might creation of a God, in which case they can just ignore the problems and speek of it is a fact.



Yes, but is it time itself that differs, or is it our ways of measuring time that differs?



Yes, that is also my opinion. From our perspective, time would be infinite and so would space. If there is some kind of beginning or end somewhere, we will never be able to find it.

Show that this is the case.

Red shifts are damn near conclusive.

ruveyn

Red shifts are conclusive? The only thing a red shift shows is that the energy spectrum of a distant start is lower than a nearby star. AFAIK, this is not conclusive in favor of expansion.

Have somebody measured a thinning of our neighboorhood during a few decades detailed observations of "expansion"? There should be such a trend if "expansion" is real.

How about observing the spectrum of the sun from different distances? Can it be shown that the spectrum is invariant whithin our own solar-system?

And most importantly, if one side of the univserse is travelling away with half the speed of light, and the opposite side is travelling away in the other direction with half the speed of light, that means these are moving with the speed of light from each others. What if we envision that there exists a point that moves away from use with 3/4 of the speed of light, and another point (at the opposite side) that also moves with 3/4 of the speed of light, that means they are moving away with 1.5 times the speed of light. That should mean that these points cannot see each others, as they are moving away with above the speed of light! And if the light that reached us from one of these points is from say less than than half of the time since big bang, it would mean that it would take longer for light to travel between the periphal points than time since big bang. Thus these peripheral points would see no light in part of their visible horizonts because the light coming from there would be older than Big Bang. Thus, it would only be Earth that could see stars everywhere, presumably because the creator of the universe was semi-human, and earth is the center of the univserse.

Red shifts are everywhere.

That everything is moving seems a demanding view.

If it was, and in the same outward direction, we would see red shifts from stars in our place in line, to the left and right as it were, but that does not explain the ones before and after us. Even if everything was inflating, those farther away, to the left and right would show more red shift, those before and after, a lot less.

Then equality be damned, not all would be moving at the same speed, there should be some whites in there, and some converging on our location showing blue shifts.

What we see are Galaxies passing through another. so they are not all on the same course, not all progressing from some center outward at the same speed, which an expanding Universe mandates.

All red shifts proves is the farther the light source, the greater the red shift, which works if they are standing still. The lacks of whites and blues mixed in kills, The entire mass of the Universe is expanding.

Red shift proves that light slows down over distance. Light from sources moving the same path, red shift, sources converging, red shift.

We know some of it is moving toward us, but still exhibits red shift.

Red shift becomes more pronounced with distance, so it fits the behavior of photons slowing with a lot less energy than expanding the entire Universe.

The Big Bang and expanding for 15 billion years cannot explain Black Holes. That mass could not exist from a single Creation. The Let there be light Model does not include, and large lumps.

Just the time involved, Black Holes could not have grown to current mass in the alloted time.

If our star ate another every week or so, it would take longer than, since the big bang to become a black hole. The one at the center of the Milkyway Galaxy has everything in orbit about it. It's gravity is equal to or greater than the entire Galaxy.

Light did not form particles that became Hydrogen and pulled together due to gravity, for they would be everywhere and all having an equal pull. Galaxies would not have formed without a gravational center.

All Stars have short lives. Some longer than others but they all burnout or blowup. They are not on the path of becoming black holes.

All Matter seems to have come from stars that blew up, and there is more Matter than can be accounted for in only fifteen billion years.

We do not have the remains of a supernova near, so our Matter had to come from somewhere else, and anywhere else is a long way.

The computer on which I write is not local Matter, it was not spit out by our star, but another, far away, long ago, crossed vast space, and settled in this gravity well.

After it got here, it took a long while to form this planet, where the oldest surface rocks are five billion years old. Just giving an equal time for dust to form a planet, and for dust to be blasted from some star and cross space, that star had to blowup over 15 billion years ago, which happened late in it's five billion year life. So just building my computer took over twenty billion years.

The star that donated the Matter, or more likely collection of stars, came from a normal Universe, behaved as it does today. Stars being born, living, blowing up, burning out, and Black Holes were already there, forming the gravity well that caught it all.

Just from their mass, Black Holes took maybe tens, hundreds, of trillions of years to form, and that in a normal universe.

There is no beginning, no end, just enjoy the dance.

PS: They do not like being called Black Holes. "The Old Ones," would show some respect. Even they were not the first.

Amusing, Inventor. Not one of your paragraphs was in any way accurate. Most were just wrong.

Doppler red shifts are for real. Tested in a laboratory. Gravitational red shift is real. Tested whenever you use your GPS.

ruveyn

That was not the issue. Even if the doppler effect can create red shifts, it doesn't mean that light from distant galaxies are red shifted because of doppler effect. You need to prove this!

What else would case a general red shift in ALL directions. And you are right. It can't be -proven-. But there is not better hypothesis to explain it either. We know the steady state hypothesis if false because it cannot account for the nearly homogenous cosmic background radiation. According to the Steady State there should be no such back ground radiation but there it is anyway.

Nothing in science is proven except when a hypothesis is false. Any evidence supporting a hypothesis does not change the fact that a hypothesis is at best provisional and probable. Only falsity is certain.

ruveyn

Because light loses energy when it travels vaste distances in space. That explains why it exists in all directions, AND why we can see stars with large red shifts in all directions. Expansion cannot explain the latter unless earth is the center of the universe.

When we say that the universe is expanding, we mean that space itself is stretching in all directions, the universe does not even have a centre. Galaxies in the universe move apart from every other galaxy in the same manner that dots on a ballon move apart apart from every other dot as the balloon expands when you blow it up. Therefore, the expansion means that we will see such redshifts in all directions regardless of where we are in the universe - the expansion explains it adequately.

I don't think the "baloon" analogy explains anything. An explosion can adequately be described as a spherical expansion zone, were most of the debrise is at the sphere, and nothing outside of the sphere, and lesser inside. That is a typical distribution after an explosion. We see nothing of this sort in the observable universe, rather we see the same density and evolutionary stages everywhere. That speaks strongly against Big Bang / explosion / expansion.

And an expanding space is just strange. What is an expanding space, and why is it needed, and what is the physical background? Seems a lot more like religion than science.