Re: lay opinion

On Fri, 20 May 2005 11:56:19 +0200, amazing@xxxxxxxxxxx wrote:

>To contact, omit gravity from amazing@xxxxxxxxxxx and put 'lay
>opinion' in the subject line.
>
>
>Hello?
>
>As a child, long ago, I heard that the universe was expanding.
>When they then said that the 'red-shift' increased with distance, I
>naturally assumed that this indicated acceleration with distance, then
>that, together with gravity, long-distance galactic repulsive force
>and the newly-revealed atomic binding energy. these were therefore
>simply harmonics of a single force. As a lay-child, I could be wrong,
>of course. As a lay-youth I preached this idea, but who listens to
>lay-youths, then or now? - No, neither do I.
>
>It came as some slight surprise therefore, three or so years ago, to
>hear the idea of galactic repulsion being hailed as a new 'scientific'
>proposition.
>
>Having a little time now to attend to matters other than the urgency
>to earn a meagre crust in the vale of tears that a few ever more
>furiously make of this bounteous planet, it might be instructive to
>set out a few suppositions on the subject of universe deriving from
>the evidence available between those somewhat more halcyon days and
>now.
>
>
>If a thing or a process exists, it may be considered as being
>complete. Viewed from outside, the Universe is a thing, an entity
>which is already complete. It is.
>
>It also seems obvious that it can consist of a single ingredient,
>which we may consider to be space, or dimension. Concentrations or
>distortions in space can give the effect of energy, and these
>concentrations can interact with others to give the effect of
>particles, which combine to form the effect of atoms, molecules etc.
>('Time' does not exist as a separate ingredient in the completed
>Universe except that observation gives us, as an integral part of the
>process of completion, the impression of 'time' and 'action' in a
>universe in the act of becoming complete. There is a case for
>considering the condition of an internally static universe, but let's
>not complicate things here).
>
>The matter produced exerts force, and harmonics of these forces duly
>take effect as binding energy, repulsive force, gravity, intergalactic
>repulsion and electro-magnetism. So we have a complete
>single-ingredient entity, within which every interacting particle has
>no other option than always to be exactly as, relatively 'when' and
>where it has to be. - Perfect universe, complete with its
>less-than-ideal disasters and problems.
>
>
>Within this universe, look in any direction and galaxies are perceived
>to be retreating from us at, say, 75% of the speed of light. Look in
>the opposite direction and you will see the same thing. Because we
>can see them simultaneously, they - call them A and B - evidently
>existed there at the same time, all those years ago. The fact that we
>are in the middle between them is incidental. A was then retreating
>from B at 1.5 times the speed of light.
>
>Light was emitted from A, and there the light was conducted by space
>'at the speed of light'. At any point between A and us, or between A
>and B, the light would be travelling 'at the speed of light'. That is
>because the space conducting it is itself expanding at the same speed
>as the retreating galaxies. They at A and B, as we here, would say
>that they are static in space and that it is the others who are
>retreating.
>
>Because the space is continuously extending in this way, without
>interruption, the light from A will still be received by B, but the
>light frequency will now be in the form of an inverted wave. At the
>point where retreat is at the speed of light the wave may or may not
>be extended to 'zero', but the amplitude is not lost, and with further
>distance it will reverse, to become simply an inverse wave.
>
>Such an inverse wave from galaxies retreating at velocities far beyond
>the speed of light may be distinguished by extending the distance of
>reception far beyond the normally acceptable position of 'red-shift' -
>i.e. by looking for light from bodies retreating from us at velocities
>greatly in excess of the speed of light. The signal will be extremely
>weak, but by compensating for all signals except that which is sought,
>it may still be possible to detect the light from galaxies retreating
>from us at, say, ten times the speed of light.
>
>After due cogitation, better brains and wiser minds than mine agree
>that the proposition seems feasible and logical.
>
>Well, I am not asking anyone to apply philosphy to it. I say try it.
>The results may give us fresh insight into the structure and nature of
>the universe and add to our understanding of it.
>
>But should response of any kind to this be considered, have patience,
>as the mills of aged brains grind exceeding slow.

P.S. In this context, supposing that the red-shifted light reaches
'zero' in bodies retreating at the speed of light, and then becomes an
'inverse wave', it should then become 'normal' again from galaxies
retreating at twice the speed of light, and then be increasingly
'blue-shifted'. - Shouldn't it?

So you know what to look for, don't you. - Don't you?

By the way, I am considering asking to start alt.cosmology? Tell me
yes or no whether there is any interest in cosmology here, or does the
response of total silence so far to my initial posting indicate the
degree of interest?

.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: lay opinion
    ... >As a child, long ago, I heard that the universe was expanding. ... >to be retreating from us at, say, 75% of the speed of light. ... >as the retreating galaxies. ... to become simply an inverse wave. ...
    (sci.physics)
  • lay opinion
    ... omit gravity from amazing@xxxxxxxxxxx and put 'lay ... As a child, long ago, I heard that the universe was expanding. ... to be retreating from us at, say, 75% of the speed of light. ... Such an inverse wave from galaxies retreating at velocities far beyond ...
    (sci.physics)