Re: A finitely sized Universe with an infinite force? Hmmm

On Jun 23, 4:41 pm, Igor <thoov...@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On Jun 22, 3:24 pm, Michael Helland <mobyd...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

On Jun 21, 6:52 pm, Igor <thoov...@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

On Jun 21, 2:28 pm, Michael Helland <mobyd...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

On Jun 19, 5:14 pm, Igor <thoov...@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

On Jun 19, 5:37 pm, Michael Helland <mobyd...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

On Jun 18, 10:58 pm, Sam Wormley <sworml...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

Michael Helland wrote:
Why would a finitely sized Universe have an infinite force?

I'll assume you mean the gravitation and electromagnetic
forces have no distance limit. Many "why" question are for
philosophers. Science is pretty good at answering "how"
questions.

Science is good at answering "What would happen if" types of
scenarios. Hypotheticals.

Use your imagination and tell me, what would happen if the EM force
had a finite range?

It actually died out there in the cosmos.

What would the Universe look like?

We'd see a finite number of stars in a space of a finite size.

Forget about modeling a finite range EM force and trying to make it
jibe with observation of the universe. It contradicts the results of
practically any tabletop experiment you could perform already. No
fantasies are required.

If the range begins to die out after a few hundred million light
years, it would require a pretty big table top to falsify the new
model.

But Maxwell's equations pass every test you can put to them on a
fairly small table top.

And Newton's equations pass every test within its domain of
applicability.

Non Sequitor.


I'm saying that Hubble's redshift, despite our best efforts to avoid
admitting it, are observations that show the limits of the EM force,
arguing that Maxwell and Einstein are good theories but not Universal.


My claim is that Hubble redshift is not just a loss in frequency and
energy, it's a loss in velocity.

That's hardly original. Look up the notion of "tired light" and find
out where it all goes wrong.


False. Tired Light models argue light loses energy through some form
of interaction in the cosmos.

They never argue that light slows down.

My suggestion is novel and leads to different consequences more
similar to expansion, such as a fall off in surface brightness.



Hubble redshift doesn't appear locally.

Local tests aren't enough to falsify cosmological models.
In my model photon's don't have mass.

Then they must move at c.

In Einstein's physics.

But I'm arguing that, like Newton's laws of motions, space-time as it
stands is not Universally applicable.

Hubble redshift being the observational evidence.


That doesn't mean they have a mass of 0.

Now you just contradicted yourself.

It means mass doesn't apply to them.

What the hell does that mean?

Think of brane mechanics, and imagine the photon, like the graviton,
existing in a different brane than ours.

If "mass" is a measurement in our brane, and the photon's existence is
rooted in the boson brane, then mass doesn't apply to the photon.

This is a new framework for physical phenomena, better suited to hold
both QM and relativity.

As you can see below, there is a mathematical description for the
motion of a photon that uses energy and motion in a very
unconventional way, showing that inertia and conservation of energy of
appear initially, but aren't true throughout the entire evolution of
the algorithm.


Here's my rough model:

define class absolutePhoton as Custom

x = 0
c = 10
totalEnergy = 10^5

function move

this.x = this.x + this.c

* As the photon moves it loses energy
this.totalEnergy = this.totalEnergy - this.c

if mod(this.totalEnergy, 10^4) = 0 and this.c > 0
this.c = this.c - 1
endif

return

enddefine

That's hardly a model. It's a program. And trust me, as a subroutine
in real nature, your program would crash every time.


It doesn't crash when I run it.



As you can see, I've completely re-written the concepts of energy,
inertia, space, time, and abandoned Newton's laws of physics.

What I cannot see is what exists in apace that could slow down a
photon.


I appeal to the Anthropic principle.

The Universe simply doesn't give us the tools to see all of infinity.

It's more concerned about having the tools to support the problems
that life encounters.



Besides, photons are defined as moving at c. A massless
particle has no choice.

According to Einstein's physics.

I'm not saying he's wrong. I'm just saying that he's not Universal,
and Hubble redshift is an indication of a different physics.


The above code not only describes the photon in a completely non-
Newtonian framework (something no one else has done) but it predicts
Hubble redshift (loss in the energy being delivered).

Apparently, what you fail to understand is that photons are already
non-Newtonian. They're artifacts of quantum mechanics.


Don't they obey the law of inertia?

That sounds Newtonian to me.

--
http://www.cloudmusiccompany.com/paper.htm
.

Quantcast