Ken Kubos

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/6156110.stm

Mysterious force's long presence
Dark energy - the mysterious force that is speeding up the expansion of the
Universe - has been a part of space for at least nine billion years.
That is the conclusion of astronomers who presented results from a
three-year study using the Hubble Space Telescope.

The finding may rule out some competing theories that predict the strength
of dark energy changes over time.

Dark energy makes up about 70% of the Universe; the rest is dark matter
(25%) and normal matter (5%).

Understanding the nature of dark energy is arguably the biggest problem
physics is facing today
Mario Livio, Space Telescope Science Institute

"It appears this dark energy was already boosting the expansion of the
Universe as much as nine billion years ago," said co-investigator Adam Riess
from the Space Telescope Science Institute in Baltimore, US.
"That's out of a Universe which we think is about 13.7 billion years old -
most of the way back."

The findings are consistent with the idea of dark energy behaving like
Albert Einstein's cosmological constant. The cosmological constant describes
the idea that there is a density and pressure associated with "empty" space.

In this scenario, dark energy never changes; it has the same properties
across the age of the Universe.

Repulsive force

Einstein first conceived of the notion of a repulsive force in space in his
attempt to balance the Universe against the inward pull of its own gravity,
which he thought would ultimately cause the Universe to implode.

His cosmological constant remained a curious hypothesis until 1998, when
astronomers used observations of supernovae from ground-based telescopes and
Hubble to show that the expansion of space was accelerating.

These findings suggested there really was a repulsive form of gravity in
space, a force that was shortly dubbed "dark energy".

There have been many attempts to explain the nature of dark energy.

One of these is that it behaves like the cosmological constant. Another is
that dark energy behaves like a field that changes over time. The third
proposes changes to our theories of gravity to explain the mysterious force.

The latest data from Hubble contradict theories that dark energy might have
behaved differently billions of years ago to how it behaves now, or might
not even have been present. Some astronomers had thought that dark energy
might mimic whatever was the dominant force in the Universe at the time,
such as matter for example.

Previous Hubble observations of the most distant supernovae known revealed
that the early Universe was dominated by matter whose gravity was slowing
down the Universe's expansion rate.

The observations also confirmed that the expansion rate of the cosmos began
speeding up about five to six billion years ago. That is when astronomers
believe that dark energy's repulsive force took over from that of gravity.

'Tug of war'

"Imagine that you were having a tug of war and the other end of the rope
disappears behind a curtain. Somebody else is tugging on the other end;
we'll call that dark energy," said Dr Riess.

"In 1998, we saw that the thing behind the curtain was winning, it was
pulling harder and the Universe was accelerating.

"In 2004, we showed that was not always the case. There was a time when
you - ordinary matter - were winning. The Universe was decelerating. Now, we
have shown that, even at that time, the thing on the other end of the rope
was beginning to pull."

The discovery comes from observations of 23 exploding stars, or supernovae.
Using Hubble to peer far across the Universe, the astronomers were able see
back to a time when the cosmos was less than half its present size.

"These supernovae provide cosmic mile-markers that allow us to measure the
growth rate of the Universe about nine billion years ago," said Adam Riess.

Mario Livio, of the Space Telescope Science Institute, added: "Understanding
the nature of dark energy is arguably the biggest problem physics is facing
today."

In October, the US space agency (Nasa) said that shuttle astronauts would be
sent to service the Hubble Space Telescope, which will fail within two or
three years without running repairs.


--


Ken

"Buddhism elucidates why we are sentient."
"Karma means that you don't get away with anything."

Amanda Angelika

In news:12lsh9o46n89l36@corp.supernews.com,
Ken Kubos <kubos@execpc.com> typed:
> http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/6156110.stm
>
> Mysterious force's long presence
> Dark energy - the mysterious force that is speeding up the expansion
> of the Universe - has been a part of space for at least nine billion
> years.
> That is the conclusion of astronomers who presented results from a
> three-year study using the Hubble Space Telescope.
>
> The finding may rule out some competing theories that predict the
> strength of dark energy changes over time.
>
> Dark energy makes up about 70% of the Universe; the rest is dark
> matter (25%) and normal matter (5%).
>
> Understanding the nature of dark energy is arguably the biggest
> problem physics is facing today
> Mario Livio, Space Telescope Science Institute
>
> "It appears this dark energy was already boosting the expansion of the
> Universe as much as nine billion years ago," said co-investigator
> Adam Riess from the Space Telescope Science Institute in Baltimore,
> US. "That's out of a Universe which we think is about 13.7 billion
> years old - most of the way back."
>
> The findings are consistent with the idea of dark energy behaving like
> Albert Einstein's cosmological constant. The cosmological constant
> describes the idea that there is a density and pressure associated
> with "empty" space.
>
> In this scenario, dark energy never changes; it has the same
> properties across the age of the Universe.
>
> Repulsive force
>
> Einstein first conceived of the notion of a repulsive force in space
> in his attempt to balance the Universe against the inward pull of its
> own gravity, which he thought would ultimately cause the Universe to
> implode.
>
> His cosmological constant remained a curious hypothesis until 1998,
> when astronomers used observations of supernovae from ground-based
> telescopes and Hubble to show that the expansion of space was
> accelerating.
>
> These findings suggested there really was a repulsive form of gravity
> in space, a force that was shortly dubbed "dark energy".
>
> There have been many attempts to explain the nature of dark energy.
>
> One of these is that it behaves like the cosmological constant.
> Another is that dark energy behaves like a field that changes over
> time. The third proposes changes to our theories of gravity to
> explain the mysterious force.
>
> The latest data from Hubble contradict theories that dark energy
> might have behaved differently billions of years ago to how it
> behaves now, or might not even have been present. Some astronomers
> had thought that dark energy might mimic whatever was the dominant
> force in the Universe at the time, such as matter for example.
>
> Previous Hubble observations of the most distant supernovae known
> revealed that the early Universe was dominated by matter whose
> gravity was slowing down the Universe's expansion rate.
>
> The observations also confirmed that the expansion rate of the cosmos
> began speeding up about five to six billion years ago. That is when
> astronomers believe that dark energy's repulsive force took over from
> that of gravity.
>
> 'Tug of war'
>
> "Imagine that you were having a tug of war and the other end of the
> rope disappears behind a curtain. Somebody else is tugging on the
> other end; we'll call that dark energy," said Dr Riess.
>
> "In 1998, we saw that the thing behind the curtain was winning, it was
> pulling harder and the Universe was accelerating.
>
> "In 2004, we showed that was not always the case. There was a time
> when
> you - ordinary matter - were winning. The Universe was decelerating.
> Now, we have shown that, even at that time, the thing on the other
> end of the rope was beginning to pull."
>
> The discovery comes from observations of 23 exploding stars, or
> supernovae. Using Hubble to peer far across the Universe, the
> astronomers were able see back to a time when the cosmos was less
> than half its present size.
>
> "These supernovae provide cosmic mile-markers that allow us to
> measure the growth rate of the Universe about nine billion years
> ago," said Adam Riess.
>
> Mario Livio, of the Space Telescope Science Institute, added:
> "Understanding the nature of dark energy is arguably the biggest
> problem physics is facing today."
>
> In October, the US space agency (Nasa) said that shuttle astronauts
> would be sent to service the Hubble Space Telescope, which will fail
> within two or three years without running repairs.

The scientific model; of the universe is such a bodge up IMO. I suppose one
day someone is going to notice that rotating bodies in space rotate at a
constant rate no matter how far away they are observed and how large the
circumference distance (the data can travel faster than light to all points
at equal distance even if those point are separated by light years a day
remains a day.

Which means time is a constant throughout the Universe and has nothing to do
with transmission delay (speed of light). Which means the whole theory of an
expanding universe may be complete nonsense, what they are actually seeing
when they see a Doppler effect or a "red shift" is actually a result of
there being no solid relationship between the speed that events occur (which
should be obvious) and the speed of light (transmission delay) If there is
therefore data loss within transmission delay (which is possible with no
solid link) Then it is possible that we would actually be observing data
loss (or signal attenuation) and not actually bodies moving away from each
other at all.

Looking at it that way the whole theory of an expanding Universe falls
apart. It's like feeling giddy doesn't really mean the room is going round
or one is falling it just means one is very drunk LOL
--
Amanda

dave

"Amanda Angelika" <manic_mandy@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:Z_08h.10485$Fv1.3139@newsfe2-win.ntli.net...
>
> The scientific model; of the universe is such a bodge up IMO. I suppose
> one
> day someone is going to notice that rotating bodies in space rotate at a
> constant rate no matter how far away they are observed and how large the
> circumference distance (the data can travel faster than light to all
> points
> at equal distance even if those point are separated by light years a day
> remains a day.

Why is that? The data is light. Light does travel at the speed of light.

>
> Which means time is a constant throughout the Universe and has nothing to
> do
> with transmission delay (speed of light).

Not sure I believe that. Time may be affected by gravity.

> Which means the whole theory of an
> expanding universe may be complete nonsense, what they are actually seeing
> when they see a Doppler effect or a "red shift" is actually a result of
> there being no solid relationship between the speed that events occur
> (which
> should be obvious) and the speed of light (transmission delay)

I really don't see the connection there.

> If there is
> therefore data loss within transmission delay (which is possible with no
> solid link) Then it is possible that we would actually be observing data
> loss (or signal attenuation) and not actually bodies moving away from each
> other at all.

Red shift is not data loss or attenuation.


DaveL

Amanda Angelika

In news:38OdnavawsGrpv7YnZ2dnUVZ_rednZ2d@comcast.com,
dave <nospam> typed:
> "Amanda Angelika" <manic_mandy@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:Z_08h.10485$Fv1.3139@newsfe2-win.ntli.net...
>>
>> The scientific model; of the universe is such a bodge up IMO. I
>> suppose one
>> day someone is going to notice that rotating bodies in space rotate
>> at a constant rate no matter how far away they are observed and how
>> large the circumference distance (the data can travel faster than
>> light to all points
>> at equal distance even if those point are separated by light years a
>> day remains a day.
>
> Why is that? The data is light. Light does travel at the speed of
> light.

I don't see any reason why it should, the ripples in a pond travel faster
than the vehicle they are made in and so do vibrations in air that make
sound. There doesn't have to be a link. In fact you can send pre-recorded
data via a light beam in a speeded up or compressed form.

A flashing light will always flash at the same speed no matter how far away
it's viewed. Since there is a limitation in the speed which light will
travel it occurs to me that there could be a point where information is
moving faster then the medium, which would mean data would leak out of the
end of the beam of light before it reaches the Earth. This would not only
distort stellar distances it could create the illusion of an expanding
Universe when in fact the Universe may be fixed or even contracting.

It's only a theory I have, but it seems to me if information were tied to
the speed of light it would be impossible to observe a spiral galaxy at
anything other than perpendicular to the rotational axis without extreme
distortion in it's observable physical structure occuring, because most
spiral galaxies are of the order of 100,000 light years across and at any
more oblique angle the stars on the nearest and furthest edge would be
moving around in respect to each other faster than the actual speed of light
would allow, so we should end up seeing streaks rather than succinct points
of light. AFAIK we don't see such distortion even in galaxies that are at an
oblique angle.

That would appear to mean this whole idea that we can age stars by their
distance is fundamentally flawed and is shown to be fallacious by observable
physical phenomena. If I'm right the whole basis of modern astronomy and
many theories of physics are just plain wrong.

--
Amanda

dave

"Amanda Angelika" <manic_mandy@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:21a9h.7920$d4.956@newsfe4-win.ntli.net...
> In news:38OdnavawsGrpv7YnZ2dnUVZ_rednZ2d@comcast.com,
> dave <nospam> typed:
>>
>> Why is that? The data is light. Light does travel at the speed of
>> light.
>
> I don't see any reason why it should, the ripples in a pond travel faster
> than the vehicle they are made in and so do vibrations in air that make
> sound.

No, not true. Have you never seen a boat wake? This is because the boat is
traveling faster than the ripples or waves it makes. Or how about a
supersonic aircraft where it can arrive at a place before it's own sound
does. Each medium has it's own propagation speed. Light is no different.

> There doesn't have to be a link. In fact you can send pre-recorded
> data via a light beam in a speeded up or compressed form.
>
> A flashing light will always flash at the same speed no matter how far
> away
> it's viewed.

This is correct if the flashing light is stationary. But if it is moving
away or toward the observer then it's observed frequency will be red/blue
shifted.

> Since there is a limitation in the speed which light will
> travel it occurs to me that there could be a point where information is
> moving faster then the medium, which would mean data would leak out of the
> end of the beam of light before it reaches the Earth. This would not only
> distort stellar distances it could create the illusion of an expanding
> Universe when in fact the Universe may be fixed or even contracting.

I'm not following that at all. Leak out?

>
> It's only a theory I have, but it seems to me if information were tied to
> the speed of light it would be impossible to observe a spiral galaxy at
> anything other than perpendicular to the rotational axis without extreme
> distortion in it's observable physical structure occuring, because most
> spiral galaxies are of the order of 100,000 light years across and at any
> more oblique angle the stars on the nearest and furthest edge would be
> moving around in respect to each other faster than the actual speed of
> light
> would allow, so we should end up seeing streaks rather than succinct
> points
> of light. AFAIK we don't see such distortion even in galaxies that are at
> an
> oblique angle.

Galaxies do not spin faster than the speed of light. Not even close. Even
if they did, we would not observe streaks but nothing at all.

>
> That would appear to mean this whole idea that we can age stars by their
> distance is fundamentally flawed and is shown to be fallacious by
> observable
> physical phenomena. If I'm right the whole basis of modern astronomy and
> many theories of physics are just plain wrong.
>
> --
> Amanda
>
>

Amanda Angelika

In news:baSdnYDPXb0odvjYnZ2dnUVZ_vWdnZ2d@comcast.com,
dave <nospam> typed:
> "Amanda Angelika" <manic_mandy@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:21a9h.7920$d4.956@newsfe4-win.ntli.net...
>> In news:38OdnavawsGrpv7YnZ2dnUVZ_rednZ2d@comcast.com,
>> dave <nospam> typed:
>>>
>>> Why is that? The data is light. Light does travel at the speed of
>>> light.
>>
>> I don't see any reason why it should, the ripples in a pond travel
>> faster than the vehicle they are made in and so do vibrations in air
>> that make sound.
>
> No, not true. Have you never seen a boat wake? This is because the
> boat is traveling faster than the ripples or waves it makes. Or how
> about a supersonic aircraft where it can arrive at a place before
> it's own sound does. Each medium has it's own propagation speed.
> Light is no different.

Yes but the point is air and water don't have to be moving at all to
transmit vibrations. Of course the speed of sound in air is not really the
upper limit that sound can travel. Well passengers in the old Concord could
enjoy conversations over tea and biscuits in spite of travelling at Mach 3,
because the air in the cabin was stationary. So sound can travel relative to
other bodies in space way beyond the speed of sound in air


>> There doesn't have to be a link. In fact you can send pre-recorded
>> data via a light beam in a speeded up or compressed form.
>>
>> A flashing light will always flash at the same speed no matter how
>> far away
>> it's viewed.
>
> This is correct if the flashing light is stationary. But if it is
> moving away or toward the observer then it's observed frequency will
> be red/blue shifted.

Most things in space flash because they are moving i.e rotating, in order to
view that rotational period there comes a point where the information which
tells us that something is rotating at say once every 24 hrs is being
propogated on a circumference distance greater than light can travel in the
same period (in this example 24 hours). In fact we can see astral bodies
rotating at short periods at a radius/distance of light years simply
multiplying 2pi r where the radius is the distance it can be mathmatically
proven time is a constant and there is actually no limit to the speed that
information can travel between all points on a circle at any radius
distance.

That means the propogation of events is not limited to the speed of light
and in fact there is no limit.



>> Since there is a limitation in the speed which light will
>> travel it occurs to me that there could be a point where information
>> is moving faster then the medium, which would mean data would leak
>> out of the end of the beam of light before it reaches the Earth.
>> This would not only distort stellar distances it could create the
>> illusion of an expanding Universe when in fact the Universe may be
>> fixed or even contracting.
>
> I'm not following that at all. Leak out?

Well it's only a theory or idea I have. I can't back it up with any hard
science at present, but it strikes me if time is an absolute constant which
my above example demonstates and there is no limit to the propogation of
events then there is no absolute link between the speed of light and the
speed of information, there is no such thing as space time. It stands to
reason therfore that at certain distances in space a light beam traveling
toward the earth is going to lose information, because the information is
travelling faster than the light is able to transmit.

If that is actually what is causeing the dopler effects we see then it's not
indicative of an expanding universe but a product of real events in time
exceeding the speed of the medium of propogation.

Of course it also means the criteria used to age distant stars and galaxies
could be wildly inaccurate.


>> It's only a theory I have, but it seems to me if information were
>> tied to the speed of light it would be impossible to observe a
>> spiral galaxy at anything other than perpendicular to the rotational
>> axis without extreme distortion in it's observable physical
>> structure occuring, because most spiral galaxies are of the order of
>> 100,000 light years across and at any more oblique angle the stars
>> on the nearest and furthest edge would be moving around in respect
>> to each other faster than the actual speed of light
>> would allow, so we should end up seeing streaks rather than succinct
>> points
>> of light. AFAIK we don't see such distortion even in galaxies that
>> are at an
>> oblique angle.
>
> Galaxies do not spin faster than the speed of light. Not even close.
> Even if they did, we would not observe streaks but nothing at all.

They don't but where a galaxy is observed at an oblique angle according to
current theory the stars on the nearer edge are being seen at an earlier
date than those on the furthest edge, even if the galaxy were rotating at a
small fraction of the speed of light, one would expect the view to be
distorted because those stars are going to move a fairly considerable
physical distance in 100,000 years even if they were moving at a slow
walking pace and should move in relation to each edge causing a distortion
in what we observe.

Well actually it seems such distortion doesn't take place at all since
spiral galaxies are observed to look more or less the same at pretty much
any angle they are viewed. Which means some how or another all the
information is reaching us at the same time and isn't dictated by supposed
limitations of light speed. In fact the whole notion of a light year as a
unit of distance would appear to be fundamentally flawed.

I'm not a physicist, I did my degree in Fine Art, So I could be wrong well I
don't mind being wrong it has no effect on my professional reputation as an
artist LOL but IMO there does seem to be a heck of a lot wrong with many of
the theories used in physics as a model of the Universe and many of these
theories appear not to stand up to observable phenomena or even basic
mathematical principles.
--
Amanda

RK

"Amanda Angelika" <manic_mandy@hotmail.com> skrev i en meddelelse
news:SUD9h.8193$d4.7390@newsfe4-win.ntli.net...
> In news:baSdnYDPXb0odvjYnZ2dnUVZ_vWdnZ2d@comcast.com,
> dave <nospam> typed:
>> "Amanda Angelika" <manic_mandy@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>> news:21a9h.7920$d4.956@newsfe4-win.ntli.net...
>>> In news:38OdnavawsGrpv7YnZ2dnUVZ_rednZ2d@comcast.com,
>>> dave <nospam> typed:
>>>>
>>>> Why is that? The data is light. Light does travel at the speed of
>>>> light.
>>>
>>> I don't see any reason why it should, the ripples in a pond travel
>>> faster than the vehicle they are made in and so do vibrations in air
>>> that make sound.
>>
>> No, not true. Have you never seen a boat wake? This is because the
>> boat is traveling faster than the ripples or waves it makes. Or how
>> about a supersonic aircraft where it can arrive at a place before
>> it's own sound does. Each medium has it's own propagation speed.
>> Light is no different.
>
> Yes but the point is air and water don't have to be moving at all to
> transmit vibrations. Of course the speed of sound in air is not really the
> upper limit that sound can travel. Well passengers in the old Concord
> could
> enjoy conversations over tea and biscuits in spite of travelling at Mach
> 3,
> because the air in the cabin was stationary. So sound can travel relative
> to
> other bodies in space way beyond the speed of sound in air
>
>
>>> There doesn't have to be a link. In fact you can send pre-recorded
>>> data via a light beam in a speeded up or compressed form.
>>>
>>> A flashing light will always flash at the same speed no matter how
>>> far away
>>> it's viewed.
>>
>> This is correct if the flashing light is stationary. But if it is
>> moving away or toward the observer then it's observed frequency will
>> be red/blue shifted.
>
> Most things in space flash because they are moving i.e rotating, in order
> to
> view that rotational period there comes a point where the information
> which
> tells us that something is rotating at say once every 24 hrs is being
> propogated on a circumference distance greater than light can travel in
> the
> same period (in this example 24 hours). In fact we can see astral bodies
> rotating at short periods at a radius/distance of light years simply
> multiplying 2pi r where the radius is the distance it can be mathmatically
> proven time is a constant and there is actually no limit to the speed that
> information can travel between all points on a circle at any radius
> distance.
>
> That means the propogation of events is not limited to the speed of light
> and in fact there is no limit.
>
>
>
>>> Since there is a limitation in the speed which light will
>>> travel it occurs to me that there could be a point where information
>>> is moving faster then the medium, which would mean data would leak
>>> out of the end of the beam of light before it reaches the Earth.
>>> This would not only distort stellar distances it could create the
>>> illusion of an expanding Universe when in fact the Universe may be
>>> fixed or even contracting.
>>
>> I'm not following that at all. Leak out?
>
> Well it's only a theory or idea I have. I can't back it up with any hard
> science at present, but it strikes me if time is an absolute constant
> which
> my above example demonstates and there is no limit to the propogation of
> events then there is no absolute link between the speed of light and the
> speed of information, there is no such thing as space time. It stands to
> reason therfore that at certain distances in space a light beam traveling
> toward the earth is going to lose information, because the information is
> travelling faster than the light is able to transmit.
>
> If that is actually what is causeing the dopler effects we see then it's
> not
> indicative of an expanding universe but a product of real events in time
> exceeding the speed of the medium of propogation.
>
> Of course it also means the criteria used to age distant stars and
> galaxies
> could be wildly inaccurate.
>
>
>>> It's only a theory I have, but it seems to me if information were
>>> tied to the speed of light it would be impossible to observe a
>>> spiral galaxy at anything other than perpendicular to the rotational
>>> axis without extreme distortion in it's observable physical
>>> structure occuring, because most spiral galaxies are of the order of
>>> 100,000 light years across and at any more oblique angle the stars
>>> on the nearest and furthest edge would be moving around in respect
>>> to each other faster than the actual speed of light
>>> would allow, so we should end up seeing streaks rather than succinct
>>> points
>>> of light. AFAIK we don't see such distortion even in galaxies that
>>> are at an
>>> oblique angle.
>>
>> Galaxies do not spin faster than the speed of light. Not even close.
>> Even if they did, we would not observe streaks but nothing at all.
>
> They don't but where a galaxy is observed at an oblique angle according to
> current theory the stars on the nearer edge are being seen at an earlier
> date than those on the furthest edge, even if the galaxy were rotating at
> a
> small fraction of the speed of light, one would expect the view to be
> distorted because those stars are going to move a fairly considerable
> physical distance in 100,000 years even if they were moving at a slow
> walking pace and should move in relation to each edge causing a distortion
> in what we observe.
>
> Well actually it seems such distortion doesn't take place at all since
> spiral galaxies are observed to look more or less the same at pretty much
> any angle they are viewed. Which means some how or another all the
> information is reaching us at the same time and isn't dictated by supposed
> limitations of light speed. In fact the whole notion of a light year as a
> unit of distance would appear to be fundamentally flawed.
>
> I'm not a physicist, I did my degree in Fine Art, So I could be wrong well
> I
> don't mind being wrong it has no effect on my professional reputation as
> an
> artist LOL but IMO there does seem to be a heck of a lot wrong with many
> of
> the theories used in physics as a model of the Universe and many of these
> theories appear not to stand up to observable phenomena or even basic
> mathematical principles.
> --
> Amanda

Very interresting debate! keep it up:-)
By the way, in a TV program regarding Time travel some years ago, I saw a
German scientist claiming that information could travel faster than light.
He transmitted a Piano piece backing up his theory. Does anybody know who he
was or what happened later?

Amanda Angelika

In news:457ee886$0$199$edfadb0f@dread11.news.tele.dk,
RK <RK@dk> typed:
> "Amanda Angelika" <manic_mandy@hotmail.com> skrev i en meddelelse
> news:SUD9h.8193$d4.7390@newsfe4-win.ntli.net...
>> In news:baSdnYDPXb0odvjYnZ2dnUVZ_vWdnZ2d@comcast.com,
>> dave <nospam> typed:
>>> "Amanda Angelika" <manic_mandy@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>>> news:21a9h.7920$d4.956@newsfe4-win.ntli.net...
>>>> In news:38OdnavawsGrpv7YnZ2dnUVZ_rednZ2d@comcast.com,
>>>> dave <nospam> typed:
>>>>>
>>>>> Why is that? The data is light. Light does travel at the speed
>>>>> of light.
>>>>
>>>> I don't see any reason why it should, the ripples in a pond travel
>>>> faster than the vehicle they are made in and so do vibrations in
>>>> air that make sound.
>>>
>>> No, not true. Have you never seen a boat wake? This is because the
>>> boat is traveling faster than the ripples or waves it makes. Or how
>>> about a supersonic aircraft where it can arrive at a place before
>>> it's own sound does. Each medium has it's own propagation speed.
>>> Light is no different.
>>
>> Yes but the point is air and water don't have to be moving at all to
>> transmit vibrations. Of course the speed of sound in air is not
>> really the upper limit that sound can travel. Well passengers in the
>> old Concord could
>> enjoy conversations over tea and biscuits in spite of travelling at
>> Mach 3,
>> because the air in the cabin was stationary. So sound can travel
>> relative to
>> other bodies in space way beyond the speed of sound in air
>>
>>
>>>> There doesn't have to be a link. In fact you can send pre-recorded
>>>> data via a light beam in a speeded up or compressed form.
>>>>
>>>> A flashing light will always flash at the same speed no matter how
>>>> far away
>>>> it's viewed.
>>>
>>> This is correct if the flashing light is stationary. But if it is
>>> moving away or toward the observer then it's observed frequency will
>>> be red/blue shifted.
>>
>> Most things in space flash because they are moving i.e rotating, in
>> order to
>> view that rotational period there comes a point where the information
>> which
>> tells us that something is rotating at say once every 24 hrs is being
>> propogated on a circumference distance greater than light can travel
>> in the
>> same period (in this example 24 hours). In fact we can see astral
>> bodies rotating at short periods at a radius/distance of light years
>> simply multiplying 2pi r where the radius is the distance it can be
>> mathmatically proven time is a constant and there is actually no
>> limit to the speed that information can travel between all points on
>> a circle at any radius distance.
>>
>> That means the propogation of events is not limited to the speed of
>> light and in fact there is no limit.
>>
>>
>>
>>>> Since there is a limitation in the speed which light will
>>>> travel it occurs to me that there could be a point where
>>>> information is moving faster then the medium, which would mean
>>>> data would leak out of the end of the beam of light before it
>>>> reaches the Earth. This would not only distort stellar distances
>>>> it could create the illusion of an expanding Universe when in fact
>>>> the Universe may be fixed or even contracting.
>>>
>>> I'm not following that at all. Leak out?
>>
>> Well it's only a theory or idea I have. I can't back it up with any
>> hard science at present, but it strikes me if time is an absolute
>> constant which
>> my above example demonstates and there is no limit to the
>> propogation of events then there is no absolute link between the
>> speed of light and the speed of information, there is no such thing
>> as space time. It stands to reason therfore that at certain
>> distances in space a light beam traveling toward the earth is going
>> to lose information, because the information is travelling faster
>> than the light is able to transmit.
>>
>> If that is actually what is causeing the dopler effects we see then
>> it's not
>> indicative of an expanding universe but a product of real events in
>> time exceeding the speed of the medium of propogation.
>>
>> Of course it also means the criteria used to age distant stars and
>> galaxies
>> could be wildly inaccurate.
>>
>>
>>>> It's only a theory I have, but it seems to me if information were
>>>> tied to the speed of light it would be impossible to observe a
>>>> spiral galaxy at anything other than perpendicular to the
>>>> rotational axis without extreme distortion in it's observable
>>>> physical structure occuring, because most spiral galaxies are of
>>>> the order of 100,000 light years across and at any more oblique
>>>> angle the stars on the nearest and furthest edge would be moving
>>>> around in respect to each other faster than the actual speed of
>>>> light
>>>> would allow, so we should end up seeing streaks rather than
>>>> succinct points
>>>> of light. AFAIK we don't see such distortion even in galaxies that
>>>> are at an
>>>> oblique angle.
>>>
>>> Galaxies do not spin faster than the speed of light. Not even
>>> close. Even if they did, we would not observe streaks but nothing
>>> at all.
>>
>> They don't but where a galaxy is observed at an oblique angle
>> according to current theory the stars on the nearer edge are being
>> seen at an earlier date than those on the furthest edge, even if the
>> galaxy were rotating at a
>> small fraction of the speed of light, one would expect the view to be
>> distorted because those stars are going to move a fairly considerable
>> physical distance in 100,000 years even if they were moving at a slow
>> walking pace and should move in relation to each edge causing a
>> distortion in what we observe.
>>
>> Well actually it seems such distortion doesn't take place at all
>> since spiral galaxies are observed to look more or less the same at
>> pretty much any angle they are viewed. Which means some how or
>> another all the information is reaching us at the same time and
>> isn't dictated by supposed limitations of light speed. In fact the
>> whole notion of a light year as a unit of distance would appear to
>> be fundamentally flawed.
>>
>> I'm not a physicist, I did my degree in Fine Art, So I could be
>> wrong well I
>> don't mind being wrong it has no effect on my professional
>> reputation as an
>> artist LOL but IMO there does seem to be a heck of a lot wrong with
>> many of
>> the theories used in physics as a model of the Universe and many of
>> these theories appear not to stand up to observable phenomena or
>> even basic mathematical principles.
>> --
>> Amanda
>
> Very interresting debate! keep it up:-)
> By the way, in a TV program regarding Time travel some years ago,
> I saw a German scientist claiming that information could travel
> faster than light. He transmitted a Piano piece backing up his
> theory. Does anybody know who he was or what happened later?

It would have been interesting to have seen that. Well it is possible to
transmit a sound recording in a speeded up form via a light beam, and have
it play back at normal speed at the receiving end. Also when sound is
converted to data one can rip and burn CDs at e.g. 40x faster than they
would normally play. So we use speeded up data transmission all the time.

However recorded information is one thing I suppose it would be a bit more
difficult to prove real time information can travel within a light beam
faster than light. But events occur at the speed they occur. As far as I can
see there is no proven link between the speed of light and time itself since
light is simply a means of transmission. Yet one hears scientists claiming
time travels at the speed of light all the time.

Well as I say I'm not a physicist. But I think one can safely assume that a
flash of light radiating from a central point in all directions will reach
all points on the circumference of a circle of any radius at the same time
even if the circumference is many light years in size, which means time
doesn't travel at the speed of light it's actually has no speed limit.
--
Amanda

Bert ( A W RvB )

Amanda Angelika wrote:
>
>


Trol alert!


Bert RvB.