Notices
Results 1 to 18 of 18

Thread: A static universe.

  1. #1 A static universe. 
    Suspended
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Posts
    1,096
    Light travelling just miles as it leaves a neutron star redshifts as it climbs out of a "gravitational well". This is because it cannot lose speed, always travelling at light speed, so loses energy by losing frequency which makes the wave lengths longer.

    The same effect causes light to redshift as it travels thousands of light years in galaxies where there is far less gravity and where it travels through millions, even billions of light years as it travels through the universe where there is still less gravity.

    To make it plain, the cosmological redshift is a measure of distance and not recessional velocity. So the big bang is wrong. We live in a static universe of unknown size, where the visible limits (the CMB) are determined by (non-ionised) hydrogen atoms and dust put in place over maybe trillions or more years.

    This gives the possibility of an infinitely old universe with no beginning and no end. It would however need a process of continuous creation which at present can only be guessed at.


    Reply With Quote  
     

  2.  
     

  3. #2 Re: A static universe. 
    Forum Professor
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Posts
    1,114
    Quote Originally Posted by Cyberia
    Light travelling just miles as it leaves a neutron star redshifts as it climbs out of a "gravitational well". This is because it cannot lose speed, always travelling at light speed, so loses energy by losing frequency which makes the wave lengths longer.

    The same effect causes light to redshift as it travels thousands of light years in galaxies where there is far less gravity and where it travels through millions, even billions of light years as it travels through the universe where there is still less gravity.

    To make it plain, the cosmological redshift is a measure of distance and not recessional velocity. So the big bang is wrong. We live in a static universe of unknown size, where the visible limits (the CMB) are determined by (non-ionised) hydrogen atoms and dust put in place over maybe trillions or more years.

    This gives the possibility of an infinitely old universe with no beginning and no end. It would however need a process of continuous creation which at present can only be guessed at.
    Well, I agree with you but my universe (Flat Space universe) is based on the Laws of Conservation of Matter. So there always was mass. No beginning or end.
    Although the space is 'static, the internal parts are recycling (stars and galaxies).

    I posted an article on this topic.

    Cosmo


    Reply With Quote  
     

  4. #3  
    Forum Sophomore
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Posts
    156
    HOUSE OF THE GREAT KING.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  5. #4 Re: A static universe. 
    Suspended
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Posts
    1,096
    Quote Originally Posted by Cosmo
    Well, I agree with you but my universe (Flat Space universe) is based on the Laws of Conservation of Matter. So there always was mass. No beginning or end.
    Although the space is 'static, the internal parts are recycling (stars and galaxies).

    I posted an article on this topic.

    Cosmo
    I have an idea that maybe black holes do the recycling. The biggest so far discovered (only this year) is 18,000,000,000 solar masses. I believe they have electron-quark and maybe some other fundamental particles as spherical cores (since singularities are nonsense) and that these may have a maximum size before they literally fall apart and then before it stabilises into a few million solar mass black hole, it sprays surrounding space with fundamental particles which can then form hydrogen, etc and later stars.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  6. #5 Re: A static universe. 
    Forum Professor
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Posts
    1,114
    Quote Originally Posted by Cyberia
    Quote Originally Posted by Cosmo
    Well, I agree with you but my universe (Flat Space universe) is based on the Laws of Conservation of Matter. So there always was mass. No beginning or end.
    Although the space is 'static, the internal parts are recycling (stars and galaxies).

    I posted an article on this topic.

    Cosmo
    I have an idea that maybe black holes do the recycling. The biggest so far discovered (only this year) is 18,000,000,000 solar masses. I believe they have electron-quark and maybe some other fundamental particles as spherical cores (since singularities are nonsense) and that these may have a maximum size before they literally fall apart and then before it stabilises into a few million solar mass black hole, it sprays surrounding space with fundamental particles which can then form hydrogen, etc and later stars.
    Your ideas violate the Laws of Conservation of Matter.

    The Universe is composed of just ONE real element and that is the hydrogen atom.

    This little element that exists in great numbers, fuses to form the heaviet elements and the 'stars' that eventually end up as neutron stars. Then these neutron stars 'decay' back into HA's, helium nuclei (Alpha particles) and 'free'
    protons (Gamma Ray Bursters).
    This opinion is based on the 'Natursal' decay of the heaviest elements that exceed the ratio of 3 to 2 neutrons to protons.

    So this constitutes the recycling process of fused matter, back to gases.
    This is the way a Flat Space universe exists indefinately.

    Cosmo
    Reply With Quote  
     

  7. #6 Re: A static universe. 
    Suspended
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Posts
    1,096
    Quote Originally Posted by Cosmo
    Your ideas violate the Laws of Conservation of Matter.

    The Universe is composed of just ONE real element and that is the hydrogen atom.

    This little element that exists in great numbers, fuses to form the heaviet elements and the 'stars' that eventually end up as neutron stars. Then these neutron stars 'decay' back into HA's, helium nuclei (Alpha particles) and 'free'
    protons (Gamma Ray Bursters).
    This opinion is based on the 'Natursal' decay of the heaviest elements that exceed the ratio of 3 to 2 neutrons to protons.

    So this constitutes the recycling process of fused matter, back to gases.
    This is the way a Flat Space universe exists indefinately.

    Cosmo
    No. I did not say that there was new matter appearing or old matter appearing.

    A static universe requires that something be done about black holes. Otherwise in an infinitely old, static universe, everything is going to end up in black holes. I suppose if it was just one huge black hole and the whole universe was in it (as has been hypothesised about our universe), then you could have a whole universe of fundamental particles which start hydrogen formation again, and with sufficient space inside to form a new universe of stars, planets, etc.

    The universe is composed of sub-atomic particles. These in turn form hydrogen and every other element.

    Why should a neutron star decay? Their escape velocity is 2/3 light speed so little is going to escape them. I suppose a sufficiently strong magnetic field might do this but at a point, there would not be sufficient mass to generate this field so it would peter out. A neutron star is fairly stable and if it gets sufficiently more material, it can turn into a black hole.

    Do you believe in black holes or do you subscribe to Harry Costas' strange ideas?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  8. #7 Re: A static universe. 
    Forum Professor
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Posts
    1,114
    Quote Originally Posted by Cyberia
    I did not say that there was new matter appearing or old matter appearing.

    A static universe requires that something be done about black holes. Otherwise in an infinitely old, static universe, everything is going to end up in black holes. I suppose if it was just one huge black hole and the whole universe was in it (as has been hypothesised about our universe), then you could have a whole universe of fundamental particles which start hydrogen formation again, and with sufficient space inside to form a new universe of stars, planets, etc.

    The universe is composed of sub-atomic particles. These in turn form hydrogen and every other element.

    Why should a neutron star decay? Their escape velocity is 2/3 light speed so little is going to escape them. I suppose a sufficiently strong magnetic field might do this but at a point, there would not be sufficient mass to generate this field so it would peter out. A neutron star is fairly stable and if it gets sufficiently more material, it can turn into a black hole.

    Do you believe in black holes or do you subscribe to Harry Costas' strange ideas?
    No, I do not believe in BH's.

    I also do not believe that neutron stars are stable.
    If a neutron decays back into a proton and an electron, than how can a netron star be stable when the strong coulomb force cannot contain the proton and electron together.

    So there has to be another mechanism to keep those heavy elements bound together.
    That mechanism is 'another proton'.

    The lightest nucleus that is stable is the 'deuteron' that has two protons and one electron in its nucleus. So you can consider this to be a 1 to 1 ration of proton to neutron.
    So, since the neutron cannot exist without the presense of a proton, you would have to conclude that neutron stars have a ratio of about 3 N's to 2 P's that would contribute to the decay of the neutron star.

    So IMO, matter returns to its original source as a HA.

    Cosmo
    Reply With Quote  
     

  9. #8  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Posts
    6
    I am taking a introduction to astronomy class and know very little. My teacher said that the feeling of anti-gravity or weightless is actually free fall. The moon is constantly falling toward Earth but because of its trajectory and Earths center of gravitational pull is constantly changing relative to the moon because of the spherical shape of the Earth, the moon is in orbit. The Earth is falling toward the sun in the same type of way. The sun is falling as well.

    I guess where I am getting at is my idea on your static universe is that it is still. Yet my astronomy teacher says everything is falling.

    Is everything falling in a orbit? So the sun will make a full orbit once every million trillion years or something?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  10. #9  
    Forum Professor leohopkins's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    Dulwich, London, England
    Posts
    1,418
    Quote Originally Posted by Aquanaut
    I am taking a introduction to astronomy class and know very little. My teacher said that the feeling of anti-gravity or weightless is actually free fall. The moon is constantly falling toward Earth but because of its trajectory and Earths center of gravitational pull is constantly changing relative to the moon because of the spherical shape of the Earth, the moon is in orbit. The Earth is falling toward the sun in the same type of way. The sun is falling as well.

    I guess where I am getting at is my idea on your static universe is that it is still. Yet my astronomy teacher says everything is falling.

    Is everything falling in a orbit? So the sun will make a full orbit once every million trillion years or something?
    Well, your astronomy teacher is actually wrong because the moon is actually receding (moving away) from the earth very gradually.
    The hand of time rested on the half-hour mark, and all along that old front line of the English there came a whistling and a crying. The men of the first wave climbed up the parapets, in tumult, darkness, and the presence of death, and having done with all pleasant things, advanced across No Man's Land to begin the Battle of the Somme. - Poet John Masefield.

    www.leohopkins.com
    Reply With Quote  
     

  11. #10  
    Moderator Moderator Dishmaster's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    Heidelberg, Germany
    Posts
    1,624
    Quote Originally Posted by leohopkins
    Quote Originally Posted by Aquanaut
    I am taking a introduction to astronomy class and know very little. My teacher said that the feeling of anti-gravity or weightless is actually free fall. The moon is constantly falling toward Earth but because of its trajectory and Earths center of gravitational pull is constantly changing relative to the moon because of the spherical shape of the Earth, the moon is in orbit. The Earth is falling toward the sun in the same type of way. The sun is falling as well.

    I guess where I am getting at is my idea on your static universe is that it is still. Yet my astronomy teacher says everything is falling.

    Is everything falling in a orbit? So the sun will make a full orbit once every million trillion years or something?
    Well, your astronomy teacher is actually wrong because the moon is actually receding (moving away) from the earth very gradually.
    You are both right. Imagine a cannon ball shot from the Earth's surface flying as usual along a parabolic path. The higher the initial thrust, the farther the ball flies. Now, it is possible that the thrust is high enough that the trajectory consists of a path, where the ball misses the Earth when falling back. This can be in that way that the resulting trajectory is an orbit around the Earth. Hence, an orbit around a gravitational centre can be described as constantly "falling" around it. This does not mean that it is actually approaching it. Indeed, the Moon is receding because of tidal breaking. Angular momentum is transferred from spin to orbital movement.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  12. #11  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Posts
    6
    Thanks for the reply Dishmaster. I think I have an abstract understanding of tidal breaking as you describe it, but I don't really understand.

    In the way my teacher described anti-gravity as nothing more than free fall, is this true: A spaceman is floating through space, to his perception the planets and stars are stationary and he is moving. The spaceman is not actually floating and the planets are not stationary but are all falling in a bottomless pit toward a very dense mass?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  13. #12  
    Moderator Moderator Dishmaster's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    Heidelberg, Germany
    Posts
    1,624
    Quote Originally Posted by Aquanaut
    In the way my teacher described anti-gravity as nothing more than free fall, is this true: A spaceman is floating through space, to his perception the planets and stars are stationary and he is moving. The spaceman is not actually floating and the planets are not stationary but are all falling in a bottomless pit toward a very dense mass?
    It is NOT anti-gravity. This is, why it is usually referred to as "micro gravity". The gravity is still there, but it is the centrifugal force of the orbital movement that balances out this force producing a net (nearly) force free environment. These objects are not falling toward a mass, they are falling around it, because they have a peculiar motion i.e. the revolution around the massive object.

    If something is falling toward a massive object, it still experiences zero gravity because of the free fall - until it finally hits it. This is the same like Einstein's equivalence principle saying that you cannot distinguish by experiments between inertia produced by acceleration and the gravitational force produced by a massive object.

    If there were no other objects than the astronaut around, he would really experience non-gravity.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  14. #13  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Posts
    6
    Quote Originally Posted by Dishmaster
    If something is falling toward a massive object, it still experiences zero gravity because of the free fall - until it finally hits it.
    Since our solar system and galaxy are falling toward the massive object on a orbital path we will never hit that massive object?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  15. #14  
    Administrator KALSTER's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    South Africa
    Posts
    8,231
    Quote Originally Posted by Aquanaut
    Quote Originally Posted by Dishmaster
    If something is falling toward a massive object, it still experiences zero gravity because of the free fall - until it finally hits it.
    Since our solar system and galaxy are falling toward the massive object on a orbital path we will never hit that massive object?
    Like he said, we are falling around the sun and galactic centre, rather than towards it.

    Our galaxy is part of a cluster and it orbits around the centre of gravity. There is not an actual object there. Similarly, the planets orbit around our solar system's centre of gravity, which is not the exact centre of the sun. The sun itself orbits the same centre of gravity which, if I remember correctly, is just under the surface of the sun. The orbital mechanics of a galaxy is quite a bit more complicated, since the scale and number of the constituent stars relative to the system is so much bigger than our solar system. Consequently tidal forces can easily be outgunned by other closer gravitational influences (gravitational force is an inverse square relation after all).

    When the solar system and the galaxy formed, everything that did not have enough perpendicular velocity relative to the centre of gravity fell towards that centre of gravity. This happened with each local gravity-well formed by each planet as well. As the age of the solar system grew, the margins became tighter and consequently most bodies of matter around today are in the sweet spot, at least in relative terms, where the centrifugal and gravitational forces very closely equal each other out and we won’t fall into or float away from the sun in the foreseeable future.
    Disclaimer: I do not declare myself to be an expert on ANY subject. If I state something as fact that is obviously wrong, please don't hesitate to correct me. I welcome such corrections in an attempt to be as truthful and accurate as possible.

    "Gullibility kills" - Carl Sagan
    "All people know the same truth. Our lives consist of how we chose to distort it." - Harry Block
    "It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it." - Aristotle
    Reply With Quote  
     

  16. #15  
    Forum Professor
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Posts
    1,114
    Quote Originally Posted by Aquanaut
    I am taking a introduction to astronomy class and know very little. My teacher said that the feeling of anti-gravity or weightless is actually free fall. The moon is constantly falling toward Earth but because of its trajectory and Earths center of gravitational pull is constantly changing relative to the moon because of the spherical shape of the Earth, the moon is in orbit. The Earth is falling toward the sun in the same type of way. The sun is falling as well.

    I guess where I am getting at is my idea on your static universe is that it is still. Yet my astronomy teacher says everything is falling.

    Is everything falling in a orbit? So the sun will make a full orbit once every million trillion years or something?
    There is no such thing as a 'free fall'.
    Since the source of this FF is a gravitational object, than that is a GFF.

    Einsteins 'elevator gravity' is really an 'accelerating gravity' or an equal and opposite reaction to the gravity source. So energy here is required to create this equal and opposite reaction that provides momentum.

    When an object is passing a gravity source at a point of 90 degrees and has a speed that exactly neutralizes the gravity force, than this object would be in a
    fixed orbittal state of balance and will remain that way unless disturbed by another force. There is no free fall here.

    This is the way I understand gravity and momentum.

    Cosmo
    Reply With Quote  
     

  17. #16  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Posts
    1,096
    Aquanaut. We cannot guarantee what you learn on this site will please your astronomy teacher. A lot of astronomy is unproven and taken on faith, using educated guesswork based on what we already know. That does not necessarily mean it is 100% right.

    If you go up 6 miles in a plane, you still weigh the same. If you travel a few thousand miles up, the Earth's pull is still nearly the same as standing on the Earth. Even at 18,000 miles, there is little difference (though there is a slight pull from the Moon at that distance). Weightlessness can only really be experienced away from the gravitational pull of any planets or moons. As your teacher said, it's freefall the same as if it were possible to go down in a lift faster than you would normally fall. Satellites and such are in decaying orbits and slowly but surely falling towards Earth.

    The Moon and Earth are in an almost stable orbit around each other (the Moon does pull the Earth too so it is not quite the Moon orbiting the Earth but a position a little away from the Earth) which has lasted for four billion years. But as was said, the Moon is slowly moving away from Earth and over cosmic time, this will accelerate until we lose the Moon.

    As we move around the Sun, so the Sun is moving towards the star Vega at 27 mps, so the Sun is also moving around our galaxy at 175 mps (every 150,000,000 years), so our galaxy and the nearby Andromeda galaxy are moving towards each other and will collide in several billion years. Our local cluster is moving too as are other galaxies (there are many photos of galaxies in "collision" but there is so much room inside them that few stars actually collide) as everything is moving. The BB idea has it that everything is moving apart unless held together by local gravity, like our galaxy, but that is nonsense for a number of reasons. Check out our local cluster to get the big view:


    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Local_Group


    Local Group - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
    Reply With Quote  
     

  18. #17  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Posts
    1,096
    Cosmo. We see huge concentrations of mass in very tiny areas where nothing is visible. We can detect something rotating there,, sometimes at a good fraction of light speed. We can see accretion disks, detect magnetic fields and hard radiation. This year we detected something the size of our solar system but with eighteen billion times the mass of our sun. It was rotating at nearly light speed. What would cause all this if not black holes?

    Neutron stars are stable. However get one large enough and neutrons may break down and reform. Add more mass and they all break down. Gravity is such on a neutron star that neutrons can barely survive. A neutron is basically a proton (+ve) and an electron (-ve), so neutral. A deuteron would have a strong positive charge. Normal atoms are electrically neutral. Where would you get all the extra protons from? What would happen to all the unwanted electrons?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  19. #18  
    Forum Professor
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Posts
    1,114
    Quote Originally Posted by Cyberia
    Cosmo. We see huge concentrations of mass in very tiny areas where nothing is visible. We can detect something rotating there,, sometimes at a good fraction of light speed. We can see accretion disks, detect magnetic fields and hard radiation. This year we detected something the size of our solar system but with eighteen billion times the mass of our sun. It was rotating at nearly light speed. What would cause all this if not black holes?

    Neutron stars are stable. However get one large enough and neutrons may break down and reform. Add more mass and they all break down. Gravity is such on a neutron star that neutrons can barely survive. A neutron is basically a proton (+ve) and an electron (-ve), so neutral. A deuteron would have a strong positive charge. Normal atoms are electrically neutral. Where would you get all the extra protons from? What would happen to all the unwanted electrons?
    Accretion disks are not visible. These are artists sketches of what they would look like.

    The spin rates of some of these invisible objects would certainly contribute to neutron star decay if these objects are neutron stars.

    A deuteron is the nulceus of the deuterium atom. But this isotope exists in very low percentages of .0015.

    Cosmo
    Reply With Quote  
     

Bookmarks
Bookmarks
Posting Permissions
  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •