icarus wrote:Caution: center of mass of the universe is a high octane concept.
Maybe I shouldn't have left it in eager hands with a box matches, like Mach-Effect thrust, lying around?
Have fun with it, but try not to blow yourselves up. I won't provide a link to an Amazon website where you can purchase a reference text. Because there is none, as far as I'm aware .... and I'm quite aware.
chrismb wrote:
Do you agree with the logic, though? - that, if you accept my way of looking at things, that you cannot impart energy into a 'truly stationary' thing [viz. 'impulses' are a patch-up where forces stop mathematically 'working' at the singularity of an impact] because there is never an initial displacement of it to 'get it going'?
In logic I can understand that IF such an object exists (with your hypothesis) it will behave as you have described .
I do not agree on the point that you can find such an object and, at least on a local scale, I am not aware of the existance of such an object as something like this should have been already observed, don't you think?
If, like you say, such a thing is related to the center of mass of the (local?) universe, than I believe that as first consequence we will have that such an object will influence all the values of the known costants under it's area of influence (an area inside which it will give origin to diferent values for big G and so on).
IIRC, the estimated speed for entangled photons' interaction over several kilometres' separation currently stands at ~ 10^6 c.
How such entanglement applies to still-hypothetical gravitons, I don't have the math. I must speculate that any correlation has a very-near-unity probability of collapsing over intergalactic distances...
In electromagnetic interactions there are self forces of a particle on itself due to acceleration. Part of this self force goes to increase the momentum and energy associated with the particle. That part is very similar to inertia; you push and it pushes back. Another part of the self force goes into radiation, and that is why accelerated particles radiate. According to some literature, the first part is reversible (like inertia), but the second part is not (like friction). I have been studying these for a while now and they are very fascinating, because we typically completely ignore their effects (ie absent from the lorentz force equation).
But, you still cannot spontaneously create momentum. It ultimately comes from whatever is pushing on the particle to begin with.
things got a bit rough in the NASA Spaceflight Forum, after a few trolls entered the thread only to say it was all nonsense, and when asked to read the papers, they refused, saying they knew it was nonsense.
But, you still cannot spontaneously create momentum. It ultimately comes from whatever is pushing on the particle to begin with.
Perhaps not in the mundane current universe, but this apparently happened in the big bang/ inflation, unless you assume something existed in some parent universe/ set of dimensions that led to our own. This changes the argument of what is possible. Does the current universe prohibit communication with these um... other dimensions? Apparently not, if the string theories about gravity being so weak because it exists mostly in another set of dimensions is accepted.
One way or another, mathematics can allow almost (?) anything if you use enough conditions/ dimensions. All you have to do is be consistent and be careful to make no testable predictions.
Admittedly I know little of the details, but it seems that the theory is at least easily testable. if the noise can be controlled. This is how science advances- make a prediction and test it. Perhaps the prediction seems silly to the "experts" but the "experts" have been proven wrong very many times, so so long as it does not cost society too much, where is the harm in pursuing it? If nothing else it (should) force the "experts" to review their knowledge and perhaps reinforce or expand it.
Giorgio wrote:I am not aware of the existance of such an object as something like this should have been already observed, don't you think?
If, like you say, such a thing is related to the center of mass of the (local?) universe, than I believe that as first consequence we will have that such an object will influence all the values of the known costants under it's area of influence (an area inside which it will give origin to diferent values for big G and so on).
Does my point make sense to you?
Sure! And where am I in disagreement? My point was that the object that satisfies this is the photon. You suggest that if it were to exist then its underlying nature would affect all things - show me an equation that 'c' doesn't appear in!?
It seems not altogether unexpected that the conversation has taken us into a discussion on photons and the underlying fabric of the universe. Let me put it another way; if photons are actually 'stitched' into an ether, and the ether is the static framework of the universe, then I see no contrary statements in this whole thread!!
I think I have had plenty of opportunity in this thread to say my piece and have little more to add now, so time to put the thinking caps on and figure out if this makes sense and is consistent with reality. Sometimes, just hitting the right 'interpretation' causes lots of other things to drop out 'in the wash', quite unintended. I would not have begun the discussion hinting that photons are embedded in a static ether tied to the fabric of the universe itself, but it does seem to be going that way...
kcdodd wrote:.....But, you still cannot spontaneously create momentum. It ultimately comes from whatever is pushing on the particle to begin with.
Perhaps not in the mundane current universe, but this apparently happened in the big bang/ inflation, unless you assume something existed in some parent universe/ set of dimensions that led to our own.
Would you explain this statement please? You seem to be stating that somehow momentum was spontaneously created at the big bang? Is that your meaning? If so, why do you think that?
kcdodd wrote:.....But, you still cannot spontaneously create momentum. It ultimately comes from whatever is pushing on the particle to begin with.
Perhaps not in the mundane current universe, but this apparently happened in the big bang/ inflation, unless you assume something existed in some parent universe/ set of dimensions that led to our own.
Would you explain this statement please? You seem to be stating that somehow momentum was spontaneously created at the big bang? Is that your meaning? If so, why do you think that?
This thread is rapidly devolving from physics to metaphysics
Tom.Cuddihy
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Faith is the foundation of reason.
chrismb wrote:Sure! And where am I in disagreement? My point was that the object that satisfies this is the photon.
How is the sun considered in your interpretation than? After all the sun is the biggest local producer of photons, how does it enter the picture?
Do you consider it the "local" center of mass of our universe (solar system)?
If your anwer is yes, than the first consequence should be the that various know costants are only locally valid, i.e. inside our solar system.
Should this be your idea I will be pretty puzzled.....
If your answer is no, than how does the sun (and each sun of the universe) fit into your view of the universe?
Giorgio wrote:If your answer is no, than how does the sun (and each sun of the universe) fit into your view of the universe?
I've not mentioned anything about the sun. I don't think you've quite grasped what I'm saying - probably because of the enormity of what I'm saying.
I am saying that photons are stationary, and we, the sun, and all 'matter' is moving at c relative to the CoM of the universe. We move relative to the photons. The photons are the things which are stationary.
Giorgio wrote:If your answer is no, than how does the sun (and each sun of the universe) fit into your view of the universe?
I've not mentioned anything about the sun. I don't think you've quite grasped what I'm saying - probably because of the enormity of what I'm saying.
I am saying that photons are stationary, and we, the sun, and all 'matter' is moving at c relative to the CoM of the universe. We move relative to the photons. The photons are the things which are stationary.
I actually was afraid that the answer could be that one.
You are implying that the sun, (the biggest source of photons of our local star system) is actually drifting in the fabric of the universe itself leaving behind a path of stationary photons.
Should that be true than the same should happen with any massive object present in space, don't you think?
What I was meaning with my previuos post is that I would like to understand how the stars fits your view of the universe.
I'll try to be more clear in my question:
In the general view the sun is a producer of photons, wich are moving to speed C relative to our local system (and hypothised costant to the whole universe).
In your view the "mass" moves in the universe at speed C leaving behind photons as a result from the interaction of the mass with the fabric of the universe.
If the above is correct than why we only see the photons coming from the stars and not from the rest of the mass of the universe?
chrismb wrote: I am saying that photons are stationary, and we, the sun, and all 'matter' is moving at c relative to the CoM of the universe. We move relative to the photons. The photons are the things which are stationary.
I actually was afraid that the answer could be that one.
You are implying that the sun, (the biggest source of photons of our local star system) is actually drifting in the fabric of the universe itself leaving behind a path of stationary photons.
No, the sun is spewing stationary photons in all directions but is imploding at the speed of light. Must be honkin big!
