- Thank you received: 0
Speeding away
21 years 4 months ago #4073
by Jright
Replied by Jright on topic Reply from
North
Essentially no matter where you are in the scheme of things - Everything would appear to be receding. There would be differences to be noted however ..If we happened to be moving through space at half the speed of light - the fastest we would see anything receding from us in the direction of our motion would be half the speed of light. In the opposite direction...the speed of light. You would see more galaxies in the opposite direction of motion verses less in the direction of motion.
It has been noted that our galaxy is moving in the direction of the quote: great attractor. Chances are pretty high with my model that the opposite direction aims basically at the center of the universe.
Essentially no matter where you are in the scheme of things - Everything would appear to be receding. There would be differences to be noted however ..If we happened to be moving through space at half the speed of light - the fastest we would see anything receding from us in the direction of our motion would be half the speed of light. In the opposite direction...the speed of light. You would see more galaxies in the opposite direction of motion verses less in the direction of motion.
It has been noted that our galaxy is moving in the direction of the quote: great attractor. Chances are pretty high with my model that the opposite direction aims basically at the center of the universe.
Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.
21 years 4 months ago #5879
by north
Replied by north on topic Reply from
<BLOCKQUOTE id=quote><font size=2 face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id=quote>quote:<hr height=1 noshade id=quote>
North
Essentially no matter where you are in the scheme of things - Everything would appear to be receding. There would be differences to be noted however ..If we happened to be moving through space at half the speed of light - the fastest we would see anything receding from us in the direction of our motion would be half the speed of light. In the opposite direction...the speed of light. You would see more galaxies in the opposite direction of motion verses less in the direction of motion.
It has been noted that our galaxy is moving in the direction of the quote: great attractor. Chances are pretty high with my model that the opposite direction aims basically at the center of the universe.
<hr height=1 noshade id=quote></BLOCKQUOTE id=quote></font id=quote><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" size=2 id=quote>
jright
are you saying that we moving though space at half the speed of light?! and if so what would that mean for the 360 degrees around us,there would be also blue shifts,red shifts, and if i may say, complex side shifts(by the way we are not moving though space at half the speed of light).
also it has been shown that our galaxy is not pulling things in but is actually ejecting things out (Halton Arp,book,SEEING RED).
North
Essentially no matter where you are in the scheme of things - Everything would appear to be receding. There would be differences to be noted however ..If we happened to be moving through space at half the speed of light - the fastest we would see anything receding from us in the direction of our motion would be half the speed of light. In the opposite direction...the speed of light. You would see more galaxies in the opposite direction of motion verses less in the direction of motion.
It has been noted that our galaxy is moving in the direction of the quote: great attractor. Chances are pretty high with my model that the opposite direction aims basically at the center of the universe.
<hr height=1 noshade id=quote></BLOCKQUOTE id=quote></font id=quote><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" size=2 id=quote>
jright
are you saying that we moving though space at half the speed of light?! and if so what would that mean for the 360 degrees around us,there would be also blue shifts,red shifts, and if i may say, complex side shifts(by the way we are not moving though space at half the speed of light).
also it has been shown that our galaxy is not pulling things in but is actually ejecting things out (Halton Arp,book,SEEING RED).
Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.
21 years 4 months ago #5880
by Jright
Replied by Jright on topic Reply from
North
No - I am not saying that we are moving at half the speed of light. That was just an example. We are moving but a small fraction of the speed of light. That in itself within the model I'm making... tells me that our galaxy is very close to the center of the universe, but this should be of no surprise because everything (eventually) ends up close to the center on a percentage basis. If you are at the outer edge of the universe when the universe is 10 billion years old...You will be within ten percent of center of the universe when the universe is 100 billion years old.
I'd like to post the model up on this thread, but I aint got one in my pocket. It goes something like this though.
The oldest matter in the universe is that matter closest to the center of the universe. Fresh new matter is that which is farthest from the center of the universe. All new matter essentially is receding from the center of the universe at or very near the speed of light. Over time that new matter is slowed by the gravitational pull of the old. All matter never really stops receding from the center of the universe because the new matter is also pulling older matter away from center. Hubbles law will not be followed under this scenerio, and we are just finding that out when the accelerated expansion became excepted withing the Big Bang model. In my model this is also expected - New matter will be affected by the old, but the new matter will not affect the old the instant it is made. I'm going on the assumption that gravity propagates at C and acts almost instantly when under the influence. So a supernova should be farther away than expected - not because of an accelerated expansion of space, but because of a difference of gravitational pulls.
We will reach an end point where we can see no more in terms of galaxies, but over time ....new ones will appear. This should go on forever in this model.
No - I am not saying that we are moving at half the speed of light. That was just an example. We are moving but a small fraction of the speed of light. That in itself within the model I'm making... tells me that our galaxy is very close to the center of the universe, but this should be of no surprise because everything (eventually) ends up close to the center on a percentage basis. If you are at the outer edge of the universe when the universe is 10 billion years old...You will be within ten percent of center of the universe when the universe is 100 billion years old.
I'd like to post the model up on this thread, but I aint got one in my pocket. It goes something like this though.
The oldest matter in the universe is that matter closest to the center of the universe. Fresh new matter is that which is farthest from the center of the universe. All new matter essentially is receding from the center of the universe at or very near the speed of light. Over time that new matter is slowed by the gravitational pull of the old. All matter never really stops receding from the center of the universe because the new matter is also pulling older matter away from center. Hubbles law will not be followed under this scenerio, and we are just finding that out when the accelerated expansion became excepted withing the Big Bang model. In my model this is also expected - New matter will be affected by the old, but the new matter will not affect the old the instant it is made. I'm going on the assumption that gravity propagates at C and acts almost instantly when under the influence. So a supernova should be farther away than expected - not because of an accelerated expansion of space, but because of a difference of gravitational pulls.
We will reach an end point where we can see no more in terms of galaxies, but over time ....new ones will appear. This should go on forever in this model.
Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.
21 years 4 months ago #5887
by Jeremy
Replied by Jeremy on topic Reply from
Jright,
If I understand you correctly you are arguing that the universe is an actual 3-dimensional explosion from a specific location? If I interpret you correctly I would have to say that current evidence provides no smoking gun for this center. We would expect an explosion to have spherical shells of material or linear jets of material going away from the center of the explosion. The deepest cosmological mapping so far shows no preferred center of galaxies lining up like that. According to Tom's theory however it is conceivable that the whole presently observable universe could all be part of a supergalaxy or a wave front.
If I understand you correctly you are arguing that the universe is an actual 3-dimensional explosion from a specific location? If I interpret you correctly I would have to say that current evidence provides no smoking gun for this center. We would expect an explosion to have spherical shells of material or linear jets of material going away from the center of the explosion. The deepest cosmological mapping so far shows no preferred center of galaxies lining up like that. According to Tom's theory however it is conceivable that the whole presently observable universe could all be part of a supergalaxy or a wave front.
Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.
21 years 4 months ago #5888
by Jright
Replied by Jright on topic Reply from
Jeremy
I am not offering up an explosion. More like a transfer.
Your interpretation is that all things began at the same time. I am not offering that either. If the universe were to be 10 billion years old - My model would say that there is matter that is 10 billion years old and matter that is brand spanking new - Matter that is 2 billion - Matter that is 5 billion years old. I.E. New matter on an ongoing basis.
The universe is growing - Not expanding
I am not offering up an explosion. More like a transfer.
Your interpretation is that all things began at the same time. I am not offering that either. If the universe were to be 10 billion years old - My model would say that there is matter that is 10 billion years old and matter that is brand spanking new - Matter that is 2 billion - Matter that is 5 billion years old. I.E. New matter on an ongoing basis.
The universe is growing - Not expanding
Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.
21 years 4 months ago #5889
by Jeremy
Replied by Jeremy on topic Reply from
<BLOCKQUOTE id=quote><font size=2 face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id=quote>quote:<hr height=1 noshade id=quote>
Jeremy
I am not offering up an explosion. More like a transfer.
Your interpretation is that all things began at the same time. I am not offering that either. If the universe were to be 10 billion years old - My model would say that there is matter that is 10 billion years old and matter that is brand spanking new - Matter that is 2 billion - Matter that is 5 billion years old. I.E. New matter on an ongoing basis.
The universe is growing - Not expanding
<hr height=1 noshade id=quote></BLOCKQUOTE id=quote></font id=quote><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" size=2 id=quote>
So I will try this again. New matter is fountaining out in random directions from a particular point. New matter is closer to the center than we are and older matter is farther out? Doesn't this require creation from nothing? Where is this new matter coming from? Or does the old matter out toward the edge disappear and reappear in the center in a continual cycle?
Jeremy
I am not offering up an explosion. More like a transfer.
Your interpretation is that all things began at the same time. I am not offering that either. If the universe were to be 10 billion years old - My model would say that there is matter that is 10 billion years old and matter that is brand spanking new - Matter that is 2 billion - Matter that is 5 billion years old. I.E. New matter on an ongoing basis.
The universe is growing - Not expanding
<hr height=1 noshade id=quote></BLOCKQUOTE id=quote></font id=quote><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" size=2 id=quote>
So I will try this again. New matter is fountaining out in random directions from a particular point. New matter is closer to the center than we are and older matter is farther out? Doesn't this require creation from nothing? Where is this new matter coming from? Or does the old matter out toward the edge disappear and reappear in the center in a continual cycle?
Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.
Time to create page: 0.266 seconds