Tired-light and slowed-light

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by Messiah</i>
<br />what would be the effect - as it pertains to the "cosmological constant" and the expansion of our local 'big bang' - of an infinite amount of mass at distances ranging from the limit of our threshhold of detection to the depths of infinity?<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">In Einstein's days, that was a problem. But modern thinking (as in <i>Pushing Gravity</i>) is that gravity has a finite range, just as all forces of nature logically must. So there would be no local effect from distant mass, however much of it there might be.

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">How do you work with infinity as a variable?<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">The math of infinities and their use in differential and integral calculus are well-developed subjects. But although infinities can occur in equations, real infinities never occur in physical nature. ("The finite cannot become infinite.") Infinities are simply useful approximations in certain processes where we need to consider the limit as something approaches infinity. -|Tom|-

It is not an irrelevant point. You claimed Feynman said light always travels at c, but that is obviouslly not true. We shouldn't presume that the constant speed of light is dogma in any context. Feynman specifically refers to small distances and not long distances, but even over long distances I don't think it is irrelevant to note that the speed of light is not constant and that your arguments should not hinge on that statement.

As far as intergalactic hydrogen, yes, something to consider. How much hydrogen do you suppose is between us and the most distant galaxies? Little enough that the photon may slow down at different points during the trip, and enough that from time to time the photons will be "recharged" during the trip?

I think that conjecture would lend itself very easily to a falsifiable hypothesis if we knew exactly how much matter existed in these huge intergalactic distances. It would take some imaginiation to devise a model of exactly how the photons slows down (loosing frequency while maintaining wavelength... c=fw), but that's the fun part.

mhelland@techmocracy.net

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by tvanflandern</i>
<br />The math of infinities and their use in differential and integral calculus are well-developed subjects. But although infinities can occur in equations, <font color="red"><b>"real infinities never occur in physical nature. (The finite cannot become infinite." </b></font id="red">) Infinities are simply useful approximations in certain processes where we need to consider the limit as something approaches infinity. -|Tom|-
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">

No single entity can be infinite in nature, but an infinite number of them would handily occupy the gap.

Infinity is not an occurence. It must; however, be a reality. If the Universe is finite, then for any point within it there exists another point within a finite distance at which motion in any direction would not increase the distance between the two. Are you touting magic?

Nor can the infinite become finite.

While I understand your logic about a finite universe of space and you are correct about that part, I think belief in an infinite universe would more deserve a cry of ’magic’. The star trek notion of moving in any direction and discovering that your always headed back where you started from is a proof of an edge or limit to space which is something tangible and sensible and therefore not magic at all. I will not speak for Tom but I will guess that he will indicate something like he did not include space that the finite stuff is in when he made his statement. After all he has indicated elsewhere that he would not be surprised to find an infinite number of scales both larger and smaller than the ones we know of. I wouldn’t either and would be perfectly willing the leave that to next generation to explain.

Leland

There is only one kind of stuff!

Having a spell checker is real nice. Now all I need is 'Duhh' checker/

Dnalel

There is only one kind of stuff!

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by Leland</i>
<br />While I understand your logic about a finite universe of space and you are correct about that part, I think belief in an infinite universe would more deserve a cry of ’magic’.<font color="red"><b> The star trek notion of moving in any direction and discovering that your always headed back where you started from is a proof of an edge or limit to space which is something tangible and sensible and therefore not magic at all.</font id="red"></b> I will not speak for Tom but I will guess that he will indicate something like he did not include space that the finite stuff is in when he made his statement. After all he has indicated elsewhere that he would not be surprised to find an infinite number of scales both larger and smaller than the ones we know of. I wouldn’t either and would be perfectly willing the leave that to next generation to explain.

Leland

There is only one kind of stuff!
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">
Sorry, but I don't accept Star Trek fiction as proof of anything but an active imagination.

If the material in the Universe was created by BigBang, then it would have to be finite in nature - unless it expanded at an infinite speed or for an infinite amount of time. Fortunately that is not the case. Cause and effect is a function of existence, existence is not a function of cause and effect.