elysium density and speed

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by Rudolf</i>
<br />Please correct me if I'm on the wrong track.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">

You are on the right track. In fact, this is very similar to the explanation given in PG -- for clocks slowing, not time slowing. -|Tom|-

Thanks, for the corection. I was refering to time as experienced by an observer.

Would it also be acceptable to say that 'time' experienced by an observer between galaxies (intergalactic space) would see faster time than inside the solar system - relatively? Parhaps this can give another clue while light becomes red shifted while traveling between galaxies? It is then not a fact of photons being absorbed (which will have them lost for a possible observer) but rather that they are stretched over 'time' causing them to redshift. This does not exclude plain normal doppler redshift which can still occur.

Rudolf

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by Rudolf</i>
<br />Would it also be acceptable to say that 'time' experienced by an observer between galaxies (intergalactic space) would see faster time than inside the solar system - relatively?<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">

True, but the amount is fairly negligible because the Sun does not have enough mass to create a significant redshift. So the density of elysium nearby is fairly close to that far away.

However, cosmological redshift is probably caused by energy losses of photons experiencing friction in the sea of gravitons over intergalactic distances. -|Tom|-

This might have been answered somewhere before but what is the relation between "elysium" and the "sea of gravitons" you mentioned? Are they seperate entities occupying the same physical space (one being stationary and the other made up of moving particles) or the same thing but in different states?

Rudolf

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by Rudolf</i>
<br />what is the relation between "elysium" and the "sea of gravitons" you mentioned? Are they seperate entities occupying the same physical space (one being stationary and the other made up of moving particles) or the same thing but in different states?<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">Elysium is the light-carrying medium, which is somewhat like a space-filling ocean, and is relatively stationary because it is easily entrained by masses. The sea of gravitons is unrelated, of a much smaller scale (by perhaps 20 orders of magnitude), with particle speeds at least 20 billion times faster than lightwaves. Both these mediums occupy the same space and time, but exist at vastly different scales. Waves in elysium would experience friction from the gravitons, much like ocean waves experiencing friction from air drag. This would cause the waves to lose energy and redshift. -|Tom|-

If 'elysium' is a medium I assume it consists of particles of some kind. These particles themselfs are as transparent to 'gravitons' as ordinary matter. Is this a correct assumption?

One thing I wonder then about is if these 'elysium' are also affected by gravity like ordinary matter, i.e. particles attract each other? This could explain why elysium is more dense close to larger masses like planets, stars and other big objects.

Might there be some places in the universe where no or little elysium is present? This will then mean that photons (EM waves) cannot (or not easily) travel through these areas.

Rudolf