Mirror mirror tell me who is the best! NGST

More
21 years 9 months ago #4419 by Jim
Replied by Jim on topic Reply from
The fact that MODELS of structure need bogus mass to make them work does not make gravity a complex problem. The complex nature of the model is because the model has a problem. It is common practice now to add whatever it takes to a problem as long as the end result is what is required. This method of problem solving is great in math. It is not that good in models and should be stopped. Anyway, the disk structure can be better understood by putting the gravity center out in the flat of the disk and not at the mass center. The disk structure will eventually be understood only when the mass and gravity centers are seen to be totally different from each other.

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

More
21 years 9 months ago #4421 by jacques
Replied by jacques on topic Reply from
AgoraBasta
<BLOCKQUOTE id=quote><font size=2 face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id=quote>quote:<hr height=1 noshade id=quote> so all the masses that the front leaves behind should feel that the mass of the star approriately reduces<hr height=1 noshade id=quote></BLOCKQUOTE id=quote></font id=quote><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" size=2 id=quote>
Up to there I followed you but what do you mean by "should feel"?

<BLOCKQUOTE id=quote><font size=2 face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id=quote>quote:<hr height=1 noshade id=quote> the energy loss of the photon:
h(f0-f1)<hr height=1 noshade id=quote></BLOCKQUOTE id=quote></font id=quote><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" size=2 id=quote>
Is it possible that the energy loss of the photon can explain the microwave backgroud?

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

More
21 years 9 months ago #4553 by AgoraBasta
Replied by AgoraBasta on topic Reply from
jacques,

I discuss it here - www.badastronomy.com/phpBB/viewtopic.php?topic=3364&forum=1&18 .

Here's some qualitative explanation, a crosspost from there:

Consider a very large chunk of space uniformly filled with tiny specks of matter so that the space remains essentially transparent. Let the peculiar speeds of those matter specks be negligible. Then let one of the specks turn itself into photons - annihilate. The photons leave their place of origin in shape of an expanding spherical shell of radiation. For all matter specks outside the expanding shell nothing has really changed, the gravity of the annihilated speck is still there. For the specks inside the expanding shell the case is different - the annihilated speck is gone altogether with its gravitational field. Accordingly, as the expanding shell covers new space, the potential at the positions of specks inside the shell gets a boost of Gm/r (m is mass of annihilated speck, r is distance from source speck former location), so the matter specks getting inside the shell acquire energy boosts.
Now I need to prove that the photons in the expanding shell are actually shedding that energy to the surrounding matter as they pass it by. Here goes - imagine we arrange that the photon shell gets fully absorbed at some distance from the source point - the mass/energy of the source is then spread between potential/kinetic energy of the matter specks covered by the expanding shell and the rest goes into the absorber as energy of photons. Thus for the greater distances from the source, gravity is not changed; it's simply that mass/energy within the shell got through some local redistribution, nothing more than that. Now if we absorb our photon shell at a greater distance from the source, the greater area with more matter specks in it acquires the potential/kinetic energy boost - hence, simple conservation laws require that the absorbed photons conveyed less energy to the absorber.
There is a yet simpler qualitative explanation - since photon emission by the stars is accomplished by shedding the mass, every such photon is accompanied with a gravitational perturbation that spreads with the photon, i.e. space is getting "uncurved" behind the photon - this is as if the space where the photon travels experiences a bit of localized transitional expansion exactly when the photon is there. Thus such photon always travels through a somewhat expanding space area, but this expansion is purely transitional and associated with the photon itself.

Now that's as much explanatory as I can possibly imagine, and it's very simple physics indeed.

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

More
21 years 9 months ago #4683 by jacques
Replied by jacques on topic Reply from
Thank you AgoraBasta. I had problems following you because I am an amateur and I am used to think about photon as particule. Also my native language is french and I am 8/10 in english...
Overall there is a part of the energy of the photon transfered to the matter in space. Can this energy be remitted in the form of low frequency photon and can it have something to do with the microwave background emission ?



Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

More
21 years 9 months ago #4235 by AgoraBasta
Replied by AgoraBasta on topic Reply from
<BLOCKQUOTE id=quote><font size=2 face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id=quote>quote:<hr height=1 noshade id=quote>Can this energy be remitted in the form of low frequency photon and can it have something to do with the microwave background emission ?<hr height=1 noshade id=quote></BLOCKQUOTE id=quote></font id=quote><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" size=2 id=quote>jacques,

Here again I can quote myself from the link I provided above (hint - read it):

At the greatest distance scale, i.e. when the redshift reaches close to that we see in the "CMB", the peculiar velocities of matter "specks" must be accounted for, since those can convey energy to the photons through a random walk mechanism. That random walk energy supply must accumulate as r^(1/2), btw. Photons lose the directional info of the source quite naturally in such a gravitational scattering process. Here may lie the true origin of the "CMB" itself (or of a part of it) - the CMB might turn out to be the terminally redshifted starlight in equilibrium with the energy supplied from the peculiar motions of matter in the universe.

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

More
21 years 9 months ago #4554 by Jim
Replied by Jim on topic Reply from
The density of the universe has to be more than 1 proton/m3 because that is how dense it would be is only the mass of visible stars existed. Factoring in everything else gets a density 10 to 10,000 times as dense depending on what data is used. This fact should have an effect on redshift if gravity is in fact a cause.

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

Time to create page: 0.487 seconds
Powered by Kunena Forum