1. ## A couple of questions

Hi,
I just posted my thoughts on this subject in my blog in this forum, "eidnar1" It is really in 4 parts. If you get a chance to read it please make a comment. I did not know how to load the pictures into this forum so I also posted at "nothingissolid.blogspot.com" with pictures. Cheers Randie
Posted Mar12-09 at 01:04 PM by Eidnar1
2. ## A couple of questions

i know this doesnt answer your quetion but .... what is volumetric speace time ? I love physics but compared to that im on a basic level and i woul dreally love to know more .
Posted Dec9-08 at 12:30 PM by Cookie*Core
3. ## Moment of Inertia

The moment of inertia of the wheel is not important if the bicycle is climbing a constant slope at a constant velocity. Only the weight matters. If the bicycle is accelerating, the moment of inertia is important as you explain.
Posted Dec2-08 at 08:47 PM by servoguy
4. ## Physical Law of Scale - Hypothesis

I re edited this because I did not want to make people think that I was some nut crack who believes the "the speed of light depends upon the distance used to measure it"

I was hoping that was the best way to describe the idea of it - but then I realized that the whole notion of "speed of light" cannot change for any distance really. Distances are defined in terms of the speed of light. but rather I assumed the notion that a distance be defined in terms of the length of some object say some long wooden stick - like a ruler.

I want to clarify that what I am stating is that the comparative distance described in terms of a wooden stick and in terms of the speed of light are not compatible metrics.

The following probably isn't a reflection of any conclusion drawn from experiment, it's purely imaginative and probably - like this whole theory - bogus.

Imagine if we were looking down on a small tiny group of particles, and we knew that they interact with each other in certain ways, and the influence one particle has on another is dependent upon how far it is away.

We observe two particles interact with each other much stronger than they should interact with each other, we might believe (and probably correctly) that we can not say that strength decreases with distance by the believed amount that something else is at play. Or we might explain it as a discrepancy between how we see the event, and how the two particles see each other. So the 'distance' which separate these two particles might be much less from their frame of reference; that some how by looking from our larger-scale perspective to theirs this discrepancy arises.

Imagine as though it were like this following example;

You take a meter stick and you put it end to end so that it extends 10 billion light years, at one end of this long line is observer A and at the other end is observer B. If either observer A were to compare their meter through current methods with a meter by observer B, observer A would conclude that the meter in his vicinity is smaller than observer B's, and vice versa.

The effects are not merely an illusion, if observer A were to measure an impulse the impulse will be spread out as though they were receding, but as time continued on, either object wouldn't appear to be any further away.

While this theory agrees with the notion that redshift is a measure of distance, it doesn't agree that redshift is the result of a recession velocity - Doppler Effect. It is on the basis that it is premature to attribute redshift as a solely as a recession velocity between these distant bodies and the observer.
Posted Nov25-08 at 02:07 PM by WCOLtd
Updated Nov29-08 at 11:24 AM by WCOLtd
5. ## Counter a crackpot theory

btw, I thought about posting it on the forum, but I thought that I would be reprimanded for having overly speculative posts. So for now, I'll just keep them on my blog.
Posted Nov25-08 at 01:03 PM by WCOLtd
6. ## Counter a crackpot theory

Thanks for your reply, I was suspecting an answer of that sort.
Posted Nov20-08 at 02:05 PM by WCOLtd
7. ## Counter a crackpot theory

### … only in a star …

Collisions will only create mass if there's fusion, and that requires very high temperatures, as in a star.

(I believe that's the definition of a star )

Temperatures inside the Earth don't get anywhere near high enough.

Collisions can destroy mass, if there's fission, and that can happen inside the earth, but the "collision speed" would have to be far more energetic than the thermal (heat) energy of molecules, it would have to be done by very energetic decay neutrons etc, as in a man-made reactor. I've read that there have been natural "uranium reactors" in the past, but I don't know whether there are any still.

Ordinary decay of uranium etc (decay not caused by collisions) does heat the Earth … lack of knowledge of this heat supply was once an argument against the Earth being more than about 50,000 years old!
btw, you would do better to post ideas like this on the main forum … your last blog got no replies, but would probably have got plenty on the forum
Posted Nov19-08 at 04:01 AM by tiny-tim
8. ## Evidence for fading stars?

I still don't see the difference between saying that "two bodies are receding away from each other", to saying "The space in between the two bodies is expanding" Are they not describing the same thing? And if they are not, how can a person distinguish between the two?
Posted Nov18-08 at 04:03 PM by WCOLtd
Updated Nov24-08 at 12:06 AM by WCOLtd
9. ## Evidence for fading stars?

I think it's commonly accepted that the doppler effect (relativistic doppler redshift) is good up to about z=0.1 (about 1.3 billion light years distant) and that for z>0.1, the expansion of space itself needs to be taken into account in order to calculate the correct distance to an object (cosmological redshift).
Posted Oct16-08 at 05:29 PM by stevebd1
10. ## Evidence for fading stars?

I thought the hubble lenth is the distance in which the redshift effect becomes nonnegligible. (Where the expansion becomes the dominant behavior of the observed body)
Posted Oct14-08 at 07:44 PM by WCOLtd
11. ## Evidence for fading stars?

Quote:
oh, and redshift is not interpreted as a doppler effect, but instead due to the expansion of space. That is, the wavelength of light is being continually stretched as it travels towards you.
Would it matter how it's interpreted? Isn't the effect the same?
Posted Sep8-08 at 11:31 AM by WCOLtd
12. ## Evidence for fading stars?

oh, and redshift is not interpreted as a doppler effect, but instead due to the expansion of space. That is, the wavelength of light is being continually stretched as it travels towards you.

Interesting questions, cosmology is wonderful
-neutralseer
Posted Sep4-08 at 08:35 PM by neutralseer
13. ## Evidence for fading stars?

There's nothing special about the hubble length in this context. In the observed spatially flat (where space is euclidean but spacetime is curved), the flux of a star goes as
F ~ 1/(r^2*(1+z)^2)
Posted Sep4-08 at 08:32 PM by neutralseer