- #36
dacruick
- 1,042
- 1
DaveC426913 said:Correct. Or more accurately, everywhere is the centre.
In your balloon analogy, is the distance between the centre of the balloon and any point on the surface represented in our universe as time?
DaveC426913 said:Correct. Or more accurately, everywhere is the centre.
phinds said:There is no "nearer to the singularity". There is no center. The singularity happened EVERYWHERE.
gregtomko said:Ok, but if there only ended up being 3 stars, just for simplicities sake, and they happened to be oriented in a line, with one in the middle and the others on either side. Then wouldn't the one in the middle have equal energy pushing on it, and the ones on either end have energy only pushing from one side?
dacruick said:In your balloon analogy, is the distance between the centre of the balloon and any point on the surface represented in our universe as time?
gregtomko said:Either way, wouldn't all those photons pushing all the particles apart help to expand the "balloon"?
gregtomko said:Either way, wouldn't all those photons pushing all the particles apart help to expand the "balloon"?
At the risk of being pedantic, all we've really done is explain why we have better ideas. We have not actually shown how his hypothesis is wrong.phinds said:gregtomko, we have tried 6 ways from Sunday to help you understand that your idea just doesn't work.
DaveC426913 said:At the risk of being pedantic, all we've really done is explain why we have better ideas. We have not actually shown how his hypothesis is wrong..
Not sure...phinds said:OK, I'll bite ... where did I go wrong with the "same pressure from all directions ==> no movement" explanation?
DaveC426913 said:Not sure...
phinds said:Guess I asked that one badly. What I mean is, why is that not a good explanation? What is incorrect about it?
phinds said:where did I go wrong with the "same pressure from all directions ==> no movement" explanation?
gregtomko said:If the mass of the universe is constantly being converted to energy through nuclear fusion, and nothing can travel outside of space-time, then isn't the ratio of energy to mass increasing? If so, then wouldn't the only possible option be for an acceleration of the universe's expansion?
gregtomko said:oh, OK, they don't have "rest" mass, but they aren't at rest. I wasn't aware they had mass when traveling.
gregtomko said:oh, OK, they don't have "rest" mass, but they aren't at rest. I wasn't aware they had mass when traveling.
Drakkith said:They do not have mass, ever. They have momentum and energy. Both mass and energy contribute to gravity. There is a confusing thing called "relativistic mass" that shouldn't have ever been called mass to begin with. When you think of mass only think of "rest mass" or "invariant mass". Both are the same thing. When a star emits light it does lose a small amount of mass thanks to the missing energy that the photon took. While in transit that photon is affecting the space around it through gravity. Once the photon is absorbed the energy it carried is turned back into mass, making whatever absorbed it slightly more massive.
If the mass is no longer in the star while the photons are in transit, how can the mass of the universe stay constant? Or maybe that was referring to the relativistic mass of the universe?juanrga said:No. In fact the mass M of the Universe is constant.
gregtomko said:That is exactly the way I thought it worked. How does that relate to the earlier post
If the mass is no longer in the star while the photons are in transit, how can the mass of the universe stay constant? Or maybe that was referring to the relativistic mass of the universe?
gregtomko said:What I am questioning is if the total quantity of energy released through nuclear fusion throughout the history of the universe is enough to equal the acceleration we observe. Not if we see certain effects on certain systems. As a whole, the proportion between how much energy is necessary to accelerate the universe as we see, and the amount of energy released in stars throughout time, is that a known ratio?
phinds said:you have to have a plausible mechanism for transferring the energy released in the middle of stars to points MANY light years away, and there isn't any.
gregtomko said:I only ask the question because I am not an astrophysicist. I am not asking about the mechanism, just about the relationship in energy.
What I am questioning is if the total quantity of energy released through nuclear fusion throughout the history of the universe is enough to equal the acceleration we observe
gregtomko said:It seems to me that the question of meaningless or meaningful, rests on the relationship of the quantities of energy involved.
gregtomko said:I am just curious if this is an understood proportion?