Origin of the universe

[tytower]

I often wonder how so many people can continue to believe that their religion is the right one when none offer any simple or even complex proofs.

Why then could otherwise smart astronomers and particle physicists continue to believe that the universe has an end somewhere . Why would it ? What is out there past the end of the universe then?.

Why would an all powerful being create us and then for 99.9% of our evolutionary history , ignore us ? Only to return in the last 2000 years and be there for each of the 10 Billion or so of us on this planet. Crazy stuff

Why would a universe in which time and light are slowed by gravity be calculable by such as ourselves over such distances as are claimed Crazy stuff

[Chris Peterson]

Why then could otherwise smart astronomers and particle physicists continue to believe that the universe has an end somewhere.

They generally don't, because the most well accepted theories neither require an end nor suggest that one exists.

Why would a universe in which time and light are slowed by gravity be calculable by such as ourselves over such distances as are claimed.

Neither time nor light are slowed by gravity. You are confusing the way that these things are measured between non-inertial frames with their physical behavior.

Things are "calculable" when they follow rules that are consistent and understood. When that's the case (and it appears always to be the case, although we don't always know the rules) you can predict behavior- it doesn't matter over what distances you consider, as long as the rules apply over that distance. Physics is all about figuring out those kinds of rules. Some we know very well, some we are converging on, and some remain almost completely opaque.

[tytower]

Neither time nor light are slowed by gravity. You are confusing the way that these things are measured between non-inertial frames with their physical behavior.

Nah . Not how its seen nowadays-the GPS satellites clocks run faster and must be adjusted or they will be out after even 1 day. That delay was built into the clocks launched . Just do a google on GPS time differences Adjustment one way for speed and the other for lack of gravity

[Chris Peterson]

Neither time nor light are slowed by gravity. You are confusing the way that these things are measured between non-inertial frames with their physical behavior.

Nah . Not how its seen nowadays-the GPS satellites clocks run faster and must be adjusted or they will be out after even 1 day. That delay was built into the clocks launched . Just do a google on GPS time differences Adjustment one way for speed and the other for lack of gravity

GPS satellite clocks don't really "run faster". They are measured to run faster because they are operating in a different frame. If you were on the satellite, the clocks would appear to be running fine. Again, you are confusing how we measure these things with an actual change in the flow of time.

[harry]

G'day

Two points

One: EMR near condensed matter from within to out the speed slows down. If the condensed matter forms a trapping Horizon than EMR cannot escape along that path.

Two: Clocks are affected by inertia and thefore alter their recording of time.
Twin Paradox is a prime example.

[Chris Peterson]

EMR near condensed matter from within to out the speed slows down.

Again, I'd advise caution with the wording. Nothing slows down. Observers in different gravity fields will observe photons appearing to move at different speeds. But this is a property of observations made from inertial frames, not an indicator that the photons are actually traveling slower. Photons always move at c, even when they are climbing out of a gravity well.

("Condensed matter" describes any matter other than isolated particles, and isn't really relevant to this observation. All that matters is that you have a gravitational gradient, which doesn't require condensed matter.)

[harry]

G'day Chris

The ultra gravity vector forces created can alter the speed of light.
If you wish for links proven such ideas, they are easy to search.

[Chris Peterson]

The ultra gravity vector forces created can alter the speed of light.

I have no idea what an "ultra gravity vector force" is. The speed of light is not a constant, but c is (in a vacuum they are the same). As far as anybody can tell (and theory agrees), nothing changes c- including gravitational gradients.

Light coming out of a gravity well is redshifted, but it isn't slowed down.

[harry]

G'day Chris

I will come back to that

Right now its Xmas party time.

Merry Xmas all

[tytower]

Guess a black hole does not count ?
There is enough mass in there to not only slow light but stop it moving out at all .
So what wonderous thing are you going to invent to refute that.

My conception of time speeds up as I get older and it is apparent to younger people that I am slowing down . Its apparent to me too , I don't get half as much done these days as I used to.
Maybe as we age the neural pathways become longer as some nodes stop working ? Like the internet setup .Or maybe its something else entirely.

If I changed the speed of light in this equation to C squared plus 500,000 meters would there be any real effect ? What about in E=MC squared.

I was once told by a Uni Proffessor that one of Einstein's theories was proved by Gamma rays hitting particles in the atmosphere and the muons produced were measurable due to their slowing down.
Now I know that pretty vague but maybe it rings a bell with you . I don't accept the notion that time is anything else but absolute. Einstein believers think it can vary . Maybe you think that the speed of light is constant and the time changes ?

Oh and elsewhere you have said I should present my ideas in your language(theories and proofs) --Why? I don't speak your physics professor language and you don't speak my laymans considered thought . Your language produces Quantum Mechanics bunkum which can prove that the probability of black being white is 99.9%. You do know that one I suppose?

[Chris Peterson]

Guess a black hole does not count ?
There is enough mass in there to not only slow light but stop it moving out at all .

As previously noted, light can travel at any speed, up to c. In a medium, light always travels slower than c. The important point is that c doesn't change near a black hole (so far as theory suggests, and observation supports).

[Ann]

It has been said that light can't escape a black hole. Is that because the escape velocity of the black hole is greater than c?

Ann

[tytower]

Well that was disappointing . Not much to chew on there. So C is the maximum speed of light . Mmm OK so all the particals we have found that travel faster than light reflect light how exactly , exactly how do we see them ? Any red shift or blue there?

[Orca]

Well that was disappointing . Not much to chew on there. So C is the maximum speed of light . Mmm OK so all the particals we have found that travel faster than light reflect light how exactly , exactly how do we see them ? Any red shift or blue there?

We have found no particles that travel faster than c.

Tytower, here's my shot at a quick and dirty explanation. Chris or anyone else, feel free to jump in.

Massive objects cause curvature of the space-time around them. This curvature is what we call gravity. In relativity, gravity is geometry. All massive objects, as well as EM radiation, travel in straight lines along curved space. The event horizon of a black hole represents the point at which light, trying to leave the black hole in any direction, would follow a curved path back into the hole. Since no massive object can go faster than light, the event horizon marks the boundary from which no object can escape. The event horizon is not a physical structure - it is a mathematically defined sphere around the black hole, its size determined by the hole's mass.

Imagine a photon passing a black hole. If the path of the photon through curved space lands inside the event horizon, the photon is doomed. If the path manages to graze the hole but not the event horizon, the photon follows the curved path and then continues off into space. There is also the possibility of a particular path in which a photon can end up orbiting the event horizon but not falling in. The point is, in all these scenarios the photon is still traveling at exactly c.

I think it's worth noting that, as Chris pointed out, light travels more slowly through materials such as atmospheric gasses or glass. This is due to the fact that the absorption and re-emission of photons by atoms as they pass through a medium is not instantaneous. Different materials absorb and re-emit light over different periods of time. However, light is still traveling at c between the particles!

[tytower]

"curved space" Man you have really got it bad . Stand back ,sit down under a tree ,take the time and have another look . This curved space idea is because we can't really draw it in three dimensions. You have let the 2 dimension demonstrable model take hold of your imagination. The black mass/black hole does not roll around on a thin rubber mat like Homer Simpson sees it.

" The event horizon of a black hole represents the point at which light, trying to leave the black hole in any direction, would follow a curved path back into the hole." Well this ain't gunna happen. Once it goes in it falls due to the gravity and it don't come out. What's made inside cant get out . what's bending it in ? Gravity .Why would it not follow the path of a cannonball ?

My thought is there is possibly star matter being ejected out of the poles which is the only feasible place it might get out from being under just unimaginable pressures that really are where the big bang theory might be able to be slotted . Any real big bang leftovers I would attribute to this.

" in all these scenarios the photon is still travelling at exactly c." yes, you defined it as a photon . Until it falls in ! It don't go round and round inside it falls just about straight down. And why not ? I would have thought it is quite possible that the photon would be accelerated past the speed of light on this brief downward journey but we will never know

" However, light is still traveling at c between the particles!" I'll think about that but at this stage I doubt it. If compared to a cue ball moving through trillions of billiard balls in 3 dimensions ,there would not be a straight line path through the minefield so it must hit some .Each one it hits must receive energy and the cue ball must lose some and vector off and slow. The path must be slower because it is a longer path OK but the loss of energy must affect the cue balls speed too.

So sorry to disagree - I really enjoy the opinions and I don't mean to be dis-respectful , I just think a little differently to the Uni produced Professor. Much more simply because I don't have to carry the clutter and I can have irresponsible ideas

Hey and don't quarks move faster than light? Thats what I read but then some more modern sources say
"But despite these high speeds, the quarks never exceed the speed of light. As a massive particle such as a quark approaches the speed of light, its momentum and kinetic energy grow without bounds. For that reason, even if you gave all the energy in the world to a single quark, its speed would still remain just a hair less than the speed of light."

Now all this above but no-one has ever seen a quark. Arn't these expert statements odd at times ,so forcefully positive.I thought hang on I've heard that before ? Oh of course that's the old spaceships can't go faster than light theory because their mass, get this ,their mass increases the faster they go. Where does that increased mass come from? Even Dr Spock would tell you that warp speed 9 is possible given the right ship.

[Chris Peterson]

So sorry to disagree - I really enjoy the opinions and I don't mean to be dis-respectful , I just think a little differently to the Uni produced Professor. Much more simply because I don't have to carry the clutter and I can have irresponsible ideas

Or, as most people would call that "clutter", ideas supported by the weight of evidence and observation. Sorry, but if you want to pick at modern physics, you'll have to do a lot better.

Hey and don't quarks move faster than light?

No. Every particle with a rest mass greater than zero travels slower than c (not necessarily slower than light). Every particle with a rest mass of zero travels at c in a vacuum, less than c in a medium. Quarks to not have zero mass (although at the quantum level, mass itself has a non-intuitive definition). There are cases where particles can be treated as moving faster than c, which is allowed if no information is being transmitted faster than c. There are many cases where particles in some medium are observed to travel faster than light in that medium.

Now all this above but no-one has ever seen a quark.

That depends on how you define "see". Quarks are observed.

Oh of course that's the old spaceships can't go faster than light theory because their mass, get this ,their mass increases the faster they go. Where does that increased mass come from?

That is well described by Special Relativity. If you want to challenge that, I'd suggest first understanding it!

[Chris Peterson]

It has been said that light can escape a black hole. Is that because the escape velocity of the black hole is greater than c?

(I assume you mean can't escape a black hole.) Basically, yes. Viewed relativistically, there is a somewhat different explanation, but that summarizes the concept when framed using classical physics.

[Ann]

It has been said that light can escape a black hole. Is that because the escape velocity of the black hole is greater than c?

(I assume you mean can't escape a black hole.)

Thanks. I just edited it.

Ann

[tytower]

Or, as most people would call that "clutter", ideas supported by the weight of evidence and observation. Sorry, but if you want to pick at modern physics, you'll have to do a lot better.

Hey and don't quarks move faster than light?

No. Every particle with a rest mass greater than zero travels slower than c (not necessarily slower than light). Every particle with a rest mass of zero travels at c in a vacuum, less than c in a medium. Quarks to not have zero mass (although at the quantum level, mass itself has a non-intuitive definition). There are cases where particles can be treated as moving faster than c, which is allowed if no information is being transmitted faster than c. There are many cases where particles in some medium are observed to travel faster than light in that medium.

Now all this above but no-one has ever seen a quark.

That depends on how you define "see". Quarks are observed.

Oh of course that's the old spaceships can't go faster than light theory because their mass, get this ,their mass increases the faster they go. Where does that increased mass come from?

That is well described by Special Relativity. If you want to challenge that, I'd suggest first understanding it!

Well chris as I said, I learnt your language a long time ago and decided to chuck it for more common sense approaches
So if you want to speak my language you will have to re-learn common sense and reality.
So high and mighty .Science was pretty sure we had a flat earth at one stage, not so very long ago

[owlice]

Well chris as I said, I learnt your language a long time ago and decided to chuck it for more common sense approaches
So if you want to speak my language you will have to re-learn common sense and reality.
So high and mighty .Science was pretty sure we had a flat earth at one stage, not so very long ago

No, science did not.

Ty, kindly remember this is a science forum.

[Chris Peterson]

Well chris as I said, I learnt your language a long time ago and decided to chuck it for more common sense approaches
So if you want to speak my language you will have to re-learn common sense and reality.

No thanks, I'll stick with mine. It evolved over a couple thousand years, with contributions from the greatest human minds ever to exist. It is the only language which has proven effective in describing the mechanisms of nature- quite unlike "common sense", which fails time and again in that particular task.

[geckzilla]

Where did you learn your science from originally, ty? I'm not sure whoever taught you did a very good job at it. Science never assumed the world was flat and the fact that you are saying that tells me you've been around people who have spread this fallacy in an attempt to discredit science, but it's a lie made up by people who don't know better. The only reason people would believe the earth is flat would be before anyone knew what science was. Stop and think where or who you heard that from and then look for a different source that refutes it. Then decide which is probably right for yourself instead of repeating something that's been told to you. That's science. None of us were born yesterday. We've all had many (some many more than others!) years to learn and come to our conclusions from many different backgrounds.

[Orca]

Science through the ages has produced discoveries that contradicted the social/political/religious views of the time, sometimes with dire consequences for the discoverer.

Well chris as I said, I learnt your language a long time ago and decided to chuck it for more common sense approaches
So if you want to speak my language you will have to re-learn common sense and reality.
So high and mighty .Science was pretty sure we had a flat earth at one stage, not so very long ago

[tytower]

Poor dumb bear . Can't protect itself from us unscroupulous humans .
This is a prime example of how you twist what you see to suit your views .

Mine is just opinion and truthfully expressed . You can make of it what you will it won't change my beliefs.
I don't expect to change yours . Just place a bit of possibility on the plate. You don't have to eat it.

[bystander]

This is a science forum, not a place to voice your non-scientific viewpoints.
Please read The Rules before posting. This thread is closed.