Starship Asterisk*

Entropy trumps all else, if the universe was infinite in age all matter would be a homogeneous conglomeration of energies of a uniform temperature.

Gravity controls the size of the Universe while the electric force controls the size of the electron. The strength of the electric charge controls the life span of virtual particle-antiparticle pairs, while the strength of the gravitational charge controls the life span of the Universe - including, coincidentally, the half-life of proton decay. When g = c, as in the interior of black holes, these distance, time, and force scales are (locally) equal. In black holes, space collapses, time stands still, and proton decay is as commonplace as particle-antiparticle annihilation

Gravity does not control the size of the universe. The universe is a word given to the total "ALL".
The life span of the universe,,,,,,,,where does this character get his info from.
Time cannot stand still.

Relative time can. A person traveling at the speed of light renders time motionless to the rest of the observer's universe

As approaching the edge of the universe as space/time becomes "weaker" both time and distance decrease in magnitude. A distance becomes shorter but it takes longer to traverse. If you choose to use infinity, at the edge of the universe it would take infinitely long to move an infinitely short distance. We know that space/time is a derivative of mass, without mass space/time does not exist. Near a black hole, the effect is reversed.

harry wrote:
The universe has no edge in what ever logic you use. If you use man's maths than maybe space/time is a derivative, but ! time, actual time cannot be changed. Cannot be lengthen, shorten or given different dimensions.

You just as well prove that santa clause is true.

harry wrote:Hello All

Time is relative when we talk of the means of communication.

The actual time does not change.

Time cannot be changed.

Unless someone gives me evidence of actual changes.

Than we can produce a time machine.

We all have that dream, to travel in time.

The Special Theory of Relativity (as developed by Einstein) obtains a set of equations (i.e. the Lorentz Transformation formulae) which relates length and time units of two systems moving uniformly relatively to each other. Unlike the equations of the usual Galilei Transformation, these are not merely a linear transformation (describing the change in distance between two points due to the motion), but they are non-linear in the velocity due to an additional factor γ containing the ratio of the velocity and the speed of light (see for instance my Aberration page for details). This factor γ corresponds to the amount of 'length contraction' and 'time dilation' that, according to Special Relativity, should be taken into account if transforming length and time units between different reference frames moving relatively to each other with non-zero velocity. However, this re-scaling of the space and time coordinates is in fact the result of Einstein ignoring the principle of the constancy of the speed of light by applying the usual vectorial velocity addition and then subsequently trying to compensate for this error by making a further error and changing the given length and time definitions (see my page regarding the Speed of Light). As indicated on my page, with a consistent definition for the 'Speed of Light', no re-scaling of the length and time units is indeed required to make it independent of the motion of objects. The conclusions of time dilation and length contraction are hence invalid because they are based on a set of equations that is inconsistent with physical principles. This inconsistency is also evident from the well known 'Twin Paradox' which is due to the fact that motion is always only relative and any time dilation effect would therefore be ambiguous. Some physicists claim that the situation would in practice not be symmetric as one observer has to turn around in order to compare the clocks (see for instance http://www.phys.vt.edu/~jhs/faq/twins.html), but it is clear that this argument does not hold water as the time dilation should already be apparent before one observer turns around. This is best illustrated by the following thought experiment which does not involve any change of the state of motion of both observers:

One should note that the situation depicted above does not even involve any transmission of light signals at all and hence the basic assumption of Special Relativity does not apply in the first place. The clocks are started and stopped in each reference frame simultaneously and independently and both clocks will thus show identical times after having been stopped (after the clocks have been stopped it is obviously irrelevant if A or B (or both) turn around to compare the clocks).
It should also be pointed out that the signal propagation time from the trigger points to the clocks is irrelevant here (whatever way of transmitting the signal is used): if the corresponding distances are identical in both systems, then the delay times will also be identical and there won't be any difference in the clock readings afterwards; if the distances are different, this would only result in a constant offset of the clocks which would be known and could be taken into account accordingly.

As indicated on my pages relativity.htm, dynamics.htm and on the Relativity Forum pages, any alleged experimental evidence for the time dilation must therefore be due to actual physical effects (e.g. charged particles moving in electric and magnetic fields).

Finally, in a recent article, Ashby [[xv]] claimed that the clock-epoch correction term (also called the “time slippage” term) in the Lorentz transformations, (see Eq. ), can be dropped in SR even when its value is large, but he is very vague about why. In LR, this term can be dropped because initial clock synchronization is arbitrary. However, this particular term is the only difference of consequence between Einstein synchronization of clocks in different inertial frames and Lorentz synchronization of clocks to an underlying “universal time”. And the GPS system has been designed to use Lorentz synchronization, for which one frame, the local gravity field or ECI, is special; not Einstein synchronization, wherein clocks tick at their natural rates and all inertial frames are equivalent. By itself, this does not prove LR “right” or SR “wrong”. But the practical difficulties for GPS of not changing the natural rates of clocks pre-launch, or with the use of SR for any frame other than the Lorentzian preferred frame, are very great. If a ring of satellites (A, B, C, …, Y, Z) circled the Earth in a common orbit, and each satellite tried to Einstein synchronize with the next in sequence, then when Z tried to complete the circuit by Einstein-synchronizing with A, the corrections required would lead to time readings for A different from the starting readings, making closure impossible. In fact a single satellite clock could not Einstein-synchronize with itself because the time for a light beam to travel forward around the orbit differs from the time for the same signal to travel backwards around the orbit.



In summary, Table 1 shows the major features of and differences between the two competing theories for the relativity of motion, Einstein special relativity and Lorentzian relativity. Experiments have now decided in favor of the interpretations in the last column.

One for Harry

After looking at astro-ph today I noticed a couple of interesting papers, one is the crazy Iron sun theory that Harry has mentioned, I'm afraid it hasn't got any more lucid.

http://arxiv.org/pdf/astro-ph/0609509

The second however is much more interesting. The investigators were looking for evidence that Quasars are associated with low red-shift galaxies, a la Halton Arp. Now most people know I don't give much credit to this theory, however it does look like they have found a reasonably strong correlation between Sloan digital sky survey quasars and the minor axes of edge-on spirals.

http://arxiv.org/pdf/astro-ph/0609514

This at first glance looks like a fairly nice paper, there is definitely something wierd going on here. The authors are only prepared to call it tentative, though they have quoted confidences of greater than 3 sigma.

This is very interesting, at a rough reading it seems likely that this effect is probably something to do with the way the SDSS chooses which objects to get redshifts for (and therefore potentially classify as quasars). Selection effects in large surveys like this are very tricky things and building a larger sample (by including more galaxies) tends to make the effect worse, in contrast to what happens when your trying to beat down statistical noise.
Hopefully the people at the SDSS will have some comment soon.

Anyway, nice to have a bit of controversy, and it sort of gives the lie to Arps claim that astronomers just ignore his theories.

What are peoples thoughts?

If neutron stars are supposed to emit some unknown energy, that is the energy that supposedly powers the sun, fine. Why then are all the other neutron stars we observe (usually as pulsars) not as luminous as the Sun? All the pulsars that have been observed, have emission that looks exactly like what you would expect if they were objects cooling down, or accreting matter from a companion star.

The final problem being, just how do you form stars in the first place? How do the stars that become the neutron star form. You see Harry this is where you haven't thought about the implications of this idea for your own theories, you prefer an eternal unchanging universe. But to have a generation of stars that can form without these neutron stars requires a first generation, a generation of stars different from all of the ones today (which apparently all have neutron stars in them). Or is it simply a case of turtles all the way down?

Wadsworth wrote:Welcome Nereid! Link away, sounds interesting.

harry wrote:Hello Nereid

You need to come up with a better explanation.

The above just tells me that you do not understand the issues and that you have not read the papers.

I do not care about the people that wrote the topics. I 'm looking at the logics behind it and the overall funtioning of stars and the universe.

Getting the density of the sun is ok. Finding the varies make ups is another issue. The make up of the inner core, outer core, varies layers and so on.

Nereid do not be too quick to close on ideas. Keep the door open or else you will be left with a closed mind.

harry wrote:It may take 1.4 sun mass to form the neutron core. Than it will break down to what ever level beore it loses its ability to hold the neutrons together. This crirical mass may also be the tricker in starting another supernova. Mass will determine the ability to balance the heat and keep the solar envelope together.

Once the critical mass is reached, it release energetic photons that split the iron atoms and causes a chain reaction releasing huge amounts of energy.

Problem is, there's no mechanism by which they can spontaneously break down. Gravity dominates in a neutron star, overpowering even the strong force. There's no decay mode that I'm aware of that can cause mass loss from this environment.