John Clark,
Thanks for your May 30 post. It looks like we are fairly close on time but not on space. Here are my basic thoughts on space. Pardon me if I am repeating myself. Space is total nothingness. It can’t be curved. I suppose it could be expanded. If you move to a bigger house, you will have more space. The Ross Model proposes a shell for our Universe. It is a cold plasma shell comprised of mostly electrons and positrons. It may be many light years thick. On the inside of the shell are 100 to 400 galaxies. I don’t know what is beyond the shell, but I could guess. The shell is currently expanding due to photon pressure from all of the stars in all of the galaxies, which means that the volume of our Universe is expanding. Reflections from the shell and low temperature radiation from the shell gives us our cosmic background radiation. Our shell is like an integrating sphere. Faraway galaxies are all moving away from each other due to photon pressure from the same stars. The pressure is small per square meter but the cross section of galaxies is very large. Plus the pressure is continuous providing an accelerating force that increases the velocity of the galaxies every second for billions of years. The velocities of faraway galaxies may approach or exceed the speed of light. This is anti-gravity. Nearby galaxies are being attracted to each other. This is the result of gravity. According to the Ross Model gravity is the result of destruction of protons and anti-protons in Black Holes. This releases a neutrino entron with each destruction. Neutrino entrons exit the Black Holes as neutrino photons. Neutrino photons are about 1,000 times more energetic than gamma ray photons. Most neutrino photons illuminating stars, planets and moons pass right through providing a backward force directed toward the source of the neutrino photon. A few are temporally stopped and later released giving stars, planets and moons their gravity. I have calculated that the destruction of one earth-size planet in the Milky Way’s Black Hole would produce a neutrino photon flux at our solar system of about 68,000 neutrino photons per meter squared-second. The flux at nearby galaxies would be much less but I believe it is enough to overcome the photon pressure between nearby galaxies. Low-energy photons pass through large distances of intergalactic space more efficiently than neutrino photons. So at very large distances low-energy photons trump the neutrino photons. Since my model proposes that tronnies are point particles occupying no space and that everything in our Universe is made from tronnies or things made from tronnies, our Universe and everything in it must be 100 percent empty space. But every tronnie, based on its charge, is continuously producing Coulomb force waves that expand continuously. This means that our Universe is filled 100 percent with Coulomb waves. These are all traveling at the speed of light in all direction. The result is a huge number (probably infinite) of Coulomb grids. Photons travel in Coulomb grids. Each major thing in our Universe with all of its charged particles creates its own Coulomb grid. Our Universe has a Coulomb grid. Each galaxy has a Coulomb grid. Each star and its planets have one. Planets and moons each have a Coulomb grid. As all of these things move through our Universe at a variety of speeds they carry their grids along with them. Photons travel at the speed of light through Coulomb grids. Large masses can definitely produce a curvature in the mass’s Coulomb grid. So if we define “space” as Coulomb grids, then my model may not be much different than general relativity John Ross From: everything-list@googlegroups.com [mailto:everything-list@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of John Clark Sent: Friday, May 30, 2014 8:56 AM To: everything-list@googlegroups.com Subject: Re: TRONNIES On Thu, May 29, 2014 at 12:08 PM, John Ross <jr...@trexenterprises.com> wrote: > I believe that if we try to measure how fast time is passing in a reference > that is moving very fast with respect to our reference frame, we will get a > different answer than someone measuring how fast time is passing in the fast > moving reference frame. True. > we could measure how much time has passed since the Big Bang, we would all > get the same answer. True. > I read somewhere that the Big Bang occurred 13.72 billion years ago and that > the number was accurate to 4 decimal places. Basically true although the new revised figure from the Planck satellite is 13.82 billion years ago. > I understand some galaxies are moving away from us very fast maybe at speeds > close to the speed of light. Yes, and although we can never see them there is every reason to believe that some galaxies, perhaps an infinite number of them, are moving FASTER than the speed of light. This is not in violation of Einstein because Einstein was talking about how fast things could move in space, not how fast space itself can expand or contract. The difference may seem subtle but it's crucial and has measurable consequences. For a short time I thought I'd figured out how you could theoretically get work out of a universe that is not only expanding but accelerating; suppose you had a spool of string on a axle and you extended the string to cosmological distances and tied a weight on the end of the string. I thought there would be torque on the spool, so the axle would rotate. The axle could then be connected to an electric generator and it seemed to me you'd get useful work out of it. Of course you'd have to constantly add more mass-energy in the form of more string to keep it operating, but the amount of mass per unit length of string would remain constant, but because the universe is accelerating the amount of energy per unit length of string you'd get out of it would not remain constant but would increase asymptotically to infinity. Then I realized my brainstorm wouldn't work, there would be no torque on the spool because the weight on the end of the string was not moving through space with respect to the spool, instead space itself was moving. It's as if I grabbed the string with my left hand 4 feet from the spool and I grabbed the string with my right hand 1 foot from the spool and pulled my hands in opposite directions I would create tension in the string between my hands but I'm doing no work and producing no torque on the spool, and the same would be true of Dark Energy. If I pulled hard enough the string would break and if Dark Energy got strong enough every atom in the string would pull apart from every other atom in it, that's what happens when space expands, but there would still be no torque on the spool and no useful work could be extracted from the spacial expansion. > Would the people in those galaxies make the same estimate as we do? Yes. Distant observers would see different galaxies than we do but just like us all the galaxies they could see would seem to be racing away from them and at a accelerating rate; and just like us when they worked backward they would calculate that 13.82 billion years ago all the stars and galaxies and everything else must have occupied just one point. > If so that would indicate to me that the passage of time is the same > everywhere in our Universe. We know that during the Big Bang some particles must have been created that were moving very very close to the speed of light. Unlike the distant galaxies you were talking about which were not moving through space but more space was being created between then and us, these ultra high speed particles were actually moving through space and so Einstein's rules come into play. To these fast moving particles the Big Bang happened MUCH less than 13.82 billion years ago. > my understanding is that atomic clocks are based on the frequency of light > emitted from certain atomic transitions. Yes. > Maybe the frequency changes at very high relative speeds or at different > gravitational forces or different radial acceleration There is no maybe about it, that is exactly why atomic clocks run slower when they are moving fast, and run faster when they are in a shallower gravitational well than we are. Atoms have internal clocks that tell them how many times per second to change the electromagnetic field, in other words what color of light to emit. In a lab on the Earth we note that when Helium gets hot it emits light at a very particular frequency, but when we look at Helium on a white dwarf star like Sirius B that is in a much deeper gravitational well than we are in on Earth the internal clocks of Helium seem to be running slow and thus the light it emits has a lower frequency, in other words it's red-shifted. Of course to observers on Sirius B their clocks would seem to be running just fine and it's our clocks that are off speed. One observers clock is not more authoritative than another and time is what clocks measure so there is no absolute time. John K Clark -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
