Opik's Razor
 
Clear as a bell. Great, succinct way to explain things.
 
OK, understanding that much now, here's my dilemma :
After any explosion the energy source is depleted. 
None remains. The gunpowder or U-234, or whatnot,
is used up.
 
Seems to me that what propels the explosive "cloud" is
momentum. The shrapnel or other residue no longer 
draws on a source of energy. It is self propelled,
you might say. 
 
Or think of a skier. He or she pushes off at the top of a ski run.
That's all the energy it takes. Not even one HP. But in a half minute
the skier is zooming along at 70 MPH. Gravity does just about
everything necessary. But is gravity a form of "energy" ?
 
If it is, I have never heard of gravity described this way before.
 
In a 3-dimensional volume there is no up or down, of course,
and gravity can pull in any direction. 
 
Now, do we know that the Visible Universe is limitless or  infinite
in extent in every direction ? We don't have a clue.
 
There was an astronomer / astrophysicist named Opik, think this
is the correct spelling, who posited that we exist in a field of  universes,
like soap bubbles in a sink, each bubble a universe. 
 
Is this view testable ?  Maybe it is. If it is true, then no energy  source
is necessary to account for acceleration. Nearby bubbles  /  universes
are providing the impetus. The gravity would be very distended,
no idea if it could be measured, but even an itty-bit per cubic X  of volume
and that would be sufficient, so it seems to me. Viz  Cumulative  effect
added up over billions of years.
 
Ergo, no need to speculate about "dark energy."  You need to
identify where the celestial gravity is coming from.
 
This model is simple ( Ockham's razor ) and elegant.
 
OK, tear it apart, see if I care.
 
Billy 
 
 
PS
You do realize, don't you, that I need coherence
for my system of science-fiction planets ?
Why else would I be so tenacious ?
I don't really have feelings for the Crab Nebula
or for far off galaxies discovered by Hubble,
but I have proprietary interest in my
dozens of imaginary worlds.
 
 
-----------------------------------------------------------
 
 
message dated 10/6/2011  [email protected] writes:

 
Actually, the  pitcher’s upper arm isn’t traveling at 95 mph, but with the 
leverage of his  external limb, wrist, hand, and digits he can achieve 95 
mph at the tips of  his fingers when the ball is released.  Stick an atlatl 
at the end of his  hand and you get even greater velocity thanks to the 
leverage of the  atlatl.  The energy that propels the object is provided by the 
thrower’s  muscles, the velocity is increased by leverage. 
With a universe  that is expanding at an accelerating pace, we have to 
assume that there is  some “muscle” that is still providing energy to increase 
the rate of  expansion.  Who knows, perhaps the energy source ended and a  
universe-sized atlatl is still whipping around because of the original energy 
 imparted by the big bang.     
Chris 
 
------------------------------------------
Christopher P. Hahn, Ph.D. 
Constructive  Agreement, LLC 
[email protected]_ (mailto:[email protected])  
P.O. Box 39,  Bozeman, MT   59771 
(406)  522-4143 (406) 556-7116  fax
------------------------------------------ 

 
 
From:  [email protected] 
[mailto:[email protected]]  On Behalf Of [email protected]
Sent: Thursday, October 06, 2011  4:50 PM
To: [email protected]
Cc:  [email protected]
Subject: Re: [RC] Dumb  Question

 
 
comments  below
 

 

 
message dated 10/6/2011 3:40:58  P.M. Pacific Daylight Time, 
[email protected]_ (mailto:[email protected])   writes:

Hi  Billy,  
 
 
 
On  Oct 6, 2011, at 3:07 PM, [email protected]_ (mailto:[email protected])   
wrote:

 
OK,  assuming that much, why wouldn't simple inertia account  for
 
current  observations about the accelerated speed of  expansion
 
of the  universe ?  That is, throw a baseball and for a time its  speed
 
is far  greater than the speed of the pitcher's arm  movements
 
that  released the ball. Yes, it begins to decelerate after a  distance
 
but not  until X distance has been traversed.
 



 
Um , yes. 
 

 

 
If for no other reason that a  pitcher stands on a mound which is
 
a foot or so higher than the  playing field.
 

 
Really obvious  if  the pitcher was standing on top of a mountain peak
 
in the Sierras. The force of  gravity would add acceleration to the speed
 
of the ball, at least for X  distance. And all this is about is the 
distance "X."
 

 
But is a pitcher's arm really  zooming along at 95 mph when getting set
 
to throw a ball ?  That  is a typical speed for a ball thrown by a
 
major league pitcher. Seems to  me this is also about
 
the multiplier effect of  leverage.
 

 

 
Billy
 

 

 
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
 

 
 

 
Um,  no.  At release, the ball is moving exactly as fast as the fingers 
that  propelled it.  After that, it slows down due to friction, unless  gravity 
is accelerating it downwards.
 

 
If  the universes is accelerating after "release", something is effectively 
 "pulling" it.
 

 
E


--  
Centroids: The Center of the Radical Centrist Community 
<[email protected]_ (mailto:[email protected]) >
Google  Group: _http://groups.google.com/group/RadicalCentrism_ 
(http://groups.google.com/group/RadicalCentrism) 
Radical  Centrism website and blog: _http://RadicalCentrism.org_ 
(http://radicalcentrism.org/) 

 





-- 
Centroids: The Center of the Radical Centrist Community 
<[email protected]>
Google Group: http://groups.google.com/group/RadicalCentrism
Radical Centrism website and blog: http://RadicalCentrism.org

Reply via email to