# Galaxies the Same 11 Billion Year Ago

## Recommended Posts

In the above IBM experiment light is slowed to a crawl, however, time is not slowed to a crawl for the materials inside the chip. Correct? I think you might say they are not tied together.

Do you envision any practical or theoretical applications for time travel, or is it all a fallacy?

If an astronaut neared the speed of light would there be physical changes to his mind or body, not tied to normal aging and the physical affects of traveling? If time has varied between the speedy traveler and those back on earth, would there be other variances?

Slowing light to a crawl using material properties of a media is not affecting time itself.

When the currency of time measurement [speed of light] is affected the rate of time is locally affected. I do not support the 4-dimensional view of space-time so there is no means of time travel in the sense normal envisioned in science fiction. You can't travel to the past, you can vary the rate of how fast your travel into the future in your local frame.

Astronauts should not be affected by a differing rate of time. Other effects - gravity, acceleration may occur but that is not time rate related.

Dennis

• Replies 93
• Created
• Last Reply

#### Popular Days

Using spy capabilities honed during my stint at the NSA I discovered that Ba’al wrote, “Light travels 186,000 miles a second in near vacuum space.”

Your’re kidding, right? “I feel the need, the need for speed.” So I will go jogging at three miles per hour which means I am traveling closer to the speed of light than you chair bound mortals. Would I need to run in the direction of the earth's rotation to be faster?

Peter

##### Share on other sites

Using spy capabilities honed during my stint at the NSA I discovered that Ba’al wrote, “Light travels 186,000 miles a second in near vacuum space.”

Your’re kidding, right? “I feel the need, the need for speed.” So I will go jogging at three miles per hour which means I am traveling closer to the speed of light than you chair bound mortals. Would I need to run in the direction of the earth's rotation to be faster?

Peter

No matter how fast the frame of reference is moving or the light source is moving the speed of light is the same in a vacuum. Relativistically velocities do not add.

##### Share on other sites

I'm moving at the speed of Brant.

--Brant

##### Share on other sites

Ba’al wrote:

Relativistically velocities do not add.

end quote

Didn’t Newton prove un-special velocities added? Assuming your Relativity mentioned above is not “special” but your cognitive functioning is, Wikipedia needs your math skills. All throughout the article they show the word, “edit,” inviting *Quants* to contribute to the lazy world’s knowledge.

Peter

Special theory of relativity

According to the theory of special relativity, the frame of the ship has a different clock rate and distance measure, and the notion of simultaneity in the direction of motion is altered, so the addition law for velocities is changed. This change is not noticeable at low velocities but as the velocity increases towards the speed of light it becomes important. The addition law is also called a composition law for velocities. For collinear motions, the velocity of the fly relative to the shore is given by

This is also the law of addition of hyperbolic tangents

where

which shows that the composition of collinear velocities is associative and commutative. The quantities α and β (equal to the artanh of the velocities divided by c) are known as rapidities. The reason that the velocities are hyperbolic tangents is because the Lorentz transformation can be thought of as the application of a hyperbolic rotation through a hyperbolic angle which is the rapidity. Suppose the velocity of a line in space-time is the slope of the line, which is the hyperbolic tangent of the rapidity, just as the slope of the x-axis after a rotation is given by the tangent of the rotation angle. When a plane is successively rotated by two angles, the final rotation is by the sum of the two angles. So the final slope of the x-axis is the tangent of the sum of the two angles. In the same way, the slope of the time axis after two boosts is the hyperbolic tangent of the sum of the two rapidities.

The composition formula can take an algebraically equivalent form, which can be easily derived by using only the principle of constancy of the speed of light:[1]

The colinear law of composition of velocities gave the first test of the kinematics of the special theory of relativity. Using a Michelson interferometer, Fizeau measured the speed of light in a fluid moving parallel to the light. The speed of light in the fluid is slower than the speed of light in vacuum, and it changes if the fluid is moving along with the light. The speed of light in a colinear moving fluid is predicted accurately by the colinear case of the relativistic formula.

Galilean addition of velocities

As Galileo observed, if a ship is moving relative to the shore at velocity v, and a fly is moving with velocity u as measured on the ship, calculating the velocity of the fly as measured on the shore is what is meant by the addition of the velocities v and u. When both the fly and the ship are moving slowly compared to light, it is accurate enough to use the vector sum

where s is the velocity of the fly relative to the shore.

##### Share on other sites

Galilean relativity is close to right at low speeds and just plain wrong at speeds approaching that of light in vacuum.

Summing the velocities v1 and v2 in special relativity gives v1 "plus" v2 = (v1 + v2)/(1 + v1*v2*1/c^2)

When v1 and v2 are small compared to c then the denominator is nearly 1 and the formula closely matches the classical sum of velocities.

Ba'al Chatzaf

##### Share on other sites

Galilean relativity and Newtonian Physics are so passé. What would be the perfect special affect to correctly illustrate faster than light transport?

On a different idea from this thread, The Big Guy in the Sky, George Carlin, might have quipped, “Evolution is a process that never stops. Could life from earth, no matter how it began here, or there, be eternal? Evolution of some form of life could always reproduce no matter the “conditions,” unless the complete “conditions” were wiped out by something like a supernova. And even then perhaps the solar system and the universe is already seeded by life from earth. Perhaps the cosmos are already teeming with life. That is a nice thought unless we are invaded by something like Robert Heinlein’s giant bugs.”

I have suggested before that no matter how lowly or elevated, the preponderance of life-forms always seek to live eternally. (Suicides are miniscule and do not affect evolution.) Is evolution inevitably eternal?

Peter

##### Share on other sites

Is evolution inevitably eternal?

Peter,

Now that's a hell of a question.

Eternity cuts both ways, to the past and to the future.

Michael

##### Share on other sites

Evolution is a type of change. Change is inevitable for it's associated with motion.

--Brant

##### Share on other sites

Is evolution inevitably eternal?

Peter,

Now that's a hell of a question.

Eternity cuts both ways, to the past and to the future.

Michael

If some version of panspermia is true [lithopanspermia my favorite] then life on Earth may be the result of events reaching back many billions of years - even longer if The Big Bang theory is BS as I believe it is. Life may arise independently many times and may be seeded by lithopanspermia over and over - there is no reason to exclude many starts or multiple starts and restarts. As I've noted here and elsewhere high altitude balloon collection samples either indicate: A. panspermia rains life on the Earth constantly or B. Atmospheric transport modeling is entirely wrong [as is Ozone Hole and Global Warming modeling] or C. Both.

We know primitive life can hibernate for tens of millions of years and be revived, we know meteorites can be ejected and re-enter another planet without heating to the point of sterilization, we know many forms of life can withstand vacuum and intense radiation, we know even minor amounts of natural shielding makes a huge difference in being able to withstand radiation, we know some primitive life forms have evolved to thrive under harsh radiation, we know there are life form and pre-life forms more primitive than bacteria but very complex themselves and containing many of the ingredients of life, we know huge amounts of materials get ejected during solar systems and planetary formation, we know entire planets get ejected on a regular basis during solar system formation, we know that many stars pass close enough to each other over their lives that many overlapping encounters of outer bodies likely happen [passing comets, asteroids, and minor bodies between solar systems].

It seems likely that once life gets started it is hard to stamp out and has many possible means of escape from one star system to another, one galaxy to another and on and on.

Dennis

##### Share on other sites

The simplest life is so complex it doesn't seem explainable by lightning hitting the primordial muck, no matter how many times.

--Brant

ignorance rules

##### Share on other sites

Brant wrote, “. . . ignorance rules.”

No it doesn’t. Evolution IS intelligent design, not to be confused with the various myths of an All Mighty Zeus. If you are doing what is right for survival you are designed intelligently. Hmmm? That idea may be a conflation and I am not even imbibing alcohol, nor do I have any indications of a stroke : - )

If the entity’s design is in compliance to reality the entity lives and reproduces successfully. Where you are determines the local conditions. Ah, “Reality and Realty” is one of my internal conflation of ideas. *Reality* is everything so I should say “local reality / realty.” And reality can‘t be intelligent, it just is. Humans desire to act according to reality to survive and prosper so we behave in an intelligent manner. But then, are the irrational elements of human society such as the Progressives, Islamic dictatorships, and national bankruptcy a way of committing suicide as a species? I think Randians in many ways mirror Social Darwinists.

Maybe it is time for bed, but I have one more “think.” Assuming Dennis May’s theory of an eternal Universe is comforting but what if the Universe is going to contract and repeat “The Big Bang?” What if the Universe is headed towards entropy billions of years in the future? Is there any hope for evolution and life continuing?

##### Share on other sites

Michael wrote:

Eternity cuts both ways, to the past and to the future.

end quote

Ah, I just got it. My basic assumption is life began at some point so it cannot be eternal unless it stretches into the past to the very creation of the universe. To be eternal, Life would need to spring into existence at the instant that existence, first existed. To be more correct my hypothesis is more correctly expressed by saying, “Life began after the beginning of existence but it will continue until the end of existence unless life can figure out a way to create a new existence before the old existence vanishes.” At which point . . . I think I will take an Ambien.

Peter

##### Share on other sites

Wouldn't existence be boring if there were only one big bang orgasm?

If you're the universe, now that you've shot your wad, what's left?

Michael

##### Share on other sites

Since I believe in an infinitely old universe that will continue into the infinite future I also believe there has always been life and always will be. Unlike Brant I do not see life being so complex that it cannot arise all the time given what appears to be fairly common circumstances. If fact that is the dominant view in evolutionary biology - life will arise under a number of favorable circumstances given sufficient time.

Those favorable circumstances have grown into quite a list of possibilities - deep ocean volcanic vents, voids between various clay substrates [essentially mud/rock], crevices that cycle between warm and very cold, warm pools full of muck, and on and on. Essentially any place where organics can accumulate along with water and there is some source of radiant or chemical energy - which is to say trillions of places on Earth alone at any given time.

Before you have life you have a mess of things that aren't life as we know it but may be able to replicate, can form what are essentially cell membranes, and form all kinds of complex interactions. All of these things are seen in the lab.

You don't need a design - you need feedback and death/survival/replication mechanisms. Time will take whatever is there and what survives and replicates can grow more complex over the billions of generations available.

Dennis

##### Share on other sites

Dennis,

You and I agree on everything you just said.

Given the widely held acceptance of the Laws of Thermodynamics in the scientific establishment how come the infinite universe view (IUV) is not favored over the Big Bang version or are advocates of the BB merely keeping this IUV to themselves?

I surmised that anything which existed before the BB was "broken" down into subatomic particles in the process and therefore no evidence of whatever preceded the BB survived. But I always believed that something existed before the BB.

Still the idea of an eternal universe was considered to be an example of a perpetual motion machine which was supposed to be impossible because of the issue of entropy. What role does entropy play in your understanding of the "infinite future" you mention?

GG

##### Share on other sites

Dennis,

You and I agree on everything you just said.

Given the widely held acceptance of the Laws of Thermodynamics in the scientific establishment how come the infinite universe view (IUV) is not favored over the Big Bang version or are advocates of the BB merely keeping this IUV to themselves?

I surmised that anything which existed before the BB was "broken" down into subatomic particles in the process and therefore no evidence of whatever preceded the BB survived. But I always believed that something existed before the BB.

Still the idea of an eternal universe was considered to be an example of a perpetual motion machine which was supposed to be impossible because of the issue of entropy. What role does entropy play in your understanding of the "infinite future" you mention?

GG

The 2nd law of thermodynamics does not apply to an open system. Hence the assumption of an infinitely large infinitely old universe eliminates the issue of entropy from the discussion.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_law_of_thermodynamics

"The second law of thermodynamics states that the entropy of an isolated system never decreases," - note "isolated system".

When the 2nd law is derived in undergraduate thermodynamics this point is made very clearly - it only applies to an isolated system - not open systems.

The Big Bang theory is an ever evolving target - pick a particular version of it any particular year and observation can at most support portions of the idea - but only then by including

a number of fixes with no basis in science what-so-ever. It is legacy science [primarily the failed General Theory of Relativity] which keeps cosmologists on the Big Bang wagon.

Since the Big Bang concept has no support in actual science the idea of what came before it is even further removed. General Relativity cannot even model gravity in galaxies - not

even close. It cannot form the basis of a universal cosmology.

Dennis

##### Share on other sites

Dennis wrote:

Since the Big Bang concept has no support in actual science the idea of what came before it is even further removed.

end quote

Speak the truth, but leave immediately after. -- Slovenian Proverb

Not only can a true Objectivist handle the truth, we relish the truth, like a toddler during its first excursion at the edge of the ocean’s surf. To reiterate, if we see “deeper” into the universe with telescopes we are seeing the Universe as it was. The disputed theory is that IF we see far enough back in time, we will see “The Big Bang.” One opposing theory is that we can never see “the beginning” because there was no beginning. An earlier version of existence has always existed. I would presume Dennis would agree that there has never been a change in “the laws of existence” as with thermodynamics, throughout time.

The concept that billions and billions of circumstances, places, and times will inevitably, and spontaneously “combust” into *life* is awe inspiring and spiritual though the opposite of faith based. I think The Big Bang Theory is also inspiring and spiritual but corresponds to the faith based mythologies of uninformed (though not necessarily stupid) humans. Isn’t that comforting? Well, not if the faith based are a majority. Yet, I don’t see Dennis May, sentient human and uber rebel, caving like Galileo.

Dennis wrote about The BBT, “It cannot form the basis of a universal cosmology.”

If the Universe is expanding forever, and there is a finite amount of matter, is our fate to be still and frozen? I still think there will be mighty conglomerates of massive black holes combining from gravitation or other processes to recreate localized, life saving and life generating, energy.

Peter

##### Share on other sites

Wouldn't existence be boring if there were only one big bang orgasm?

If you're the universe, now that you've shot your wad, what's left?

Michael

I can't shoot. This is too easy.

--Brant

##### Share on other sites

Since I believe in an infinitely old universe that will continue into the infinite future I also believe there has always been life and always will be. Unlike Brant I do not see life being so complex that it cannot arise all the time given what appears to be fairly common circumstances. If fact that is the dominant view in evolutionary biology - life will arise under a number of favorable circumstances given sufficient time.

Those favorable circumstances have grown into quite a list of possibilities - deep ocean volcanic vents, voids between various clay substrates [essentially mud/rock], crevices that cycle between warm and very cold, warm pools full of muck, and on and on. Essentially any place where organics can accumulate along with water and there is some source of radiant or chemical energy - which is to say trillions of places on Earth alone at any given time.

Before you have life you have a mess of things that aren't life as we know it but may be able to replicate, can form what are essentially cell membranes, and form all kinds of complex interactions. All of these things are seen in the lab.

You don't need a design - you need feedback and death/survival/replication mechanisms. Time will take whatever is there and what survives and replicates can grow more complex over the billions of generations available.

Dennis

We are much closer in declining complexity to a single-celled animal than the single-celled animal is to inanimate matter. So far we can hardly begin to grok that distance and what was in it. (I think the earliest fossil sign of life on earth is about two billion years old.) That complexity is in the respective DNA strands. An avenue of investigation might be viruses and prions and possibly even smaller things, but the smaller they get the harder the investigation.

--Brant

Motel of the Mysteries

##### Share on other sites

Dennis wrote:

Since the Big Bang concept has no support in actual science the idea of what came before it is even further removed.

end quote

Speak the truth, but leave immediately after. -- Slovenian Proverb

Not only can a true Objectivist handle the truth, we relish the truth, like a toddler during its first excursion at the edge of the ocean’s surf. To reiterate, if we see “deeper” into the universe with telescopes we are seeing the Universe as it was. The disputed theory is that IF we see far enough back in time, we will see “The Big Bang.” One opposing theory is that we can never see “the beginning” because there was no beginning. An earlier version of existence has always existed. I would presume Dennis would agree that there has never been a change in “the laws of existence” as with thermodynamics, throughout time.

The concept that billions and billions of circumstances, places, and times will inevitably, and spontaneously “combust” into *life* is awe inspiring and spiritual though the opposite of faith based. I think The Big Bang Theory is also inspiring and spiritual but corresponds to the faith based mythologies of uninformed (though not necessarily stupid) humans. Isn’t that comforting? Well, not if the faith based are a majority. Yet, I don’t see Dennis May, sentient human and uber rebel, caving like Galileo.

Dennis wrote about The BBT, “It cannot form the basis of a universal cosmology.”

If the Universe is expanding forever, and there is a finite amount of matter, is our fate to be still and frozen? I still think there will be mighty conglomerates of massive black holes combining from gravitation or other processes to recreate localized, life saving and life generating, energy.

Peter

There is the matter of cosmic expansion. There is very strong evidence that the cosmos is expanding hence it must have been smaller in the past than it is now. What was the cosmos when it was the smallest it ever was? When was that? etc. etc. The steady state theory of the Cosmos is just plain wrong.

##### Share on other sites

Wouldn't existence be boring if there were only one big bang orgasm?

If you're the universe, now that you've shot your wad, what's left?

Michael

One thing left is observation of the consequences.

##### Share on other sites

There is the matter of cosmic expansion. There is very strong evidence that the cosmos is expanding hence it must have been smaller in the past than it is now. What was the cosmos when it was the smallest it ever was? When was that? etc. etc. The steady state theory of the Cosmos is just plain wrong.

What we have are the observations that: distant galaxies are red-shifted - more red-shifted the further away they are; and the rate of time of distant objects is slower [distant supernovas takes longer to evolve than nearby ones of the same type].

Supporters of the General Theory of Relativity view these observations through the lens of a theory where space can expand to cause these observations. The problem is the theory entirely fails at the scale of a single galaxy much less a scale many trillions of times larger.

Other inconvenient observations: the brightness and angular sizes of galaxies do not match the theory of space expanding in size. The chemistry and maturity of galaxies does not match the Big Bang theory. Some old chemically mature galaxies exist at the furthest reaches of observation. Once you remove cherry picking factors - by in depth observation - the composition of the universe looks the same no matter how far back you look - entirely opposed to the ever changing predictions of the Big Bang theory.

The Cosmic Background Radiation is not symmetric, seems to correlate to nearby features, does not contain expected lensing features you would expect if it came from 13+ billions of years ago, and shadowing by nearby galaxies fills in with distance - something that cannot be explained by a primordial source.

The alternative. A non-linear QM effect where the speed of time is slowly increasing over cosmological distances-time. The speed of the passage of time was slower in the past so distant objects appear red-shifted and the observed speed of time of distant objects is slower.

It is not the steady-state theory of old but a form of a steady-state theory.

The same non-linear QM with spontaneous entanglement allows the dispersal of energy-matter from gravity wells so over vast amounts of time you don't end up with all your matter and energy concentrated in small regions.

As mentioned before the 2nd law of thermodynamics does not apply to open systems.

Dennis

##### Share on other sites

How is this alternative referenced? What would be a falsification? Aren't you using "time" as more than a measurement?

--Brant

excuse me if you've already told us

##### Share on other sites

How is this alternative referenced? What would be a falsification? Aren't you using "time" as more than a measurement?

--Brant

excuse me if you've already told us

This alternative is discussed on Physics_Frontier at YahooGroups.com and in bits and pieces here

at Objectivist Living.

*****

As there is no falsification of the Big Bang theory at the moment - even though it does not

match observation - this alternative theory needs to make new predictions and demonstrate

a new previously unknown effect in the laboratory before support will be forthcoming. In other

words it requires a higher standard than the Big Bang theory presently uses.

*****

It is assumed the rate of time is a variable dependent upon the environment [related to a new

non-linear QM model].

Dennis

## Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

## Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

## Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now