Anybody else on this forum have an interest in physics?

Anybody else on this forum have an interest in physics, specifically the nearly impossible to understand parts? I am reading Relativity & Quantum Mechanics while searching for the elusive Theory of Everything. I keep coming up with ideas and theories which typically means that I missed something and discovering what disproves my theory aids me in learning.

My current idea is that the "expansion of the universe" is a function of curvature of space (General Relativity) more so than residue velocities of the Big Bang. Meaning that the perceived redshift is a result of photons traveling inward (as towards a massive body) and not motion.

Anyone know of a link that provides evidence that disproves this or the equations necessary to computate it?

 

So is your theory that the universe is fixed in size, the stars and galaxies are all fixed in space, but the light that emanates from them exhibits a red shift effect dependent on distance, which is due to the "curvature of space"?

Your theory is basically saying that light slows down the further it travels, so your problem is that it doesn't.

 

I've never heard of anything like that, I only know as much physics as I need to for my chemistry degree - and even then physical chemistry is my most hated area of the subject. I could have taken quantum mechanics as a module for my upcoming year but my introduction to it in first year showed me that the maths behind it is just too damned hard! I could barely understand it then and I didn't want have a module where I had to stretch my mind to the limit to try and wrap my head around it - so I guess what I'm saying is good luck to you for giving it a stab it's more then I could be bothered to do!

 

I have a passing interest in physics. I'd like to be more familiar with classical (mis)understanding of physics, particularly those that have to do with æther.

It may be that the æther is just the medium that you need to resolve any contradictions in the theories you espouse.

 

Besides Newton's Laws of Physics I tend to steer away from the subject. I am a Chemistry guy.

 

So you have a degree in english, an interest in chemistry and you want to be a cop - that's a pretty unusual combination.

 

My father's a chemistry guy. Among the basic sciences, chemistry is my least favorite.

 

Don't know where you are getting this misleading information from.

 

Thought I'd read at some point that you were doing an english degree in Australia. Sorry, beer addles my brain.

 

No.

 

I think it was Fritz Zwicky who first proposed the theory of "tired light," which he suggested on the grounds that the expansion of the universe seemed too fast to be giving the effects described on light. Basically, because he didn't see how the universe was expanding that quickly, he proposed that light would lose momentum through a gravitational effect with surrounding masses. The first time anyone had any real evidence against it was in 1956, when Baade corrected the distance scale with Cepheid variable stars.
Zwicky was the first to describe a galaxy's gravitational lensing effect as proposed by Einstein, and this was not seen in action until around 1979.
He also was the first to suggest an unseen type of matter with a powerful gravitational effect, what is now known as Dark Matter.
Also, if it wasn't for Zwicky, it would've taken longer to ascertain the relationship between neutron stars and Supernovae (a term Zwicky helped to coin). Most of what he presented came out in the 30's, and it would take decades for most of his ideas to be proven.
I'm interested in physics, and wanted to be a physicist. Now, I'm trying to go for engineering.
I know that at certain distances, such as something thousands of astronomical units away, objects seen to move around the earth are apparently moving at superluminal speeds. This is only from a geostatic viewpoint, however. It's a virtual speed boost. But, from the point of view of the earth, the objects in question are moving distances far in excess of what is to be expected in a single light-day.
Oh, and ignore the aether. That was shown to be false decades ago when light from different sources didn't reach two different sides of an object at different times, despite the fact that the object was moving. It shattered the foundation of physics, since at the time everyone based their calculations on this intangible medium that light must travel through, because it was known light was a wave, much as sound is.

 

And I said "more so". This notes a position that accepts the idea of expanding of space, but questions the degree. Now, go reread the related science and what I wrote more carefully before you comment again. I chose the ideas that I conveyed more carefully than you apparently read them.
Or perhaps, the fault is mine and I didn't convey the whole ... because I was assuming no interest on the part of the readers. I shall try to prepare the whole and publish it next week so that you have something proper to argue against.

(...Light slows down, what a joke of an idea. Don't take me for an idiot.)

Wiki's article on Tired Light confirms it as Zwicky, but says that he "suggested that if photons lost energy over time through collisions with other particles in a regular way" and not as result of curved spacetime.

 

True, but I posted it because the impetus was similar; Zwicky didn't think the red-shift was due to expansion.
It's been proposed that light entering a black hole will red-shift until it's no longer visible, as would any bodies reflecting light. But, that's only one way the doppler effect is seen on light. Space-time only curves while around a source of mass, otherwise it's relatively boring. Cosmological red shift occurs due to the far-off body (a star or galaxy or something reflecting a great deal of light) moving away from our observational point of view. It's the same as if a car was playing loud music while driving away from you; the frequency of the sound waves would lower and slow down the tempo of the music until you could no longer hear it.
What do you think of a blue-shift?

 

:roll:

 

Are you:
Rolling your eyes because I said something incorrect? I checked my ideas before I posted.
Rolling your eyes because I'm explaining something to Xyle? Alright, that makes sense. I mean, he has a theory for red-shift and doesn't even bother posting something regarding the exact opposite, a blue-shift.

 

He's just such a dumb fucker.

 

Eh, I won't go that far. I mean, it's a far cry from eating the "cotton candy" you can find in certain walls. What he's saying now can easily be explained by a slight misunderstanding of what does what in physics, much like how I previously thought that it was easier to see distant bodies because the speed of expansion of the universe was slowing down, allowing light to catch up. Then I found out that it doesn't matter how much the expansion is slowing down or speeding up, because technically the distance is the same no matter how stretched out it gets. If light's traveling at a constant velocity it'll get to its destination at the same time no matter how fast the universe is expanding, because light's expanding along with it.
I found something from about 11 years ago saying that all red shift is caused by space-time curvature, in this case due to an elongation of space time due to universal expansion, or by gravitational pull toward a massive body. Here.
This means that the curvature of space is a function of the expansion of the universe, and not the opposite, as Xyle said. Because the space in our universe is finite, and due to the universe constantly expanding, the space between objects must change.

 

Yeah, he's pretty stupid alright.

 

I wonder if this is how all physics related threads go? Every time I tried to start one, I'd either be actually proven wrong by someone who knew more than I did, "proven wrong" by someone who didn't know what they were talking about, but able to express themselves more eloquently, or I'd invariably say something that just flat out made me look like an ass. In all cases, soon after the criteria was met, the thread would die. It also didn't help that, at the time, few people on the forum were interested.

Something not related to the original post, but still related to physics, is five-dimensional data storage via gold nanorods suspended in a plastic substrate that's spun flat on a glass disc. The data is stored in three physical dimensions, and in ways related to the wavelength and polarization of light. Using this technology, 1.1 terabytes of data can be stored on one square centimeter, which means an object the size and thickness of a DVD can hold dozens of terabytes of information.

 

Well, if you have an interest in physics, I offer you this interesting discourse on physics.