Natural Science Forum / Physics / Relativity / April 2005

Dear F. Kuik:

WE are also the "earliest created material".  What you are
thinking of is "light from near the age of the CMBR".

Correct.  We "see" with radio, but resolution is still pretty
poor.

"The edge" doesn't move away with any velocity we know of.
Current thinking is that there is no "edge" to the Universe, only
a horizon beyond which we cannot see.  The CMBR is supposed to be
that horizon, in the time axis... since it supposed to be
optically opaque.

Beyond this, our "horizon" moves with us through time, so it is
no surprise that this gives the illusion of an "edge moving at
c".  Additionally, acceleration of expansion will serve to
shorten the "distance" to the "horizon".

In case you haven't seen this link...
URL:http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/cosmo_01.htm

David A. Smith

xxein:  Because you just said so.

No, but seriously, it had no particular speed limit.  There was no
mediator.

Think of a release of energy in which there is no modifier of speed
except the production 'force'.  We (this universe) didn't necessarily
have a big bang all at once in a dt of a time.  This notion is silly
because of any unlimited production method we can design or envision
(well, somebody apparently did).  (I'll let that sentence stand.)

The fact should be that any 'ignition' from within the heart of a
spherical source should provide a multitude of radial speeds, both for
the ejecta and the energy used to change the state of the ejecta.  This
follows as a foregone conclusion of the conservation of the energy and
the radial/volume aspect of the 'force' dissipation.

It is only what we can see (and think we measure with different
timerates) that has the speed of light attached to it.  EM.  What else
do you see and measure???

There may be ejecta that never has the right conditions of collision or
energy exchange with partners that produce anything within our range of
measurement.  So we do not know a speed (timerate notwithstanding).

But more importantly, the speed of any remote energy exchange is not
dependent on any one position (us, ours); it is dependent on the speed
of the generators and their (dare I say) relative motions.  This is NOT
the same thing as Einsteinian relativity.

The above provides fields of energy exchange that are dependent on the
overall equilibrium state.  BUT there is no equilibrium state because
of the initial ignition.  It can only try to seek an equilibrium amid
the turmoil (chaos) that ensues as energy is being exchanged.

To a faraway observer, the speed of EM (light) between generators and
receptors depends on the faraway observer's observation of the speed of
the field betwixt the sub-measurers (us).  As you can surmise, the
field velocity changes from any there(i) to there(n).

BUT even this is not the gravity we know and love so well.  Gravity is
the sub-motion of the energy between change of states.  It provides the
changing field-strength between one general (but semi-local) state of
existence and its cooler product (entropy).

We see and measure only the EM state of this energy transference.
There may be other energy transferences that we cannot measure.  We can
call them dark energy if we wish, but we only see the EM results.  We
are blind to all except that we measure and we use this EM tool as if
that is all there is to this universe.

Iow, not all energy exchanges use EM as a (our) tracking device.  Even
though I am fond of the quantum and attempt to unite the Einsteinian
relativity to the quantum, I am hard-pressed not to consider hidden
energy exchanges when leaving the semi-stable local environment for/to
the universe at large.

I hope that I made some sense to your question.  Feel free to ask
anything of this universe.  Not that you will get understandable
answers, though (from me or this universe).

Enjoy physics as the challenge, not the answer.  And good luck.

Take a look at the diagram in my paper #3, "Expansion",  on my web
site and study it a bit. The universe is expanding at velocity c IN
TIME. c is at right angles to any of our dimensions. Any star that you
see is permanently  separated from us by a fixed angle A, and its
recession velocity is given by
    D = A*cT    and
    V = A*c
(It's from my Dual Space theory and not the usual fare).

John Polasek
http://www.dualspace.net