Why did you not answer the above? What makes *you* *more* quailified to
dream up some comic book explanation that is more valid?
It most certainly does not.
since there is no other rational explanation
for the acceleration of the red shift with distance other than an
external gravitational source.
No. Other masses cannot explain the acceleration.You need to give credit
where credit is due, like, what university did you get you phd in
astrophysics at?
All you have here is a vague idea, of well, err..mass attracts things, so
there must be mass attracting our universe to make the universe mass move
faster. It don't work like this. You need to show that this idea actual
accounts for the facts in detail.
If there is a distribution of mass outside, pulling the mass of our
universe, it will have (approximately) say, 1/R gravitational potential
acting on our universe (or someother depening on the distribution). Our
galaxies are all at different distances from this net external potential,
hence the relative effect that this external potential should on each galaxy
can be quantified. The specific, different, accelerations experienced by,
and measured for, our galaxies can not be accounted for by any assumption
that there is any distribution of mass outside our universe. Its that
simple.
Now, what you are doing here is stepping out of your area of any expertise
that you may have, i.e. electronics. If you can convince me that you
understand the math and theory I have here,
http://www.kevinaylward.co.uk/gr/index.html, then it may be possible to
explain to you the calculations. However, I know as fact that you don't. If
you did, you would already know the correct answer to this issue, that is,
external mass cannot be the source of the acceleration, when you plug in the
*actual numbers*.
Look, physicists use general purposes simulation programs. It is simple for
them to plug in mass distributions, and compare with observations. Trust me
dude, its already been done. Exotic matter is the thing invented when all
the other alternative explanations failed. The idea that a non specialist
like you, with all due respect, can have an idea in physics that contradicts
the experts, and has value, is essentially, zero. Maybe 200 years ago, but
today, the subject is way to sophisticated now for any non specialist to
have any relevance.
If you know about anything that could be causing it, how about letting
us know about it?
---
I don't know what is causing it, other than it aint external matter, because
that is ruled out by observations, as noted above.
You missed my point. I now see that you think I was dubting that you talked
with Hal Puthoff. My comment was that I care a %^&* about Hal Puthoff crank
brained err. so called theories. That is, "yeah... right,... Hal is a person
that is like.. credible in physics?".
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harold_E._Puthoff - "Puthoff joined the Church
of Scientology in the late 1960s"
"In a study of the alleged psychic abilities of Uri Geller, Ingo Swann, Pat
Price, Joseph McMoneagle and others. Both Puthoff and Russell Targ became
convinced Geller and Swann had genuine psychic powers.[1] More conventional
explanations for the alleged abilities have also been advanced."
The list is endless. Puthoff is a fruit case.
Oooops sorry, I missed a 0.
No. I understand just what is actually involved. I understand why physics is
the way it is. Amateurs, usually don't. all they get is the thin edge of
wedge as to why.
Yes, it is sad when people really don't know when they are out of their
depth, and I mean this generally, not specifically applied to you.
The reality is, is that it is a fact, that some people are simply not
qualified to make opinions on certain matters.
"2 Gravitational fields are generated by a mass."
If that's true, (and observation does seem to indicate that it is)
then for mass to be accelerating there must be a gravitational field
attracting it.
There can be an entity that has effectivly, negative mass-energy.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Negative_mass#Negative_mass
In the case of distant galaxies, observation of their red shifts
indicates that the galaxies are receding, and that the more distant
the galaxy the higher its velocity of recession.
The exact numbers are very important. Not just "they are accelerating".
That, in turn, indicates that those galaxies are accelerating toward
what _must_ be a mass which is generating the gravitational field.
No. See above. Calculations (simulations) show that the specific
accelerations actually observed are not consistent with any hypothetical
external mass. If it were so, these physicists doing the simulations would
have put this forward this as the explanation. Dah... This is truly obvious.
Why would they not do so? Do you believe that they are that daft or
deceitful?
Since we see this acceleration everywhere we look, the mass must be
surrounding us at a distance greater than the galaxies receding the
fastest and, since our universe is mostly empty, that makes our
universe essentially a bubble surrounded by a mass capable of
attracting galaxies to itself.
Please present your detailed calculation showing that such a distribution of
mass can actually produce the actual accelerations measured.
You need to give credit to the 10,000s of way better qualified experts than
you, that disagree with you. They do so for a qualified reason.
Kevin Aylward
www.kevinaylward.co.uk
