Moon Breaking Apart--Not
A couple of interesting items from this week's news:
SPACE.com reported Monday on unpublished research indicating that the Moon will someday break up. This is based on the old idea that the Sun's temperature is slowly rising. According to the "Faint Young Sun" idea, when Earth was formed the Sun was barely 70% as luminous and Earth's temperature was below freezing. This supposition is contradicted by the geological record. Standard models predict that the Sun's luminosity will continue to rise until Earth's oceans boil and the Moon breaks up.
As we know, c has been changing according to GM=tc^3. The Sun turns fuel to energy according to E=mc^2. On the graph, the standard model has solar luminosity L/Lo as an increasing curve. When c change is factored in, the curve becomes a nearly level line. This is very powerful evidence in favour of c change. If the speed of light had not changed in precisely the amounts predicted, life would not have evolved to read this post. Earth and the Moon will be around for quite a while.
It is possible to believe that some unknown process has custom-heated Earth's temperature for our comfort. It is also possible to believe that we live between periods of inflation and cosmic acceleration, just as Earth is the centre of the Universe. All these explanations rely on inferred energies that can't be observed. They also share the quality of being fine-tuned for our present time, Even dark energy advocates call this the Nancy Kerrigan paradox: "Why me, why now?"
The new issue of Scientific American has "dark energy" on the cover, assuring that the idea will be promoted for a while longer. The same publication did not mention Special Relativity at all until 1911, 6 years after Einstein's papers were published. Before that, they featured many articles about ether. Fortunately, Earth has many billions of years to get it right.
posted by L. Riofrio at 3:43 PM
5 Comments:
...life would not have evolved to read this post.
...Before that, they featured many articles about ether.
Louise, lol!
You are getting better and better at this --pointing out the funny mainstream inconsistencies.
"As we know, c has been changing according to GM=tc^3."
Unless, say, G is rising in proportion to t, a possibility consistent with observations of apparently constant G from nuclear fusion in the early big bang, etc., because the Coulomb and gravity forces would vary the same way, preventing an increase in fusion as gravity increases (the Coulomb force increase repels protons, slowing fusion, which offsets the increased gravitational force of rising G).
The assumption that c falls off as the inverse cube root of the age of the universe is obviously one way of looking at the equation.
Ultimately it has to be determined observationally or experimentally whether it is right or not.
I think there is evidence that c is constant and G is rising, there is also a fair amount of theoretical evidence from a gravity mechanism that there is dimensionless multiplication factor to be included; the completely correct formula is, I believe on some theoretical evidence I have, GM = t(c/e)^3, where e is the base of natural logarithms.
On the other hand, the restricted theory relativity and certainly general relativity, don't disprove the possibility of changes to the velocity of light.
According to the pre-relativity FitzGerald and Lorentz transformation, the length of the Michelson-Morley instrument was contracted in the direction of absolute motion by the spacetime fabric (be that an ether or a Yang-Mills exchange radiation field). This contraction shortened the length of the instrument in that direction, but not in a perpendicular direction. The result is that an absolute speed of light in an ether or Yang-Mills exchange radiation field is rendered undetectable; the slowing down of that light which has to move against a moving background speed (like a swimmer being slowed by a water current) is exactly compensated by the shortening of the distance the light has to travel. Hence, both beams of light in the Michelson-Morley experiment arrive at the same time, because the ‘relativistic’ contraction offsets an absolute speed of light.
There is an amusing discussion of faster than c speeds by Neil Cornish, an astrophysicist at Montana State University, at http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/mystery_monday_040524.html
‘The problem is that funny things happen in general relativity which appear to violate special relativity (nothing traveling faster than the speed of light and all that). Let’s go back to Hubble’s observation that distant galaxies appear to be moving away from us, and the more distant the galaxy, the faster it appears to move away. The constant of proportionality in that relationship is known as Hubble’s constant. One seemingly paradoxical consequence of Hubble’s observation is that galaxies sufficiently far away will be receding from us at a velocity faster than the speed of light. This distance is called the Hubble radius, and is commonly referred to as the horizon in analogy with a black hole horizon. In terms of special relativity, Hubble’s law appears to be a paradox. But in general relativity we interpret the apparent recession as being due to space expanding (the old raisins in a rising fruit loaf analogy). The galaxies themselves are not moving through space (at least not very much), but the space itself is growing so they appear to be moving apart. There is nothing in special or general relativity to prevent this apparent velocity from exceeding the speed of light.’
HI all. Blogging every day has been a good way to build writing skills. Varying G is a possibility, though my own line of research looks at varying c.
If a factor such as e^{-1/3} were in there, c would still vary as c ~ t^{-1/3} and we would see the same effects. Maybe somebody will some up with a good varying-G theory.
Nige: "Let’s go back to Hubble’s observation that distant galaxies appear to be moving away from us, and the more distant the galaxy, the faster it appears to move away. The constant of proportionality in that relationship is known as Hubble’s constant. One seemingly paradoxical consequence of Hubble’s observation is that galaxies sufficiently far away will be receding from us at a velocity faster than the speed of light."
If one observes the 'balloon' analogy, then just as one inflates a party balloon, notice that the very first 'blow' instigates a rapid expansion, as you continue blowing into the balloon, the expansion decrease's.
Looking back into our Universe's first moments, one would expect to find area of "rapid expansion"?
Hi L. Riofrio,
Can i have your email address becuase i would like to communicate with you on the same topic. I have few questions that i would like ask in personal regarding the moon and the sun. Looks like you are the good source for my research program. Can i please have ur email or any contact information where i can reach you at. Your reply will be highly appreciated.
If you dont want to disclose ur email address, you can email me at mcaanimator@hotmail.com, I will reply u there.
Looking for ur reply.
Thanks,
Post a Comment
<< Home