Dear FrediFizzx:

"FrediFizzx" wrote in message
...
"N:dlzc D:aol T:com (dlzc)" N: dlzc1 D:cox
wrote in
message news:wmfhe.6029$eU.2460@fed1read07...
| Dear FrediFizzx:
|
| "FrediFizzx" wrote in message
| ...
| "N:dlzc D:aol T:com (dlzc)" N: dlzc1 D:cox

| wrote in
| message news:YJIge.5809$eU.1573@fed1read07...
| | Hmm... Do you think a hundred years of
| | observation is enough to be able to tell if
| | new matter was coming into our "local
| | bubble" Universe from a bigger one?
| |
| | We've got 13 Gy displayed. In that time we
| | have the "intrusion" of Dark Matter and Dark
| | Energy (assuming...). Beyond that (closer
| | to us), we have fully formed objects that
| | seem to bear out distance-equals-age.
| | Additionally, acceleration of expansion,
| | and the continuity of expansion, hint at a
| | constancy in the mass/energy contained
| | in this Universe (assuming local properties
| | derive from the Universe et al). Not much
| | room for the arrival of "new stuff".
|
| Yeah, but we have only been watching the
| 13 billion years for less than 100 years.
|
| If you consider the formula I provided the OP,
| if mass/energy were changing, then 1+z
| would be affected. Based on the 1+z
| relationship we are presented with, we are
| constrained to a certain relationship. No
| change in mass/energy provides for
| Conservation of Energy, and allows for
| expansion of spacetime. Increasing
| mass/energy requires a faster rate of
| expansion. Decreasing the mass/energy
| requires a lower (or no) expansion.

Akk! You're making me go to that aweful
googlegroups beta. ;-) I still don't quite get it.

I tried to sign up for a google groups account, but my ISP
decided my password, etc. was spam. ;)

What is z?

wavelength detected / wavelength emitted = 1 + z
(used in analyzing stellar spectra)

There is no reason to assume that
mass-energy is conserved on a global
scale for our "local bubble". And I don't
think there is anyway that we can really
tell for sure.

Someday you'll have to tell me what "global properties" of a
"local bubble" are...
If I changed c by 10% in our local bubble (with my magic wand),
would observations of non-local events be affected?

| Are the local properties *here* a function
| of the Universe et al?

Why not?

And are the "local properties" a function of the mass/energy in
the Universe et al? Or is some other operator required? I
believe the mass/energy alone, coupled with uncertainty, to be
all that is required to sustain this illusion. What is your
take... is the "quantum vacuum" separate from the
mass/energy-generated spacetime it "evolves" into?

| | The mass-energy flow rate for the entire
| | Universe might not be very noticable at
| | all in "our neck of the 'hood". Something
| | on the order of the Pioneer anomaly
| | maybe? That is a pretty small effect.
| |
| | Roughly equal to the Hubble coefficient.
| | Roughly equal to the recession rate of the
| | Moon from Earth. Three orders of
| | magnitude less than the expansion of the
| | PtIr "meter rod" in Paris. Three orders of
| | magnitude greater than the mass loss of
| | our Sun due to irradiation. We can
| | measure small effects, if we know where to
| | look.
| |
| | We are limited by our light cone. But if
| | objects are being added, they would
| | eventually cross it. If "dust" is being
| | added, it isn't showing up in
| | inter-supercluster space. Such "noise"
| | would be a place to look.
|
| Since we know that gravity exists, I think
| a "matter-enegy" flow into our "local
| bubble" Universe would more likely be
| greater where large amounts of
| matter-energy are.
|
| Why? Spacetime will be most "stressed"
| there. Why not where curvature is lower?
| What mechanism lifts Conservation of Energy?

Gravitation. On a global scale. There is no
reason to assume matter-energy flowing in
wouldn't be similarly attracted to matter-energy
here.

Attracted once it is in-play with this Universe's rules, yes.
But it is wholly unaware of those rules until it crosses an event
horizon. There is no way to know *from the outside* where
matter/energy clusters are located, nor why they should be either
attractive or repulsive. If such were "dropping in" I don't see
why it couldn't/shouldn't be diffusely located. For no other
reason, empty space should be populated. And since you seem to
have the belief that conservation of energy does apply "locally",
I don't see how such could allow arrival of mass/energy near
other such collections.

| Like suns rather than "dust" just in the
| vacuum. The rate for an individual sun
| is probably too slow to be able to notice.
|
| If it is a constant, it might not be noticeable at all.
|
| | One wonders why matter "infalling" from
| | a container Universe wouldn't enter
| | through the event horizon?
|
| What is the event horizon for our "local
| bubble"?
|
| The Big Bang. Same as for the rest of the Universe.

I don't follow this.

It is possible that the Big Bang was the entry point for all our
mass/energy from a container Universe. So if something is going
to enter our Universe from there, it will always be present at
the event horizon (aka. Big Bang).

| It has to be our "local bubble's" now.
|
| I disagree. Our *now* is simply a location that
| is located between the BB and a diffuse cold
| future. There is no horizon, other than "into the
| future".

There is no way to really know, is there? But it
just seems more logical to me, that our local
bubble Universe's "now" is an event horizon.
You will never be able to find a physical surface
if you had the power to search all over the local
bubble. Time becomes that "surface".

The problem is, your definition consumes both the past and the
future. So time is a non-player. If local properties (to get
back to where we branched from) are a product of all the
mass/energy in the Universe, then we should be "rescaling" to
match changes in mass/energy. This places limits, based on what
we can see, on how much can be added vs. "spacetime".

| And I would imagine mass-energy
| enters from the quantum "vacuum".
|
| So far, not permanently. Only matter-antimatter
| has shown up, right?

Yes, permanently. There definitely seems to be
a preponderance of matter over anti-matter. The
BB could have just been the start of the matter-
energy flow into our "local bubble" Universe. Of
course the big question still would remain even
in this scenario. Why only matter?

The container Universe has opposite chirality, and a
preponderance of anti-matter! ;)
"We" were created as a storage facility for this "matter-stuff".

David A. Smith