"N:dlzc D:aol T:com (dlzc)" N: dlzc1 D:cox wrote in
message news:ICxge.40703$_K.11995@fed1read03...
Dear Bill Hobba:

"Bill Hobba" wrote in message
...

wrote in message
oups.com...
In the course of evolution of universe new
matter is continuously being created.

Where do you get that idea from?

Pair creation I had assumed. He may be from the "constant
creation" or "static universe" camps though.

My concern is not that theories exist where it is created - my concern is
the statement that it must be being created. We have no evidence for that -
ie theories perfectly in accord with observation exist where it is not being
created. In fact it is a wonder often commented on that the negative energy
of gravity and the positive energy of mass seem to exactly cancel - making
the universe (possibly) the ultimate free lunch.

Thanks
Bill


David A. Smith

"N:dlzc D:aol T:com (dlzc)" N: dlzc1 D:cox wrote in
message news:YJIge.5809$eU.1573@fed1read07...
| Dear FrediFizzx:
|
| "FrediFizzx" wrote in message
| ...
| "N:dlzc D:aol T:com (dlzc)" N: dlzc1 D:cox
| wrote in
| message news:ctBge.5779$eU.5709@fed1read07...
| | Dear suchita.kulkarni:
| |
| | wrote in message
| | ups.com...
| | If the universe is expanding and the matter is
| | not being created then we should see voids
| |
| | *Lot's* of void. The CMBR was tens of million
| | light years thick, was supposedly optically
| | opaque, and filled the Universe. No such
| | dense gas cloud remains.
| |
| | but the observed size of voids do not match
| | with the expected, so we should say that
| | matter is being created.
| |
| | We should say since Universal expansion is
| | accelerating, that mass is lost. But we
| | know that the law of Conservation of Energy
| | forbids the change of net energy (inclusive
| | of matter). So I don't see any basis for your
| | assumption of matter *addition*.
| |
| | Yes, matter is created and destroyed all
| | the time. But the expectation is (and is in
| | agreement with what little we can see) that
| | no matter/energy has been added to this
| | Universe since the arrival of Dark Matter
| | and Dark Energy.
|
| 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.

| 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. Like suns rather than "dust" just in the
vacuum. The rate for an individual sun is probably too slow to be able
to notice.

| 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"? It has to be our
"local bubble's" now. And I would imagine mass-energy enters from the
quantum "vacuum".

FrediFizzx

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...
| Dear FrediFizzx:
|
| "FrediFizzx" wrote in message
| ...
| "N:dlzc D:aol T:com (dlzc)" N: dlzc1 D:cox

| wrote in
| message news:ctBge.5779$eU.5709@fed1read07...
| | Dear suchita.kulkarni:
| |
| | wrote in message
| |
ups.com...
| | If the universe is expanding and the matter is
| | not being created then we should see voids
| |
| | *Lot's* of void. The CMBR was tens of million
| | light years thick, was supposedly optically
| | opaque, and filled the Universe. No such
| | dense gas cloud remains.
| |
| | but the observed size of voids do not match
| | with the expected, so we should say that
| | matter is being created.
| |
| | We should say since Universal expansion is
| | accelerating, that mass is lost. But we
| | know that the law of Conservation of Energy
| | forbids the change of net energy (inclusive
| | of matter). So I don't see any basis for your
| | assumption of matter *addition*.
| |
| | Yes, matter is created and destroyed all
| | the time. But the expectation is (and is in
| | agreement with what little we can see) that
| | no matter/energy has been added to this
| | Universe since the arrival of Dark Matter
| | and Dark Energy.
|
| 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.

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

| 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?

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.

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".

And I would imagine mass-energy
enters from the quantum "vacuum".

So far, not permanently. Only matter-antimatter has shown up,
right?

David A. Smith

"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...
| | Dear FrediFizzx:
| |
| | "FrediFizzx" wrote in message
| | ...
| | "N:dlzc D:aol T:com (dlzc)" N: dlzc1 D:cox
|
| | wrote in
| | message news:ctBge.5779$eU.5709@fed1read07...
| | | Dear suchita.kulkarni:
| | |
| | | wrote in message
| | |
| ups.com...
| | | If the universe is expanding and the matter is
| | | not being created then we should see voids
| | |
| | | *Lot's* of void. The CMBR was tens of million
| | | light years thick, was supposedly optically
| | | opaque, and filled the Universe. No such
| | | dense gas cloud remains.
| | |
| | | but the observed size of voids do not match
| | | with the expected, so we should say that
| | | matter is being created.
| | |
| | | We should say since Universal expansion is
| | | accelerating, that mass is lost. But we
| | | know that the law of Conservation of Energy
| | | forbids the change of net energy (inclusive
| | | of matter). So I don't see any basis for your
| | | assumption of matter *addition*.
| | |
| | | Yes, matter is created and destroyed all
| | | the time. But the expectation is (and is in
| | | agreement with what little we can see) that
| | | no matter/energy has been added to this
| | | Universe since the arrival of Dark Matter
| | | and Dark Energy.
| |
| | 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. What is z? 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.

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

Why not?

| | 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.

| 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 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".

| 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?

FrediFizzx

http://www.vacuum-physics.com/QVC/qu...uum_charge.pdf
or postscript
http://www.vacuum-physics.com/QVC/qu...cuum_charge.ps

On 10 May 2005 21:47:10 -0700, "
wrote:

In the course of evolution of universe new matter is continuously being
created. Whatever we see is not the current stat of matter. It is
always a few years back in time. Then how do we calcuate the density of
the universe when it is defined as "current" matter/"current" volume.

I have covered this in my Dual Space theory and I think you might find
it at least interesting.

In my Pioneer 10 article #4 on my website(below), I deduced the value
of the mass needed to generate the anomalous Ap = 8.4x10^-10 m/ss as
1.384e53kg or 70x10^21 solar masses. This essentially coincided with
an Australian team who estimated 70x10^21 stars last year.

Using the relations Hc = Ap and T = 1/H = 10.87 BYR I got a density of
1.521x10^-26 kg/m^3 (paper #9). (using the positron-half of the mass
of creation that was left behind in DS theory).
This density isidentical to Einstein de Sitter's critical density of
3H^2/8piG = 1.521x10^-26 kg/m^3.

Further exploring this amazing coincidence, I found that in order for
both densities to maintain equality, there had to be a constant mass
creation rate from beginning to now of c^3/G for both electron and
positron components. In fact, the mass rate = M_uni/Time

This is an obvious attractive choice to replace the Big Bang.

Others have estimated the density based on the Einstein de Sitter
equation, using values of Hubble's constant that can vary between 50
to 100 km/s/mpsec and getting, for H = 75.16, rho = 1.06x10^-29gm/cc
(or 10^-26kg/m^3). My value of H is 90.03 km/s/mpsec and R =
1.026x10^26m.

John Polasek
http://www.dualspace.net

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