How does UA affect other celestial bodies?

Universal acceleration is accepted in both RE and FE theories. Since this "phantom energy" appears to be distributed evenly, the affects should be fairly predictable. Imagine the point that the earth is accelerating away from, the point that everything is accelerating away from. Imagine that point being the center of sphere, with the radius of that sphere being the distance to earth. Since the phantom energy appears to be distributed evenly, Every object on the surface of this sphere should be accelerating away from the center at 9.81 m/s^2. Another important note: not only is the universe expanding, it is expanding exponentially, it is accelerating, hence the name. So it would stand to reason that objects near the "edge" of the universe move (not necessarily accelerate) faster than objects near the "center".

Now, let's look at other celestial bodies. Since the sun and moon and stars are outside the atmolayer, they are affected by the UA. They are also farther from the center than the earth. Does this mean that these celestial bodies are moving "away" faster than us?

I'm not completely certain as to whether or not Big Bang Theory is accepted within FET. That's a question for Daniel, I suppose, who we interact with about as much as we interact with neutrinos. As such, I'm not sure whether or not the real universe expands in the same way the RE one does. I suppose it would have to, but my superiors might have a different answer.

However, to answer the question at hand, I don't believe the other celestial bodies move faster than we do. Quite simply, if they did they would be moving away from us exponentially, which they are not.

The UA would have to be accelerating the stars and everything else out there too under this theory. If we were accelerating and they weren't, there would be massive blueshifting and you would only be able to see stars that are straight up. After accelerating to our current speed of ludicrously-close-to-but-not-quite the speed of light (you can calculate our current velocity to be 0.9 followed by over 4 billion 9's multiplied by c), all events that are not in our frame of reference would also occur almost spontaneously.

That last point is like the twin paradox on a grandiose scale - if you take two identical twins and put one on a rocket ship for a while at a reasonably relativistic speed and leave the other on Earth, when they finally meet again the twin that stayed behind would be a lot older. When travelling at relativistic speeds, things outside your frame of reference appear to speed up. As higher and higher speeds are achieved, time outside the frame of reference speeds up faster and faster.

For UA to be fully explained, there would have to be another UA force directly above us which keeps overhead stars from smashing into us. This UA force would have to be perfectly distributed and perfectly isotropic, as if it weren't then slight differences in acceleration of different stars over billions of years would cause utterly massive amounts of spectrum shifting that we just don't experience.

The fact that stars overhead rotate throughout the sky also causes serious problems with the theory. What would cause them to move at all if they were all being accelerated along with us? It seems like the only way to get around this is to say that all the stars are simply paintings on a giant sphere that revolves around us and moves along with us, and all changes that occur on that sphere (like supernovae we have observed in other galaxies) are just magic or something.

I'm not completely certain as to whether or not Big Bang Theory is accepted within FET. That's a question for Daniel, I suppose, who we interact with about as much as we interact with neutrinos. As such, I'm not sure whether or not the real universe expands in the same way the RE one does. I suppose it would have to, but my superiors might have a different answer.

However, to answer the question at hand, I don't believe the other celestial bodies move faster than we do. Quite simply, if they did they would be moving away from us exponentially, which they are not.

Well, it seems that if the universe is just accelerating, all points accelerate at the same rate. It would have to be 9.8 m/s^2.  This doesn't mean that all points move at the same speed. Let's go back to the spheres. All objects will travel at the same speed at each distance from the center (assuming the big ang occured). So, depending on the age of the universe according to FEers, the only way our world could exist as it is would be if all of these bodies (earth, sun, stars) formed VERY close together, or they formed VERY recently (relative to the beginning of the universe). The latter seems more likely.

The UA would have to be accelerating the stars and everything else out there too under this theory. If we were accelerating and they weren't, there would be massive blueshifting and you would only be able to see stars that are straight up. After accelerating to our current speed of ludicrously-close-to-but-not-quite the speed of light (you can calculate our current velocity to be 0.9 followed by over 4 billion 9's multiplied by c), all events that are not in our frame of reference would also occur almost spontaneously.

That last point is like the twin paradox on a grandiose scale - if you take two identical twins and put one on a rocket ship for a while at a reasonably relativistic speed and leave the other on Earth, when they finally meet again the twin that stayed behind would be a lot older. When travelling at relativistic speeds, things outside your frame of reference appear to speed up. As higher and higher speeds are achieved, time outside the frame of reference speeds up faster and faster.

For UA to be fully explained, there would have to be another UA force directly above us which keeps overhead stars from smashing into us. This UA force would have to be perfectly distributed and perfectly isotropic, as if it weren't then slight differences in acceleration of different stars over billions of years would cause utterly massive amounts of spectrum shifting that we just don't experience.

The fact that stars overhead rotate throughout the sky also causes serious problems with the theory. What would cause them to move at all if they were all being accelerated along with us? It seems like the only way to get around this is to say that all the stars are simply paintings on a giant sphere that revolves around us and moves along with us, and all changes that occur on that sphere (like supernovae we have observed in other galaxies) are just magic or something.

From what i've seen on these boards, any motion of any body anywhere doesn't need an explanation simply because WE haven't found the graviton yet. Essentially, because we haven't fully explained gravity, they don't have to explain the vastly strange and inconsistent motions of celestial bodies in their model.

I'm not completely certain as to whether or not Big Bang Theory is accepted within FET. That's a question for Daniel, I suppose, who we interact with about as much as we interact with neutrinos. As such, I'm not sure whether or not the real universe expands in the same way the RE one does. I suppose it would have to, but my superiors might have a different answer.

I thought this whole schpiel was about forming your own opinions based on your observations and not just listening to what your told??

The UA would have to be accelerating the stars and everything else out there too under this theory.

Good. So we're all agreed.

Good. So we're all agreed.

Yes, although I also went on to explain some major problems with this theory. Namely, that it requires the UA to be amazingly finely tuned for each star out there, and that its source has to be invisible since it exists between us and the stars (or the stars are printed on a sphere with amazingly ridiculously high tensile & compressive strength).

Furthermore, since it must exist between us and the stars, UA must violate the law of conservation of momentum - which states that momentum must be conserved in the Universe. The stars above us are continually gaining momentum, but from where is that momentum coming? Spacecraft increase their momentum by shooting fuel out from behind them - the net momentum of the spent fuel flying out behind and the spacecraft combined never changes.

My main point here is that if the UA is above us and we are not experiencing any particles smashing into us that are shot out to increase the star's momentum, then the star's momentum is created out of nowhere and in violation to physics.

The flow of the UA is imparting momentum to the universe.

Yes, I'm aware that's what you believe. And that momentum is being created from nothing, which violates the law conservation of momentum. The only way to account for this momentum is that its source is something supernatural.

I'm curious to hear your take on Dark Energy in modern orthodoxy as it allegedly composes along with Dark Matter some 97% of the universe. Rapidly and continually accelerating matter out of nowhere imparting supernatural momentum.

If anything, the UA makes more sense if you insist on Newtonian dynamics -- as the flow imparting momentum is losing it resulting in aetheric eddification.

Yes, I'm aware that's what you believe. And that momentum is being created from nothing, which violates the law conservation of momentum. The only way to account for this momentum is that its source is something supernatural.

We don't know what was there before the big bang. It must be super natural.

We don't know what was there before the big bang. It must be super natural.

No, we don't - it would be extremely arrogant of me to posit that science knows absolutely everything.

However, I don't see how that's relevant.

What's the sense in throwing out a theory which doesn't involve the supernatural (gravity) for one that does (UA). Why would you unnecessarily complicate things?

I'm curious to hear your take on Dark Energy in modern orthodoxy as it allegedly composes along with Dark Matter some 97% of the universe. Rapidly and continually accelerating matter out of nowhere imparting supernatural momentum.

If anything, the UA makes more sense if you insist on Newtonian dynamics -- as the flow imparting momentum is losing it resulting in aetheric eddification.

I figured that would come up. For people who may not be familiar, dark energy is a repulsive force that some scientists (I know it sounds general to say "some scientists", but I live in a town where literally most of the population works for a laboratory and I hear things like this all the time around me) attribute to simple vacuum energy (which is energy exerted by space even in a perfect vacuum, proven to exist by laboratory experiments like the Casimir effect), whereas dark matter is sort of a useless lump of matter that is invisible because it doesn't interact with things like conventional matter except that it displays a gravitational force. Dark matter has been evidenced in the collision of some galaxies and gravitational lensing, and I'll talk more about evidence if you guys want.

The current paradigm is that dark energy does not expand space in the intuitive sense - that is, it does not impart momentum and accelerate objects away from each other. Astronomers have observed that galaxies have been, on average, drifting away from each other continuously. But how is it possible, in a 3-dimensional world, to have all this separating in one part of the universe without galaxies bunching up somewhere else?

The answer that scientists have come up with is that space itself is expanding - the actual objects are not moving but rather the space between the objects is growing wider. The common analogy is like raisins being baked into bread - at first, the raisins are very close to each other. As the bread bakes and rises, the spaces between all the raisins grows larger and larger.

Dark energy shows up only in large enough spaces - intergalactic space devoid of large clumps of matter which hinder the expansive force of it. Gravitational attraction overcomes the expansive forces of dark energy in galaxies and solar systems.

The reason scientists have attributed dark energy to vacuum energy is because the spaces between galaxies in the universe have been accelerating in growth - that is, as the space grows more and more empty, the increasingly enlarging vacuum may exert more of its energy on space.

Whether this violates the law of conservation of energy is not certain - there may be a limit to vacuum/dark energy so space may stop accelerating, and increasing the distances between the distances between objects may not even require energy as the objects aren't being moved in the intuitive sense.

Quote from: Ski on November 10, 2012, 11:10:50 PM

Good. So we're all agreed.

Yes, although I also went on to explain some major problems with this theory. Namely, that it requires the UA to be amazingly finely tuned for each star out there, and that its source has to be invisible since it exists between us and the stars (or the stars are printed on a sphere with amazingly ridiculously high tensile & compressive strength).

Furthermore, since it must exist between us and the stars, UA must violate the law of conservation of momentum - which states that momentum must be conserved in the Universe. The stars above us are continually gaining momentum, but from where is that momentum coming? Spacecraft increase their momentum by shooting fuel out from behind them - the net momentum of the spent fuel flying out behind and the spacecraft combined never changes.

My main point here is that if the UA is above us and we are not experiencing any particles smashing into us that are shot out to increase the star's momentum, then the star's momentum is created out of nowhere and in violation to physics.

The majority of the extraterrestrial bodies float on the Aetheric Whirlpool just above the Earth. So they move as the Earth does.

Momentum is conserved by an antimatter earth accelerating in the opposite direction.

Quote from: snafu38a on November 10, 2012, 11:29:06 PM

Quote from: Ski on November 10, 2012, 11:10:50 PM

Good. So we're all agreed.

Yes, although I also went on to explain some major problems with this theory. Namely, that it requires the UA to be amazingly finely tuned for each star out there, and that its source has to be invisible since it exists between us and the stars (or the stars are printed on a sphere with amazingly ridiculously high tensile & compressive strength).

Furthermore, since it must exist between us and the stars, UA must violate the law of conservation of momentum - which states that momentum must be conserved in the Universe. The stars above us are continually gaining momentum, but from where is that momentum coming? Spacecraft increase their momentum by shooting fuel out from behind them - the net momentum of the spent fuel flying out behind and the spacecraft combined never changes.

My main point here is that if the UA is above us and we are not experiencing any particles smashing into us that are shot out to increase the star's momentum, then the star's momentum is created out of nowhere and in violation to physics.

The majority of the extraterrestrial bodies float on the Aetheric Whirlpool just above the Earth. So they move as the Earth does.

There are quite a few experiments from as far back as 1887 (Michelson-Morley) which suggest that luminiferous aether does not exist, and I'm not aware of any at all which point to its existence.

The main reason the concept exists is because people did not understand how EM radiation can travel without a medium - but we now understand that magnetic/electric fields can self-propagate throughout a vacuum. This can easily be supported with lab experiments with a vacuum chamber that create a near-perfect vacuum and shine light through it. It seems like all experiments measuring the effects of light use a vacuum chamber to limit experimental error, such as http://www.gamma.nbi.dk/Galleri/gamma152/christopherrjacobsen.pdf .

If luminiferous aether were used to uniformly push the stars above us upwards, this does not explain the redshift of the stars we see - from the redshift, we know they are moving away from us.