More sand in the air... 1 Larkin worth ;-) ...Jim Thompson
--
| James E.Thompson, CTO | mens |
| Analog Innovations, Inc. | et |
| Analog/Mixed-Signal ASIC's and Discrete Systems | manus |
| Phoenix, Arizona 85048 Skype: Contacts Only | |
| Voice:(480)460-2350 Fax: Available upon request | Brass Rat |
| E-mail Icon at http://www.analog-innovations.com | 1962 |
I love to cook with wine. Sometimes I even put it in the food.
--
That's just silly, since if n can never exceed n+1 it is, of course,
bounded.
It may grow hugely, but if n+1 ever becomes infinite, then n will
still not quite have gotten there.
--
My hypothesis is that it's cheese.
Well, let me explain...
Instead of a big bang starting our universe, it was more like a
cavitation event with all the matter in our universe outgassing from
the wall of the bubble, beyond which lies the Universe.
So we're like a bubble in a huge piece of Swiss cheese.
This neatly explains why the redshift of galaxies increases the
farther away (the closer to the wall) they are.
That is, assuming that gravitation follows an inverse square law, then
the closer to the wall something gets, the greater the gravitational
force exerted on it by the Universe, so the greater its velocity and
red shift becomes the closer it gets to the wall.
A further assumption is that either our universe isn't spherical or,
if it is, that gravitation in the Universe isn't constant.
You have to be very careful how you ask that question. The universe is likely infinite by any practical definition, but there are other horizons that can be defined notably the location of the surface in the universe where the Hubble expansion reaches the speed of light in vacuum and beyond that surface we can never even in principle explore.
In practice we cannot see anything beyond the surface of last scattering where the 4K microwave background originates. That might change if someone ever manages to make an neutrino imaging telescope.
You will find a fair number of cosmologists that would at least entertain the possibility that there is a foam of island universes each with slightly different physics. Multiverse theories are currently popular. You could even entertain the possiblity that we that is our universe is just a tiny quantum fluctuation in some larger object.
And little fleas have lesser fleas upon their backs to bite em. It could well be turtles all the way down.
No it doesn't. External spherical shells of matter can have no effect. The only way you can get distance related redshifts that match observations is to have the universe once very small a long time ago.
A fellow called Gauss proved that you are wrong. You do not feel any attraction when you are inside a spherically symmetric shell of material of uniform density. It is for this reason that dropping a ball through the centre of the Earth will undergo simple harmonic motion since its restoring force is proportional to displacement.
The same theorem explains why a Faraday cage works. It also provides tricks for making exquisitely sensitive tests of inverse square laws.
Unclear why you think you need that assumption.
As far as we can tell the Hubble flow is pretty uniform apart from in the vicinity of large clusters of galaxies where local and midrange gravitational effects become important. Great Attractor and Sloan Great Wall being large scale examples of the latter.
ElectronDepot website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here.
All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.