[Top] [All Lists]

Re: infinite universe

Subject: Re: infinite universe
Date: 4 Mar 2006 08:14:43 -0800
Newsgroups: sci.astro, sci.physics
John Bailey wrote:
> On 3 Mar 2006 21:21:59 -0800, RadicalLibertarian@xxxxxxxxxxx wrote:
> >Amazing stuff.
> >
> >But I dont think that the $145 was a complete waste. As long as the
> >null result is remembered it retains it's value.
> >
> I didn't mean to say it was a waste at all, just that it is an
> expensive null experiment.  Michelson-Morley, which provided the null
> data on which Einstein based special relativity was cheaper by two
> orders of magnitude.
> >I dont see why similar circles should neccesarily be located in exactly
> >opposite directions. I think that this is not really being realistic.
> >What they need is a massive deepsky survey, and software to look for
> >correlations anywhere in the sky. Map the things that look reasonably
> >similar in various parameters.
> (quote)
> Unfortunately this approach is complicated by the fact that the
> different images will present the object at different epochs in its
> evolution, at different distances, at different redshifts, with
> different reddening factors, and from different perspectives. (end
> quote) requoted from the reference below.
> The approach is further complicated by the combinatorial mess that
> results.  For every object that may have an earlier virtual image, the
> analysis must consider the possibility that every suitable virtual
> object is considered. In this case, suitable means the object could
> have evolved from where it was a few billion years earlier to the
> current apparent location.  The problem rapidly becomes one that
> resembles the operations research nightmare of finding the shortest
> route for a salesman, a well-known NP complete problem.  (reference:
> M. R. Garey and D. S. Johnson, "Computers and Intractability: A Guide
> to the Theory of NP Completeness,"  W. H. Freeman and Company, San
> Francisco, 1979.)

I'm really fascinated by this, and never gave it much thought, but it
seems that they should get results which are other than null.

For instance - a point has no sides. If you observe a point, you are
observing it from all sides at once because it has no sides.

If "our" universe can be "observed as if" it were a point from some
vastly larger scale, then it makes perfect sense that it would produce
a non-null result. Something like astronomical wierdness.

But the problems mentioned regarding time elapsing are signifigant. I
dont know that the experiment would ever work without using nonlocality
somehow to make the observation. I'm just thinking out loud here. It
seems extremely likely that they are looking for something which should
be there, but I am not confident that current technology can make the

<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>