Jump to content


Michael Kieth Adams

  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

0 Neutral

About Michael Kieth Adams

  • Rank

Profile Information

  • Location
    Hugo, Oklahoma

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. Things do not have to be moving at the same velocities in the same space. I know that the idea of an explosion is not even close to the reality of the Big Bang, but if you looked at the tracks of an explosion, some would end close to the center point and others farther away. Perhaps the far parts that we see are parts that have slowed down enough for us to see them. The world around us seems homogenous, but we know there are parts of it that we cannot see. Is the dark universe homogenous? We should be able to tell by gravitational effects. Parts of the universe around us move at di
  2. The universe is not the same everywhere. The early universe was quite a bit different than it is now. The early expansion was faster than light, it is slower than that now. Would we be able to see something moving faster than light? Maybe parts of the universe expand at different speeds in the same space. Maybe dark energy and dark matter are parts of local space moving faster than light. Thanks for reading and thinking about my ideas. I really appreciate it. Mike
  3. I know what you are talking about but the fact is what we see far away happened long ago, what happens right here in our region of space time is slower, was fast is slow, slowing down. I know the balloon illustration but far away things move faster than close ones. Long ago things fast recent things slower, slowing down ( not stopping, yet). I’m sure there is a flaw in my logic but where?
  4. The more distance away from us something is, the faster it moves away from us. Things are moving slower near to us. Am I wrong to believe that the huge speeds we see happened long ago and the fact that things near us are slower has to mean that things are slowing down. Closer is more recent, far away is long ago. Do I misunderstand ?
  5. I am obviously far from expert, however I don’t understand what inherent properties of plasma would divide it into two lobes. If I got it right they are saying it has to do with temperature differences though I’m curious as to why one doesn’t see this in teardrop structures here on earth? Of course my idea has problems also, why would a companion object to the sun, be in the perfect place to view it? I know that things like that happen but not very often. Would it be possible for the sun to drag something around like a dog on a leash? I wouldn’t think so. Perhaps it is the magnetic fi
  6. If what they are saying is correct, then the two lobed pattern should be present around other stars. Is it?
  7. The solar system leaves a tail behind it as it orbits the galaxy. The tail apparently splits in two. Could this indicate an unseen companion to the sun with a very strong magnetic field? m
  8. I do love the science channel. They were discussing the shape of the suns trail. The image they used seemed to have a sphere shape with two tails from the sun. There was nothing visible in the center of the sphere and I do realize that it was a created image but if it was even close a magnetic field from a small companion object might explain it. Just a thought.
  9. Subscribe to scientific American, I know not a lot on astronomy but what there is is good. Also science is interesting. Subscribe to astronomy periodicals also but do not be one dimensional. Life does not just have one side.
  10. This has been a lot of fun. I am amazed that a tired old fat man who knows a little science can spark such wonderful discussions and I am more amazed at how much of these comments I actually understand. I am beginning to think however that at least part of everything is the parts of the equation we don’t know. We talk about mass when 90% or more is missing. We are bailing out the same boat when we speak of dark energy. Now that we have studied some other solar systems we should be beginning to have some idea of the mass of planets left over from dead stars. If I’ve got it right, the uni
  11. I think what you have basically said is that by measuring an object we change it. Point of view. Maybe mass is just variable. Ask schrodinger’s cat.
  12. This is so much fun. Actually this discussion has cleared up a few lingering questions from articles in Scientific American. Got to remember the region I live in has some math issues, pie are not square, pie are round, cornbread are square! Einstein’s equations seem to indicate that mass varies according to velocity if it does then variation does occur with point of view.
  13. If I’m understanding this it appears as if you are saying that the speed of light is not actually a speed but a constant with some of the qualities of a velocity. Interesting . Difficult to wrap your head around but makes sense sort of. Matter does become energy sometimes either the exceeding of the speed of light is part of it, or there is another avenue that we don’t know. I’m still not clear on how the expansion of the universe does not produce velocities between point A and point B. If it does produce velocities then my question about point of view might have some validity. Partic
  14. I’ve read that some of the furthest objects we can see are moving away from us at near relativistic speeds. Doesn’t that change their mass and ours? Think about particles that our sun spits out at most of the speed of light, how are they not moving faster than light from the point of view of objects farthest away from us? Does point of view determine what we experience?
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue. By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use.