[Wes Tausend]

Originally Posted by Buzz

That it most certainly does, Wes.

Thanks, Buzz. I found the idea repulsive at first ...but then, as I got older, began to appreciate that far-out ideas can spring into our mind at all. Not all of them work out of course, Elegant or not.

Originally Posted by Buzz

The human condition does render us resistant to the ability to conceive of or visualize space or relative motion in the 4th dimension. This is mainly because the velocities at which we normally move relative to our immediate, observable physical environment are so low that "movement" in the 4th dimension is painfully slow and "time" appears to us as linear and constant. Cobra owners tend to lose this limitation as the velocities and g-forces involved can reverse the clock and make even the more elderly among us feel like a kid again.

I like this, Buzz. I think it might sell a bit easier to a youngster than my ultra-scary "Big Banging" answer to, "Why do people on the ground look so small?"

Originally Posted by Buzz

No, not a pro Wes, just an ordinary guy fascinated by the world around me and even more so by what I don't know and can't see.

We think we are learning. It's all like Schrödinger's Cat. Perhaps we will finally open the box and the alive/dead cat does not even exist. Cat fraud. p***y illusion.

Originally Posted by Buzz

And I'm hungry for more so please keep the food for thought coming!

You would like MORE? I will get back later with more convoluted reasoning. I must conclude here, somewhere.

Originally Posted by Buzz

Your thoughts on "dark energy" causing the expansion of the universe to actually speed up as opposed to slowing down?? Could it be something so simple as a natural repulsion between differently charged objects that is coming into play as the effect of gravitational pull is diminished by objects moving further away from one another?.

At this point charged stellar objects are considered to be so far away that the effect is negligible compared to gravity. But perhaps the effect is not negligible. All was much closer eons ago. We currently can't measure gravity or "charge" between galaxies.

Perhaps each galaxy is separately expanding in an accelerated "constant big bang" away from a black hole at the center. For the moment, consider that, if the expansion/gravity was merely an inertial reaction to expanding action and gravity was not an attractive force at all, then any "like" static charge between galaxies might still be considered to have a slight constant repulsion, not the least bit thwarted by inter-galaxial gravitational attraction ...the net force would then be repulsive, albeit weak in the distance. Perhaps, since the law is like charges repel, and two neutral charges are like, the absence of all gravity even allows for neutral to repel neutral.

But over eons of time, galaxies should fly apart with no hoaky homogeneously dark matter (or anti-matter) invention necessary. The sense of "gravity" may exist only within each galaxy ...not across deep space. And it is absolutely true ...we do not observe or measure gravitational effects across deep space ...only within each of the galaxies themselves. That lack of ability to measure inter-galaxy is why we didn't know if the universe were open or closed for so long. Ordinary expansion (1912, Vesto Slipher) still allowed for closure. We didn't know it is probably open until the recent (1998, High-z Supernova Search Team) discovery of universal accelerated expansion (not the same as my local accelerated expansion speculation). String Theory?? Shucks, difficult mechanical problems in automobiles usually turn out to be much simpler than we thought. By Murphy's Law, the universe must also work this way ...not?

MORE:
I mentioned in the first post that, "Of course, I have found an unmentionable flaw in it. But nothing is perfect."
The flaw is the principle that one weighs less at the top of a mountain than at the base (this is true). It seems that, if an inertial expansion were taking place, one should weigh more at the top of a mountain, since the acceleration must increase to maintain relative size appearance or else the mountain would slowly visually flatten.

If we go back to Einsteins single elevator, the scientists struggle to tell whether they are in a field of "attractive" gravity or being reeled up in an accelerated manner by some outside force. Suppose the scientists have a stepladder. Now, when one of them climbs to the top, he notes that he weighs the same with his extremely accurate scale. Of course a stepladder is not as tall as a mountain but the diminished effect must theoretically be the same. Now these scientists have performed a test that reveals the real answer. Einstein's elevator and earths gravity are different.

So we have the final answer. Or do we? Suppose the scientist at the top of the ladder discovers that, indeed he weighs less at the top. The inertial elevator and normal earth gravity are identical. Eureka!

How could this be? Well one of the tenets of Special Relativity states that as objects achieve ever greater velocities, they shall "fore-shorten" in a Lorenz Transformation (there is a formula, the Lorenz-Fitzgerald Contraction Ratio, to deal with this).

But now, and this is my key point, think what may happen in simple terms. During an acceleration, a rocket observed passing us must be slightly shorter, depending on it's velocity relative to us. At very high speeds (99.9% light, or nearly C) the rocket gets shorter to a much more noticable degree until it is zero length dimension at exactly full C. But in what manner does it get shorter? If it shrinks from the front, then Captain Kirk, who is driving up front, experiences slightly less acceleration than Scotty, who is tending to the rear engines, as he slows down and gets drawn closer to Scotty. If it shrinks from the rear, then Scotty experiences slightly greater acceleration to "catch up" to Kirk. The relative effect is logically identical either way and every way in between. And it is logically forever constant for "forever" constant acceleration.

So, now, in the elevator, the same thing may logically occur. All because it is not at a uniform velocity, but an accelerated velocity. The scientist at the top of the ladder should experience several things different. He should weigh less. Time should pass more quickly for him. A peep hole in the side of the elevator should let light hit the opposite wall with slightly less curvature (and less drop) downward ...than the original Einstein peep-hole at the base of the elevator. The gravitational lensing effect is less in the "weaker field" at the top of the ladder.

Scientists tested the clock thing/twin paradox by sending up an atomic clock to fly around in a high speed jet. Although they could only achieve moderate speeds the the ever so slight effect was evident. An identical synchronized atomic clock on earth aged more.

I would like to send up two clocks, one in the front of the plane, the other in the rear. The clock on the ground should run slowest. The clock in the rear of the plane, medium. The clock in the front of the plane, fastest. Unless acceleration cancels this out when the plane decelerates back to earth rest. Or I've mixed fast vs slow. I'm getting confused.
Curses! Perhaps foiled again.

And that is pretty much the end of my story.

Wes

...