Constant velocity = no observer motion?

Just a few thoughts on redshifting (Sorry I should read more of what you guys have been posting ... old habits die hard):

One idea would be to imagine the universe as sandwiched between two thin spheres, with waves traveling between these - no matter which direction you looking, if you look for enough, you'd see the focal point on the other side of the sphere (the Big Bang) but a small quantity of energy could bleed through the inside of this sphere and emerge elsewhere so that an appearance of spacial expansion at large distances would be possible (in other words, some energy could disappear from our thin spacetime by travelling through the inside of the sphere, like shockwaves inside the earth as opposed to sound waves in the air), and (somehow) dilute/expand perceived space elsewhere - the longer a wave travels through space, the more expanded it becomes.

Alternately envision the magnetic field of the Earth or an electron etc. - if waves passing through the Core and atmosphere affect the magnetic field, then these waves would be reflected in a different spacial scope elsewhere - so if a pole was 100 miles across on one side of the Earth, but 105 miles across on the other side, then activity on either side could be reflected with a spacial/frequency rato of 1 : 1.05 between the two. It might be possible to have some waves cycle through this system at weaker and weaker strengths giving progressively higher ratios, though we'd still sense them traveling at the same velocity but with different wavelengths, these could cancel and alias down in frequency as well to create artifacts at 20 times the wavelength. This would also provide for the fractal appearance we see in so many natural phenomenon (similar features on different scales, as they're mirrored into an exponential scale through time and space) and this relative expansion of space (versus our reference) could be part of the effect witnessed by the "inflationary period" after the big bang.

(P.S.: I just did some searching and found some ToE ideas using toroids that are probably along these lines)

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by SteveA</i>
<br />Sorry I should read more of what you guys have been posting ... <hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">You are in the position of speaking of the merits of new age rock to a jazz forum. []

This group has already gone in a different direction, already fully understands gravity and is well on its way with light, is confident that time dilation and singularities do not exist in nature, etc.

The internet being what it is, the scientific "marketplace" is saturated -- no, flooded -- with new ideas. People are now often bored by them. To gain a foothold here, you will probably need to read some of the articles on our site about the areas that interest you, then argue that you have something comparatively better and say why. That will draw some interest here, and probably provide you lots of useful feedback on your own ideas.

Consider it an easier entrance fee than earning a Ph.D. in astronomy or physics. [] -|Tom|-

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by tvanflandern</i>
<br /><blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by SteveA</i>
<br />Sorry I should read more of what you guys have been posting ... <hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">You are in the position of speaking of the merits of new age rock to a jazz forum. []

This group has already gone in a different direction, already fully understands gravity and is well on its way with light, is confident that time dilation and singularities do not exist in nature, etc.

The internet being what it is, the scientific "marketplace" is saturated -- no, flooded -- with new ideas. People are now often bored by them. To gain a foothold here, you will probably need to read some of the articles on our site about the areas that interest you, then argue that you have something comparatively better and say why. That will draw some interest here, and probably provide you lots of useful feedback on your own ideas.

Consider it an easier entrance fee than earning a Ph.D. in astronomy or physics. [] -|Tom|-
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">

Much appreciated, Tom. That was the general impression I had. I'll have to do some more work and find where specific differences could occur and see what models explain them best. (I have a funky feeling many explainations work but it's a matter of finding the ones that are most intuitive, so people can find once again where they're wrong and move on the 'next' TOE ... it's likely a neverending cycle (thankfully))

Ok, I'll try digging in. Thanks again.

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">is confident that time dilation and singularities do not exist in nature, etc.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">

I'd add that I believe most alternate dimensions are largely mathematical extrapolations that simply describe relatively simple hidden states as well and don't require an infinite number of universes. (When you're working with mathematics you can't physically verify it's easy to get lost in the symbols)

Here's a possibly entertaining sidenote. I found this video of some tests on toroid collision (looks like colored smoke rings). Very interesting fractal shapes emerge.

serve.me.nus.edu.sg/limtt/video/collision.mpeg