PDA

View Full Version : The Evolution of my Cyclical Multiverse Hypothesis



kmarinas86
2006-Apr-16, 01:20 PM
The Evolution of my Cyclical Multiverse Hypothesis:

http://uplink.space.com/attachments//713538-multiversetheory3.jpg

http://uplink.space.com/attachments//48988-thecyclicalmutiversetheory6.jpg

http://uplink.space.com/attachments//80772-cyclicmultiversetheory-eternaluniverseconcept.jpg

http://uplink.space.com/attachments//80945-cyclicmultiversetheory-eternaluniverseconcept-level2.jpg

http://uplink.space.com/attachments//116353-thecyclicalmutiversetheory8.jpg

http://uplink.space.com/attachments//157176-cyclicmultiversetheory.JPG

http://uplink.space.com/attachments/197734-WMAP-cyclical-multiverse.jpg

http://uplink.space.com/attachments/243285-cyclicalmultiversetheoryWMAP.jpg

http://uplink.space.com/attachments/367827-GarsingtonCropFormation2004.jpg

Now:
http://academia.wikia.com/wiki/K._Marinas%27_Cyclic_Multiverse_Hypothesis

crosscountry
2006-Apr-16, 02:49 PM
very interesting.

in picture 2 you say "cannot be seen by ordinary telescope" I think it should read "can never be seen by any telescope because it is past our horizon"



with picture 1 you mention Big Crunch, but isn't that out of favor with current observations?





one issue that I see is that your ideas are not proveable. at least they appear that way. It seems what you describe fits neatly within the Big Bang model and only describes new possiblities beyond what we can observe.


it is cool to think about however.

Dragon Star
2006-Apr-16, 05:59 PM
Wow, very neat idea...Good job gathering visuals as well.

Fr. Wayne
2006-Apr-18, 01:59 AM
Isn't astronomy fun?

afterburner
2006-Apr-18, 02:22 AM
Finally someone has come up with visuals that represent what i've been wondering about for a few years now. Although i do not agree with the idea that everything "repeats", i do think that its possible that our universe could be a particle in a bigger universe.


Something to think about.
Suppose the idea proposed is proven, and the first "alien" contact we have is with beings from that "bigger" universe. :think:

kmarinas86
2006-Apr-21, 11:57 PM
I have made a new visual that is a derivation from one of the old visuals. Enjoy!

kmarinas86
2006-May-01, 10:47 PM
Here is another one.

Nereid
2006-May-02, 07:12 PM
If you applied your idea concerning the Pioneer anomaly to the double pulsar (http://www.jb.man.ac.uk/news/doublepulsar/) (or even the Hulse-Taylor pulsar (http://nobelprize.org/physics/laureates/1993/press.html) (PSR 1913 + 16), would it be consistent with the observational data?

kmarinas86
2006-May-02, 10:20 PM
If you applied your idea concerning the Pioneer anomaly to the double pulsar (http://www.jb.man.ac.uk/news/doublepulsar/) (or even the Hulse-Taylor pulsar (http://nobelprize.org/physics/laureates/1993/press.html) (PSR 1913 + 16), would it be consistent with the observational data?

It wouldn't be able to explain a complex phenomenon such as this, hence I think it could not really apply to this situation. I do not know if an acceleration this small would go unnoticed. For instance, how would the scientists determine an anomalous acceleration that is less than a 100 billionth of the observed acceleration of the pulsars? The deviance in velocity would be 4.9*10^-7 m/s assuming the mass of each pulsar was the same as the sun's. How could this be observed when the star's surface fluctuates faster than this (I suppose that's the case)? The reduction of the orbital period due to gravitational waves is in milliseconds per year, whereas the sudden appearance of a Pioneer Anomaly which wasn't there before would amount to a difference in the microseconds per year (less than 1 part in a trillion). But given that it doesn't suddenly appear, I think it would be harder to observe than that.

I think pulsars a good test for General Relativity, but I do not know how these pulsars could be used to test the Pioneer Effect or any idea associated with it. The zoom out effect I proposed only would occur in the vast voids between stars. It would not affect how solar system, binaries, pulsars, etc. are viewed, other than their visual distance, brightness, and parallax.

Nereid
2006-May-03, 12:10 AM
OK, so clearly I didn't understand how the Pioneer anomaly would be explained, in your idea (I thought that anything that would show up in our solar system would also show up in a binary pulsar ... many millions of times larger).

Can you remind me please - in your idea, what does the Pioneer anomaly scale with? Is it mass (of what?), distance (between what?), gravitational potential (wrt what?), ...?

More generally, I didn't see anything in your OP that suggested any way your idea could be tested (observationally), other than the Pioneer anomaly ...

kmarinas86
2006-May-03, 12:33 AM
OK, so clearly I didn't understand how the Pioneer anomaly would be explained, in your idea (I thought that anything that would show up in our solar system would also show up in a binary pulsar ... many millions of times larger).

Can you remind me please - in your idea, what does the Pioneer anomaly scale with? Is it mass (of what?), distance (between what?), gravitational potential (wrt what?), ...?

In my idea, the pioneer acceleration, about 8.74*10^-10 m/s^2 applies for cosmology within our level of fractal. I do not know about changes of this value in different parts of this same fractal level. Being an acceleration, it would have a different value at different fractal levels. A higher value in smaller fractal levels (the universes inside the atoms), and a lower value in larger fractal levels (the universe that our universe is a part of).


More generally, I didn't see anything in your OP that suggested any way your idea could be tested (observationally), other than the Pioneer anomaly ...

True. The idea is highly reliant upon the idea that stars and galaxies appear farther away than they really are. Our universe would have to be 10^41 times wider than the universes within the atoms. An object of size 10^-18 meters (a quark) would have to be like an object of 10^23 meters, which is about 10.5 million light years. In this hypothesis, each of these quarks are supposed to exist behind a few (perhaps something like half a dozen) constellations. Clearly then, there has to be a massive revision of the size of the universe (by a factor of about 1000 in width and 1 billion in volume) in order for this postulate accept a length scale factor of 10^41. Most of this resizing would involve reestimating the size of the voids. LSB (low surface brightness) galaxies, gas in the center of galaxy clusters (or in the middle of nowhere), the huge voids between intergalatic filaments, and (a little bit) for the empty space between widely seperated and extended arms of galaxies would be most affected. The future of this idea depends on future observations outside most of the solarsystem's influence.

This is putting the cart before the horse, but if this idea will hold alot of water in the future, it will be for a new breed of horses, ready to use. Alternatively, it may just be another cart that never goes into mass production.

Nereid
2006-May-03, 01:18 AM
Why?

I mean, what's so special about objects that are sent from Earth?

If what you are claiming, then cosmic rays would be a good test, as would TeV gammas from distant objects (they couldn't possibly arrive here ... they'd have collided with lots of stuff between their source and us, far, far, far more than in standard cosmology/astrophysics).

I expect there would also be lots of tests possible on (spectral) lines, similar to the various work done on checking the constancy of alpha.

Another test would be microlensing, by objects in the MW or its environs ...

Further, proper motions, of objects outside the MW, or blobs in galactic jets, ...

Any particular reason why none of these tests would work?

kmarinas86
2006-May-03, 03:52 AM
Why?

I mean, what's so special about objects that are sent from Earth?

They can escape the atmosphere, they can escape the solar system and provide a unique perspective and vantage point of the stars that is different than what we have on Earth.


If what you are claiming, then cosmic rays would be a good test, as would TeV gammas from distant objects (they couldn't possibly arrive here ... they'd have collided with lots of stuff between their source and us, far, far, far more than in standard cosmology/astrophysics).

Hmmm.. I don't know what expect from this, because my idea doesn't make any predictions about TeV gamma rays (as far as I know now). However, sometimes, a person's idea predicts something that he or she doesn't know about (I might be one of those people).


I expect there would also be lots of tests possible on (spectral) lines, similar to the various work done on checking the constancy of alpha.

Another test would be microlensing, by objects in the MW or its environs ...

Further, proper motions, of objects outside the MW, or blobs in galactic jets, ...

Any particular reason why none of these tests would work?

Well, I haven't made predictions of those kinds. The effect I'm thinking is basically a benign zoom out effect. I would basically have to extend my hypothesis to predict some other anomalies (especially if it is going to be quantitative). After all, if it is basically a zoom out an nothing more (other than the repulsion), I don't know what else to predict. Basically, what it says that there is negative curvature outside the solarsystem, and that it bends the light such a way that when it reaches Earth, it appears farther away in brightness, angular size, etc. We won't even know how such a thing really works, before it is discovered (I think). Another way to put it is that it's the opposite of a convex gravitational lens. That is why I think, being such a hidden phenonemon, it will take a bit of imagination to come up with a way to test this without putting probes into interstellar space.

Below are some images that use some terminology that I don't use anymore (I made these a while back). Ex. instead of saying that the speed of light is faster in interstellar space, I would say that the gravitational time dilation outside the solarsystem is less than 1. This is unusual, because in the current formulation of General Relativity, you can can't have proper time deriviate d\tau greater than the coordinate time derivitative dt (I guess, expect in some special circumstances such as hyperbolic space time (I think)). That is something I am not sure about.

Nereid
2006-May-03, 01:56 PM
I still don't get it ... the physics of the rest of the universe is the same as that we've determined, right here in our solar system, or isn't it?

If it isn't, then how come it seems to be (pretty much) the same?

And if there is some kind of 'zoom out' effect, how is it able to operate in a way that makes the (in fact) much more distant objects seem just where they ought to be, as if there were no 'zoom out' effect?

In particular:
-> MACHOs (gravitational lensing by halo objects (stars) - in at least one case we later saw the actual lens
-> diffuse gamma line radiation, from SNe debris, in the MW disk
-> TeV gammas (and, likely, UHECRs) from high energy sources near and far
-> (apparent) proper motion of blobs in AGN jets

kmarinas86
2006-May-03, 03:06 PM
I still don't get it ... the physics of the rest of the universe is the same as that we've determined, right here in our solar system, or isn't it?

The physics in the center of the earth are the same as they are in outspace. However, the environments are different, so different things are happening.


If it isn't, then how come it seems to be (pretty much) the same?

Physics are the same everywhere (a reason why it seems to be the same), but the environment is not (a reason why this smooth zoom out in interstellar space is possible).


And if there is some kind of 'zoom out' effect, how is it able to operate in a way that makes the (in fact) much more distant objects seem just where they ought to be, as if there were no 'zoom out' effect?

Not where they ought to be, but where they seem to be. The stars in galaxies and galaxies in superclusters already look like (via redshift) that they're going to fly apart.


In particular:
-> MACHOs (gravitational lensing by halo objects (stars) - in at least one case we later saw the actual lens

The zoom out effect would make the gravitational lens appear farther away. The density of a cluster, which would be physically denser than it appears via this zoom out effect, would explain the greater bending of light than expected through the visible mass of the visible size.


-> diffuse gamma line radiation, from SNe debris, in the MW disk

The laws of physics are the same they as they are here. A zoom out effect would only to serve to change the span of this debris and its distance from us.


-> TeV gammas (and, likely, UHECRs) from high energy sources near and far

The laws of physics are the same they as they are here. A zoom out effect would only to serve to change the distance of these sources.


-> (apparent) proper motion of blobs in AGN jets

Still a zoom out effect only.

Nereid
2006-May-03, 04:53 PM
I still don't get it ... the physics of the rest of the universe is the same as that we've determined, right here in our solar system, or isn't it?The physics in the center of the earth are the same as they are in outspace. However, the environments are different, so different things are happening.So what is an 'environment'?

And how - in what ways - do the environments differ?

If it isn't, then how come it seems to be (pretty much) the same?Physics are the same everywhere (a reason why it seems to be the same), but the environment is not (a reason why this smooth zoom out in interstellar space is possible).But 'interstellar space' is not empty - it has gas (molecular, atomic, plasma), dust, neutrinos, photons, cosmic rays, .... Further, it's far from homogeneous.

Does the degree of 'zoom out' scale with any of the physical properties/states of the ISM/IGM?

And if there is some kind of 'zoom out' effect, how is it able to operate in a way that makes the (in fact) much more distant objects seem just where they ought to be, as if there were no 'zoom out' effect?Not where they ought to be, but where they seem to be. The stars in galaxies and galaxies in superclusters already look like (via redshift) that they're going to fly apart.If you're referring to the Hubble relationship, then 'fly apart' must refer to only large scale structure ... after all, the 'Hubble flow', which has now been measured, in many places, may look attractive, or may look repulsive.

Further, galaxy clusters certainly seem to be virialised, and (most) galaxies are too.

But, independent of redshift, we can measure distance ... the Cepheids in the Virgo cluster galaxies, observed in the Hubble Key Project, really do seem to be several Mpc away. (This is, of course, just one example).

Why a 'zoom out' effect?

In particular:
-> MACHOs (gravitational lensing by halo objects (stars) - in at least one case we later saw the actual lensThe zoom out effect would make the gravitational lens appear farther away. The density of a cluster, which would be physically denser than it appears via this zoom out effect, would explain the greater bending of light than expected through the visible mass of the visible size.I'm not talking about (galaxy) clusters; I'm talking about MACHOs (massive compact halo objects) and the research programme of the same name (there are several others - OGLE, for example).

They involved staring at distant star fields (e.g. in the SMC or LMC), and looking for a particular kind of variable ... a lensing event, caused by the motion of an intermediate distance object gravitationally lensing a distant (SMC, LMC) star. In at least one case, the actual, transverse, line of sight motion of the lensing star was subsequently detected - i.e. a star really did move across our line of sight, at an apparent speed consistent with expectations that it is as distant as it appears (and so thus not subject to any 'zoom out' effect).

Don't these kinds of observation rule out your 'zoom out' idea?

-> diffuse gamma line radiation, from SNe debris, in the MW diskThe laws of physics are the same they as they are here. A zoom out effect would only to serve to change the span of this debris and its distance from us.And that's what I don't get.

INTEGRAL (http://www.spacedaily.com/reports/Integral_Identifies_Supernova_Rate_For_Milky_Way.h tml) measured the distribution of 26Al in the Milky Way disk.

26Al has a half-life of less than a million years.

It could only get to be distributed throughout the MW disk, if the distances that we calculate, via standard astrophysics, are (more or less) correct.

If distances were very different (per your 'zoom out' effect), then there should be no 26Al (it would have decayed long before it diffused throughout the disk).

-> TeV gammas (and, likely, UHECRs) from high energy sources near and farThe laws of physics are the same they as they are here. A zoom out effect would only to serve to change the distance of these sources.Another thing I don't get.

If the laws of physics are the same, then it would be impossible to detect TeV gammas and UHECRs from distant souces ... they'd have been destroyed or converted to something else well before they hit the Earth's atmosphere.

How could TeV gammas and UHECRs propogate through vastly greater distances (as implied by the 'zoom out' effect)?

-> (apparent) proper motion of blobs in AGN jetsNow I see. About the apparent superluminal motion of AGN jets:

It is definitely true that this "apparent" superluminal motion could be explained partially by the zoom out effect. That is to say, the tip of the jet appears longer partially due to a widening by the zoom out effect. The part of the jet that is less zoomed out is closer to the distant galaxy, where the mass density is greater.Well, no ... I used this example because it is pretty well-known (and note that not all such motions are apparently superluminal).

I could equally well have used apparent proper motions from water (and other) masers, in extragalactic sources (they are most certainly not superluminal).

The point is that transverse motion has been detected, in extragalactic sources, and it is (more or less) what we expect, given the (calculated, non-zoom out) distance to those objects.

A 'zoom out' effect would make interpretations of such observations quite inconsistent with "[t]he physics in the center of the earth are the same as they are in outspace"

kmarinas86
2006-May-03, 07:58 PM
So what is an 'environment'?

A place?


And how - in what ways - do the environments differ?

Some places are very close to massive bodies. Others are not. There countless ways they are different.


But 'interstellar space' is not empty - it has gas (molecular, atomic, plasma), dust, neutrinos, photons, cosmic rays, .... Further, it's far from homogeneous.

True.


Does the degree of 'zoom out' scale with any of the physical properties/states of the ISM/IGM?

Yes. A greater distance implies a greater zoom out scale. For within the ISM this would be less than a factor of 10. For IGM, this would be anywhere from 1 or 2 magnitudes greater scale factor. I could revise this later (my hypothesis hasn't completely evolved yet).


If you're referring to the Hubble relationship, then 'fly apart' must refer to only large scale structure ... after all, the 'Hubble flow', which has now been measured, in many places, may look attractive, or may look repulsive.

Not quite the Hubble relationship. This hypothesis is quite different.


Further, galaxy clusters certainly seem to be virialised, and (most) galaxies are too.

That is true.


But, independent of redshift, we can measure distance ... the Cepheids in the Virgo cluster galaxies, observed in the Hubble Key Project, really do seem to be several Mpc away. (This is, of course, just one example).

Of course.


Why a 'zoom out' effect? I'm not talking about (galaxy) clusters; I'm talking about MACHOs (massive compact halo objects) and the research programme of the same name (there are several others - OGLE, for example).

If there is not enough dark matter after all, then the extra velocities of the stars in galaxies would have to be explained as being due to an optical illusion that makes the stars and gas at the edge appear farther from the center of the galaxy than they really are.


They involved staring at distant star fields (e.g. in the SMC or LMC), and looking for a particular kind of variable ... a lensing event, caused by the motion of an intermediate distance object gravitationally lensing a distant (SMC, LMC) star. In at least one case, the actual, transverse, line of sight motion of the lensing star was subsequently detected - i.e. a star really did move across our line of sight, at an apparent speed consistent with expectations that it is as distant as it appears (and so thus not subject to any 'zoom out' effect).

Well sure. If you see a car going the speed limit (being required) say 1 mile away, this is no stranger than say another car going the speed limit 1 kilometer away. Both the object and its path/trajectory are zoomed out. This zoom out affect would be benign to the peculiar velocities, and it will not affect systems so much that are under the influence of higher density of the gravitational field.

Also, if we were in the central bulge of the galaxy looking at some other dense part of the central bulge of the galaxy, there would be no observed zoom out effect within that context. The zoom out effect increases with the size of the void.


Don't these kinds of observation rule out your 'zoom out' idea?And that's what I don't get.

They cannot because "by definition" the zoom out effect is benign.


INTEGRAL (http://www.spacedaily.com/reports/Integral_Identifies_Supernova_Rate_For_Milky_Way.h tml) measured the distribution of 26Al in the Milky Way disk.

26Al has a half-life of less than a million years.

It could only get to be distributed throughout the MW disk, if the distances that we calculate, via standard astrophysics, are (more or less) correct.

But it could get to other places even faster, if the coordinate distances were closer the the apparent distances. Yes, if the actual distances were greater than the visual distances (now that would be a problem). But that's not what I'm saying.

The basis for this zooming out is that the actual distances of stars and galaxies are closer than what it "appears" to be. Hence, 26Al would actually have an easier time to make the journey to disperse throughout the galaxy.


If distances were very different (per your 'zoom out' effect), then there should be no 26Al (it would have decayed long before it diffused throughout the disk).Another thing I don't get.

I don't see how the density of the 26Al would affect the half-life 26Al. Also, remember that the zoom out is only a illusion (in this case the "product" that is given to us). If we ignore the zoom out effect, the nearest stars to the sun would be within 4 light years. That's what seperates this idea from many others.


If the laws of physics are the same, then it would be impossible to detect TeV gammas and UHECRs from distant souces ... they'd have been destroyed or converted to something else well before they hit the Earth's atmosphere.

Well not really. Why would TeV gammas and Ultra-High Energy Cosmic Rays suddenly disappear one their way through empty space? The zoom out effect is due to non-Euclidean hyperbolic effects of the medium (as opposed elliptical geometry). The repulsive aspects would prevent collisions. The actual distances, being closer, would make the journey shorter that we would normally think.


How could TeV gammas and UHECRs propogate through vastly greater distances (as implied by the 'zoom out' effect)? Well, no ... I used this example because it is pretty well-known (and note that not all such motions are apparently superluminal).

I think you have misunderstood what I said. The zoom out effect is an illusion. It is a bit like reading a book through a concave lens, the words appearring tinier than the would without the lens. In contrast, the actual distances in this idea would be vastly smaller than looks make it out to be. Propogation would be take less time.


I could equally well have used apparent proper motions from water (and other) masers, in extragalactic sources (they are most certainly not superluminal).

They are not superluminal. Actually, if our vision was distorted with a zoom out effect that increases as the void increases, that that must mean that the gas jets are decelerating by a greater amount than they "appear" to be.


The point is that transverse motion has been detected, in extragalactic sources, and it is (more or less) what we expect, given the (calculated, non-zoom out) distance to those objects.

That's not unusual. The zoom-out effect would suggest a decceleration away from the speed of light. No problem there.


A 'zoom out' effect would make interpretations of such observations quite inconsistent with "[t]he physics in the center of the earth are the same as they are in outspace"

Why? I guess it's just semantics or something. The laws of physics don't change when you go to the moon, the gravity does. Changes of acceleration and angles don't change the laws of physics. Changes in mass or time don't change laws of physics either. Nothing changes the laws of physics, but our ideas about them do.

kmarinas86
2006-May-03, 09:40 PM
In this Cyclical Multiverse Hypothesis, the proper motions of stars within galaxies should appear as thought they are exagerrated. This would be due to the zoom out effect whose product is an apparent increasing in spacing between more distant objects. The theory predicts an anomaly in the observed orbital period of the stars in galaxies. In essence, the proper motions of stars in galaxies should be more easily observed than expected.

Astrometric studies are needed to test the idea.

http://www.datasync.com/~rsf1/m33rcm.htm
http://www.nrao.edu/pr/2005/m33motion/
http://www.universetoday.com/am/publish/sideways_motion_galaxy.html?432005
http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/abstract/307/5714/1440
http://www.jive.nl/~brunthal/pub/m33_science.pdf

Nereid
2006-May-04, 03:12 PM
I still don't get it.

In this particular observation (http://www.eso.org/outreach/press-rel/pr-2001/pr-28-01.html), an LMC star was lensed by a foreground object.

Six years later, the HST imaged the lensing object, and follow-up observations determined its nature (a red dwarf, ~600 ly distant).

All quite nice and consistent. In particular, the lensing object is where it was expected, and its (proper) motion (as determined by the HST observation) consistent with the lensing event.

In other words, no 'zoom out' effect. (Or, more accurately, any 'zoom out' effect must be smaller than {insert result of calculations here}).

Going to more distant objects, we have the proper motions of masers in M33 (and M31, and ...), per the links in your last post. From such data (e.g. the paper in your last link), the proper motions seem to be as expected - no 'zoom out' effect. But perhaps you could do the calculations, to show how these observational results are consistent with your idea?

Does the degree of 'zoom out' scale with any of the physical properties/states of the ISM/IGM?Yes. A greater distance implies a greater zoom out scale. For within the ISM this would be less than a factor of 10. For IGM, this would be anywhere from 1 or 2 magnitudes greater scale factor. I could revise this later (my hypothesis hasn't completely evolved yet).I'm not following this ... are you saying that any object seen through the ISM is 'zoomed out' by 'less than a factor of 10'? So that Sirius (~8 ly distant) is really more distant, but less than ~80 ly? Or that Betelgeuse, imaged here (http://antwrp.gsfc.nasa.gov/apod/ap990605.html), is really not ~430 ly away, but something up to ~4000 ly away? That its radius isn't ~3 au, but something as big as ~30 au?

For an object like M87, HST observations (http://www.journals.uchicago.edu/ApJ/journal/issues/ApJL/v454n2/5476/5476.html) of the associated globular clusters show an average effective radius of ~3pc, which is the same as that of Milky Way globulars.

According to your idea, since we seeing M87 (and its globulars) through at least two IGMs (that of the Local Group and of the Virgo cluster), these globulars have an effective radius of up to 30,000 pc (certainly >30pc). Or did I misunderstand how 'zoom out' works?

INTEGRAL measured the distribution of 26Al in the Milky Way disk.

26Al has a half-life of less than a million years.

It could only get to be distributed throughout the MW disk, if the distances that we calculate, via standard astrophysics, are (more or less) correct.But it could get to other places even faster, if the coordinate distances were closer the the apparent distances. Yes, if the actual distances were greater than the visual distances (now that would be a problem). But that's not what I'm saying.

The basis for this zooming out is that the actual distances of stars and galaxies are closer than what it "appears" to be. Hence, 26Al would actually have an easier time to make the journey to disperse throughout the galaxy.Whether it can get to where it is observed easier (because distances are, in fact, smaller) or less easily (because distances are, in fact, larger), your idea faces the same kind of problem - given the (known) half-life of 26Al, the physics of diffusion in the ISM, and the rate of SNe (of the appropriate kind), a certain concentration of 26Al, by galactic lat and long, can be expected. Change the distances, and what you expect will be different.

So, observation of 26Al distribution can constrain the size of any 'zoom out' effect, and should provide an easy test of your idea.

Edit: I think I got the 'zoom out' effect round the wrong way ... instead of being ~3 au in radius, Betelgeuse should be as small as ~0.3 au; the M87 globulars should have an average effective radius of ~<0.3 pc (as small as ~1 light-day?)

kmarinas86
2006-May-04, 05:34 PM
I still don't get it.

In this particular observation (http://www.eso.org/outreach/press-rel/pr-2001/pr-28-01.html), an LMC star was lensed by a foreground object.

Six years later, the HST imaged the lensing object, and follow-up observations determined its nature (a red dwarf, ~600 ly distant).

All quite nice and consistent. In particular, the lensing object is where it was expected, and its (proper) motion (as determined by the HST observation) consistent with the lensing event.

In other words, no 'zoom out' effect. (Or, more accurately, any 'zoom out' effect must be smaller than {insert result of calculations here}).

Going to more distant objects, we have the proper motions of masers in M33 (and M31, and ...), per the links in your last post. From such data (e.g. the paper in your last link), the proper motions seem to be as expected - no 'zoom out' effect. But perhaps you could do the calculations, to show how these observational results are consistent with your idea?

It appears they have measured the angular velocity to be as expected [i.e. velocity/radius=(dist/time)/disance=1/s] Now it appears, for my hypothesis to survive:

frequency_observed=frequency_original=sqrt((1-(v/c)(R/r))/(1+(v/c)(R/r))

Where R is the observed radius and r is the physical radius (lower case because it's defined as being smaller than R). Not good for my hypothesis.

This is because if v/R is known, and if R is really smaller by a factor of (R/r) then v would have to be smaller by factor (R/r).


I'm not following this ... are you saying that any object seen through the ISM is 'zoomed out' by 'less than a factor of 10'? So that Sirius (~8 ly distant) is really more distant, but less than ~80 ly? Or that Betelgeuse, imaged here (http://antwrp.gsfc.nasa.gov/apod/ap990605.html), is really not ~430 ly away, but something up to ~4000 ly away? That its radius isn't ~3 au, but something as big as ~30 au?

Think of it this way:

With zoom out factor of 10:
Actual distance of 4 light years means visual distance of 40 light years.

So if the zoom out factor is 10, instead of being 4 lightyears away (the way it appears to be), it would be .4 light years away. You have the function in reverse. What would be zoomed out is the image - not the displacement.


For an object like M87, HST observations (http://www.journals.uchicago.edu/ApJ/journal/issues/ApJL/v454n2/5476/5476.html) of the associated globular clusters show an average effective radius of ~3pc, which is the same as that of Milky Way globulars.

According to your idea, since we seeing M87 (and its globulars) through at least two IGMs (that of the Local Group and of the Virgo cluster), these globulars have an effective radius of up to 30,000 pc (certainly >30pc). Or did I misunderstand how 'zoom out' works?

You did.


Whether it can get to where it is observed easier (because distances are, in fact, smaller) or less easily (because distances are, in fact, larger), your idea faces the same kind of problem - given the (known) half-life of 26Al, the physics of diffusion in the ISM, and the rate of SNe (of the appropriate kind), a certain concentration of 26Al, by galactic lat and long, can be expected. Change the distances, and what you expect will be different.

In this fractal universe, even the galaxies will have finite lifetimes. And of course, you would expect different results as long as there are no modifications to the theory.

Since observed angular velocity is as expected as in normal theory (in M33), a modification of my hypothesis is required.

Instead of:
V^2=GM/r-pr (where p is the pioneer acceleration)
I would have
(V(R/r))^2=GM/r-pr
(VR)^2=GMr-pr^3

Because to account for the same angular velocity that is observed in the links I provided, the V would have to be less by a factor of (R/r). When I plugged this in to my Galactic Rotation curve data, I noticed that I no longer have r decreasing when R is increasing for high R. So in some way this modification is an improvement. Weird. Sounds temporary, but I guess it might do for now. This would make the outbound/inbound/transverse travel times in the galaxy the same.


So, observation of 26Al distribution can constrain the size of any 'zoom out' effect, and should provide an easy test of your idea.

If I keep it the way it was.


Edit: I think I got the 'zoom out' effect round the wrong way ... instead of being ~3 au in radius, Betelgeuse should be as small as ~0.3 au; the M87 globulars should have an average effective radius of ~<0.3 pc (as small as ~1 light-day?)

No. It is important that the radius of Betelgeuse is the way it is. The anomaly is not in the radius of this object but in its angular diameter distance. The reduction in actual size vs. visual size does not apply for stars - only galaxies. Galaxies are mostly empty space, whereas stars and solarsystems are dense.

Nereid
2006-May-09, 03:41 PM
[snip]
Edit: I think I got the 'zoom out' effect round the wrong way ... instead of being ~3 au in radius, Betelgeuse should be as small as ~0.3 au; the M87 globulars should have an average effective radius of ~<0.3 pc (as small as ~1 light-day?)No. It is important that the radius of Betelgeuse is the way it is. The anomaly is not in the radius of this object but in its angular diameter distance. The reduction in actual size vs. visual size does not apply for stars - only galaxies. Galaxies are mostly empty space, whereas stars and solarsystems are dense.Globular clusters are also mostly empty space, so why do the M87 globulars seem to have an effective radius, as determined from their observed angular sizes, that is comparable to Milky Way (and LMC, and SMC, and M31, and ...) globulars, assuming M87 is at a distance implied by observations of Virgo cluster Cepheids?

Another method used to determine distance - surface brightness fluctuation (http://www.aas.org/publications/baas/v30n2/aas192/abs/S052002.html) - would also seem, at first blush, to be inconsistent with your idea. Given that this method yields distance estimates similar to those of other methods (not affected by your 'zoom out' effect), doesn't this show the 'zoom out' effect to be small (at best)?

kmarinas86
2006-May-10, 12:20 PM
Globular clusters are also mostly empty space, so why do the M87 globulars seem to have an effective radius, as determined from their observed angular sizes, that is comparable to Milky Way (and LMC, and SMC, and M31, and ...) globulars, assuming M87 is at a distance implied by observations of Virgo cluster Cepheids?

Another method used to determine distance - surface brightness fluctuation (http://www.aas.org/publications/baas/v30n2/aas192/abs/S052002.html) - would also seem, at first blush, to be inconsistent with your idea. Given that this method yields distance estimates similar to those of other methods (not affected by your 'zoom out' effect), doesn't this show the 'zoom out' effect to be small (at best)?

www.3towers.com/OurPlace.htm

The distance ladder would be radically altered if we have to account for a "zoom out effect". All distance measurements would be brought closer (except for unusally underestimated distances - of which there are probably none). The effect a zoom lens on a camcorder has on the real distances of objects is no more radical than than the effect that zoom out effect has on the real distances of stars and galaxies. It is a bit like the image on the right side view mirror of American cars that says, "Objects in mirror are closer than they appear." The side-view mirror not only affects the size, but also the brightness of the lights of cars. However, just because the mirror distorts the light this way does not mean that size of the cars seen the mirror are underestimated or overestimated. One would not look in the American right-view mirror say that the Nissan Pathfinder is 7 feet long and 2.5 feet wide because of the way it looks in the mirror. Only the empty space that exist between you and the car behind you are exaggerated. The analogy is limited, in that the empty space between cars of equal distance from you as seen in the rear view mirror is not more spread out as the distance between the cars among themselves increases. The zoom out effect proposed in the Cyclic Multiverse Hypothesis involves the whole region of space which is not occupied by dense quantities of matter. Another analogy: if the holes in a kitchen sponge represent the volumes where stars reside, then the material of the sponge itself represent the volumes where the zoom out effect takes place. The zoom out effect's "lens" is not the shape of typical lens. Instead, would exist in all directions of the sky, existing in front of, beside, and behind of stars that we see in the sky.

Below is an image (using terminology I no longer use), that illustrates this concept.


Below [is an image] that uses some terminology that I don't use anymore (I made these a while back). Ex. instead of saying that the speed of light is faster in interstellar space, I would say that the gravitational time dilation outside the solarsystem is less than 1. This is unusual, because in the current formulation of General Relativity, you can can't have proper time deriviate d\tau greater than the coordinate time derivitative dt (I guess, expect in some special circumstances such as hyperbolic space time (I think)). That is something I am not sure about.

Nereid
2006-May-10, 01:37 PM
www.3towers.com/OurPlace.htm

The distance ladder would be radically altered if we have to account for a "zoom out effect". All distance measurements would be brought closer (except for unusally underestimated distances - of which there are probably none).Equally, any proponent of a "zoom out effect" would have the tricky task of showing that all the different methods of estimating (extra-galactic) distance - directly or via a ladder - are consistently wrong (in the sense that the actual distance to non-Local Group galaxies* is much smaller than it seems), and yet consistent with whatever such a proponent wished to claim is their actual distance.

I feel that there is no such proponent, or at least, not one with a good case to present (yet).

*If Betelgeuse is ~3au in radius (or was it diameter?) - so no 'zoom out effect' - then similar sorts of observations rule out any significant 'zoom out' for most Local Group galaxies. For example, light echos of SNe (http://www.phy.mtu.edu/apod/ap971023.html) in the LMC.

kmarinas86
2006-Jun-23, 06:41 PM
e=R/r=V/v=exaggeration

e Pictures
1.2 http://images.google.com/images?q=NGC+3877
1.3 http://images.google.com/images?q=NGC+2903
1.4 http://images.google.com/images?q=NGC+801
1.5 http://images.google.com/images?q=NGC+4088
1.6 http://images.google.com/images?q=NGC+6946
1.7 http://images.google.com/images?q=NGC+6614
1.8 http://images.google.com/images?q=NGC+3198
1.9 http://images.google.com/images?q=UGC+6818
2.1 http://images.google.com/images?q=NGC+3789
2.2 http://images.google.com/images?q=UGC+6446
2.3 http://images.google.com/images?q=NGC+1560
2.4 http://images.google.com/images?q=UGC+7089

There is a good correlation between the density of the perimeter and the exaggeration at the perimeter. So the formula I made appears to correspond to an exaggeration based on greater emptiness of space.

For details see:
http://academia.wikia.com/wiki/K._Marinas'_Cyclic_Multiverse_Hypothesis#Determina nt_of_this_Hyperbolic_Spacetime