PDA

View Full Version : north's views of what is fundamental in cosmology



north
2006-Jun-26, 02:18 AM
[Moderator Note] This post has been moved from the Big Bang Theory Whats wrong with it? thread (http://www.bautforum.com/showthread.php?t=42874). [/Moderator Note]

of course i have yet to find any reasonable and/or logical argument to my contention that if it is space that is "responsible" for the so called "expansion" of the Universe, that when looked at three dimensionally, 360degrees, and that every single mi-nute point within the sphere of space, is pulling exactly equall to any other point in space why, the Universe is expanding in the first place.

Until this happens the Reasonable and logical conclusion is that space is NOT in FACT happening at all. and that other explainations, theories, must come into the discussion to explain this illusion of the Universe is expanding. obviously

therefore BBT is fundamentally flawed. some have not simply accepted this yet.

north
2006-Jun-26, 03:21 AM
any theory in which expansion of the Universe is NOT apart of the theory, is certainly and absolutely a good start. period.

north
2006-Jun-26, 06:23 AM
[Moderator Note] This post has been moved from the Big Bang Theory Whats wrong with it? thread (http://www.bautforum.com/showthread.php?t=42874). [/Moderator Note]
To 'bust' the BB, I think you must 'bust' the redshift = distance conjecture. And in particular, offer a mathematically supported, and testable model of 'intrinsic' redshift that agrees with observational evidence.

okay, if i was on some distant planet in some distant galaxy why would i not say that from my point of view, you are "redshifted" from my point of view.

therefore one redshift cancels the other, null shift. BB busted. period.

Nereid
2006-Jun-26, 01:56 PM
Per this post (http://www.bautforum.com/showpost.php?p=762009&postcount=111), I have split north's post (#2, above) from the How good are the best alternatives to the Big Bang theories? thread (http://www.bautforum.com/showthread.php?t=42172), as it is clearly OT.

Nereid
2006-Jun-26, 02:00 PM
any theory in which expansion of the Universe is NOT apart of the theory, is certainly and absolutely a good start. period.So, do we conclude, from the use of the word "period", that, in your view, cosmology can (and should?) be done by fiat (http://www.answers.com/topic/fiat)?

If so, how is this compatible with doing science? And why should such an arbitrary declaration, by north, carry any significance, among scientists?

If you don't intend "period" to indicate finality (debate over, no further discussion possible, or allowed), then what scientific basis do you have for your assertion? I'm particularly interested in why you use the words "certainly" and "absolutely".

TravisM
2006-Jun-26, 02:00 PM
Why? Why would they absence of expansion warrent a period?

north
2006-Jun-26, 07:48 PM
any theory in which expansion of the Universe is NOT apart of the theory, is certainly and absolutely a good start. period.


i say this because since space its self seems to be the "reason" for exspansion of the the Universe, at least in BBT, that when looked at three dimensionaly,360degrees, and at the mi-nutest points,geometrically speaking, space would "pull" all points of matter in space equally. and therefore lead to a null movement.

north
2006-Jun-26, 08:06 PM
[Moderator Note] This post has been moved from the Big Bang Theory Whats wrong with it? thread (http://www.bautforum.com/showthread.php?t=42874). [/Moderator Note]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Quote:
Originally Posted by north
okay, if i was on some distant planet in some distant galaxy why would i not say that from my point of view, you are "redshifted" from my point of view.

therefore one redshift cancels the other, null shift. BB busted. period.


Geez, even I know where your error is in this! In fact, you've got at least two, not the least of which is that whole relativity thing. But logically, if your distant planet is redshifted away from us, it means you're moving away from us--which means we are also moving away from you, which means that we'd very naturally be redshifted to you just as you are to us.


the reason why i say you get a null expansion beause both give a redhift, is in conjuction with with my argument that space can not be responsible for the expansion in BBT. because space its self pulls equally in ALL three dimensional directions, 360 degrees and on all points within this geometry.


and besides this when you include multiple perspectives, besides our own , somewhere along the line you will have a clash of expansions, to the point where blueshifts come into the picture.

north
2006-Jun-26, 10:00 PM
BBT is fundamentally busted. period.

Nereid
2006-Jun-26, 10:20 PM
i say this because since space its self seems to be the "reason" for exspansion of the the Universe, at least in BBT, that when looked at three dimensionaly,360degrees, and at the mi-nutest points,geometrically speaking, space would "pull" all points of matter in space equally. and therefore lead to a null movement.First, I think that you may have misunderstood this aspect of modern cosmology ... the expansion of the universe follows from an application of Einstein's General Relativity, to the universe as a whole. When you add mass and photons to such a GR universe (realistic additions, because the universe we live in obviously contains both), it must either expand or contract.

So, an objection to an expanding (or contracting) universe is, at first blush, a rejection of GR.

Is this the thrust of your post? That GR is fundamentally flawed?

If so, in what way does "when looked at three dimensionaly,360degrees, and at the mi-nutest points,geometrically speaking, space would "pull" all points of matter in space equally" contradict GR?

Alternatively, from this north idea, what results of the hundreds of experiments and observations (http://relativity.livingreviews.org/) have been misinterpreted? (I assume that you do not dispute the validity of the results of these experiments and observations - do you?)

north
2006-Jun-26, 10:43 PM
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Quote:
Originally Posted by north
i say this because since space its self seems to be the "reason" for exspansion of the the Universe, at least in BBT, that when looked at three dimensionaly,360degrees, and at the mi-nutest points,geometrically speaking, space would "pull" all points of matter in space equally. and therefore lead to a null movement.







First, I think that you may have misunderstood this aspect of modern cosmology ... the expansion of the universe follows from an application of Einstein's General Relativity, to the universe as a whole. When you add mass and photons to such a GR universe (realistic additions, because the universe we live in obviously contains both), it must either expand or contract.

So, an objection to an expanding (or contracting) universe is, at first blush, a rejection of GR.

Is this the thrust of your post? That GR is fundamentally flawed?

If so, in what way does "when looked at three dimensionaly,360degrees, and at the mi-nutest points,geometrically speaking, space would "pull" all points of matter in space equally" contradict GR?

Alternatively, from this north idea, what results of the hundreds of experiments and observations (http://relativity.livingreviews.org/) have been misinterpreted? (I assume that you do not dispute the validity of the results of these experiments and observations - do you?)

whether there is a contradiction of GR is not the point really, that is for you to figure out. simply stated, space is NOT responsible for redshifts, Reasonably and/or logiclly. and that is a fact. and my perspective it seems has never been considered.

as for your last statement. it is quite clear that we have not been thinking three dimensionally, spacially. and therefore yes like it or not , the observations have been misinterpreted.

this nothing to do with me, i simply pointed out a flaw in the interpretation of the conclusions which have been drawn from the observations.

Reasonably.

if you doubt my Reasonable conclusions, on my spacial ramifications, then lets focus on this first.

give me an argument that says i'm wrong. then we will move forward from there.

what i'm speaking is not about authority Nereid, for if that were the case who would question Newton?

if Albert were here( ohhhhh... how i wish!!!), i would present the same argument to him. not out of disrespect but because it is a truth. and i really think he would appreciate, the truth. Naturally

Tensor
2006-Jun-27, 02:29 AM
[Moderator Note] This post has been moved from the Big Bang Theory Whats wrong with it? thread (http://www.bautforum.com/showthread.php?t=42874). [/Moderator Note]


the reason why i say you get a null expansion beause both give a redhift, is in conjuction with with my argument that space can not be responsible for the expansion in BBT. because space its self pulls equally in ALL three dimensional directions, 360 degrees and on all points within this geometry.

And your mathematical proof of this is what? I'd really be interested in how you would get the metric to do this. If your not using a metric based gravity theory, I would really love to see the math behind this statement.



and besides this when you include multiple perspectives, besides our own , somewhere along the line you will have a clash of expansions, to the point where blueshifts come into the picture.

Huh? Care to explain this mathematically also?

Cougar
2006-Jun-27, 03:10 AM
i say this because since space its self seems to be the "reason" for exspansion of the the Universe, at least in BBT, that when looked at three dimensionaly,360degrees, and at the mi-nutest points,geometrically speaking, space would "pull" all points of matter in space equally. and therefore lead to a null movement.
If this was the case, you might be right. But this is not the case. The "distance" between an electron and its nucleus, for example, might be pretty erratic, but it is not expanding with the expansion of the cosmos. Not only is the electromagnetic force holding the atom together about 1070 times greater than the essentially imperceptible vacuum energy expanding the space between them, but if the expansion force is rightly described by Einstein's cosmological constant, then space's energy density between the electron and the nucleus remains the same even as such a mi-nute volume expands to double its size, which would take, uh.... how many years?

Bob Angstrom
2006-Jun-27, 10:57 AM
First, I think that you may have misunderstood this aspect of modern cosmology ... the expansion of the universe follows from an application of Einstein's General Relativity, to the universe as a whole. When you add mass and photons to such a GR universe (realistic additions, because the universe we live in obviously contains both), it must either expand or contract.

So, an objection to an expanding (or contracting) universe is, at first blush, a rejection of GR.

Is this the thrust of your post? That GR is fundamentally flawed?

If so, in what way does "when looked at three dimensionaly,360degrees, and at the mi-nutest points,geometrically speaking, space would "pull" all points of matter in space equally" contradict GR?

Alternatively, from this north idea, what results of the hundreds of experiments and observations (http://relativity.livingreviews.org/) have been misinterpreted? (I assume that you do not dispute the validity of the results of these experiments and observations - do you?)I see no violation of GR because GR works in 4D Riemann space where there is no "center" unlike our familiar 3D space (within a 4D space) where we could expect all masses to be drawn to a center. North has raised a valid point here. Our galaxy is not being acted upon by any force that is either pushing or pulling us towards any "center" of the universe. We are the "center" of the universe and that same point of view can be applied to all the other galaxies. Every galaxy, or better, every galactic cluster, is at the very "center" of the universe and it is not being acted upon to move in any direction. A 4D hypersphere is a stable geometry.

Bob Angstrom
2006-Jun-27, 11:06 AM
If this was the case, you might be right. But this is not the case. The "distance" between an electron and its nucleus, for example, might be pretty erratic, but it is not expanding with the expansion of the cosmos. Not only is the electromagnetic force holding the atom together about 1070 times greater than the essentially imperceptible vacuum energy expanding the space between them, but if the expansion force is rightly described by Einstein's cosmological constant, then space's energy density between the electron and the nucleus remains the same even as such a mi-nute volume expands to double its size, which would take, uh.... how many years?An electron shell about a nucleus is a 3D object within a larger 4D space-time and the geometry is not the same. An atom has an identifiable center but our universe does not. Our universe is all center and no edge.

Bob Angstrom
2006-Jun-27, 11:49 AM
[Moderator Note] This post has been moved from the Big Bang Theory Whats wrong with it? thread (http://www.bautforum.com/showthread.php?t=42874). [/Moderator Note]
And your mathematical proof of this is what? I'd really be interested in how you would get the metric to do this. If your not using a metric based gravity theory, I would really love to see the math behind this statement.
Huh? Care to explain this mathematically also?Northís "null attraction" is possible in the Riemann geometry of Einsteinís GR. The attraction of the galaxies above us is exactly countered by the attraction of the galaxies below us and we are not being drawn anywhere. Nor are any of the other galaxies because all galaxies share the common view that they are at the "center" of the universe. Also in Riemannís curved space, the distant galaxies that are redshifted because they are rushing away from us are simultaneously rushing towards us from the opposite direction.

Tensor
2006-Jun-27, 12:21 PM
[Moderator Note] This post has been moved from the Big Bang Theory Whats wrong with it? thread (http://www.bautforum.com/showthread.php?t=42874). [/Moderator Note]
Northís "null attraction" is possible in the Riemann geometry of Einsteinís GR.

Possible. He still has to show the math that this is actually what is happening.


The attraction of the galaxies above us is exactly countered by the attraction of the galaxies below us and we are not being drawn anywhere. Nor are any of the other galaxies because all galaxies share the common view that they are at the "center" of the universe.

So, you discount the observation that we are being pulled toward the great attractor? That seems to indicate that we are being pulled somewhere, in direct conflict with North's claim.


Also in Riemannís curved space, the distant galaxies that are redshifted because they are rushing away from us are simultaneously rushing towards us from the opposite direction.

That would depend on how the manifold is curved. Again, all I asked him for is the math to show that the manifold is indeed curved in the way he claims it is.

Grey
2006-Jun-27, 04:15 PM
I see no violation of GR because GR works in 4D Riemann space where there is no "center" unlike our familiar 3D space (within a 4D space) where we could expect all masses to be drawn to a center. North has raised a valid point here. Our galaxy is not being acted upon by any force that is either pushing or pulling us towards any "center" of the universe. We are the "center" of the universe and that same point of view can be applied to all the other galaxies. Every galaxy, or better, every galactic cluster, is at the very "center" of the universe and it is not being acted upon to move in any direction. A 4D hypersphere is a stable geometry.Not under general relativity, actually. So it's either that general relativity is not an accurate description of the universe (a position you don't seem to want to take), or the universe is dynamic. Well, with the right value of a cosmological constant, you can get a static universe, but even then, it's an unstable equilibrium point, not a stable one.

nutant gene 71
2006-Jun-27, 08:49 PM
I see no violation of GR because GR works in 4D Riemann space where there is no "center" unlike our familiar 3D space (within a 4D space) where we could expect all masses to be drawn to a center. North has raised a valid point here. Our galaxy is not being acted upon by any force that is either pushing or pulling us towards any "center" of the universe. We are the "center" of the universe and that same point of view can be applied to all the other galaxies. Every galaxy, or better, every galactic cluster, is at the very "center" of the universe and it is not being acted upon to move in any direction. A 4D hypersphere is a stable geometry.
Gentlemen (and ladies) your are overlooking the obvious: The reason no space expansion is evident anywhere within our solar system or galaxy is because while space is expanding, Time is contracting!

... thought a little humor would lighten the load. :lol:

JimTKirk
2006-Jun-27, 09:07 PM
Gentlemen (and ladies) your are overlooking the obvious: The reason no space expansion is evident anywhere within our solar system or galaxy is because while space is expanding, Time is contracting!

... thought a little humor would lighten the load. :lol:

It sure feels like it to me too!:lol:

RussT
2006-Jun-27, 10:12 PM
Not under general relativity, actually. So it's either that general relativity is not an accurate description of the universe (a position you don't seem to want to take), or the universe is dynamic. Well, with the right value of a cosmological constant, you can get a static universe, but even then, it's an unstable equilibrium point, not a stable one.

[or the universe is dynamic.]

Grey, what exactly, do you mean by this?

north
2006-Jun-27, 11:26 PM
[Moderator Note] This post has been moved from the Big Bang Theory Whats wrong with it? thread (http://www.bautforum.com/showthread.php?t=42874). [/Moderator Note]
Possible. He still has to show the math that this is actually what is happening.

why does math have to come into my theory( actually it is not a theory at all really) but a 3D consequence of space being responsible for expansion. math is not my strong point, however i'm sure that someone, who is more mathematically inclined than my self , will show that my contention is true.




So, you discount the observation that we are being pulled toward the great attractor? That seems to indicate that we are being pulled somewhere, in direct conflict with North's claim.

yes, it means that we pulled nowhere at all but by the dynamics of the galaxies themselves. without space its self being involved




That would depend on how the manifold is curved. Again, all I asked him for is the math to show that the manifold is indeed curved in the way he claims it is.

we are pulled not from just below and above but also from all sides, and any mi-nute points,geometrically speaking between and through the north and south points. 3D.

Tensor
2006-Jun-28, 02:41 AM
[or the universe is dynamic.]

Grey, what exactly, do you mean by this?

The equations of GR indicate the universe can either be expanding or contracting. This is what is meant by dynamic. At the time the this was first studied, there was no evidence for either. As a result, Einstein put in the cosmological constant into the GR equations, to keep the universe static. After evidence of expansion was found, Einstein has been quoted as saying the the addition of the CC was his biggest blunder.

Tensor
2006-Jun-28, 03:02 AM
[Moderator Note] This post has been moved from the Big Bang Theory Whats wrong with it? thread (http://www.bautforum.com/showthread.php?t=42874). [/Moderator Note]
why does math have to come into my theory( actually it is not a theory at all really) but a 3D consequence of space being responsible for expansion. math is not my strong point,

Well, see, it's your contention, which it appears you can't support.


however i'm sure that someone, who is more mathematically inclined than my self , will show that my contention is true.

Ahhhh, so you want someone else to do the work of supporting you idea.


yes, it means that we pulled nowhere at all but by the dynamics of the galaxies themselves. without space its self being involved

Why can't there be both expansion and gravitational attraction between galaxies? There is evidence for both.


we are pulled not from just below and above but also from all sides, and any mi-nute points,geometrically speaking between and through the north and south points. 3D.

But, observations indicate that galaxies are not symetrically distributed, which would mean there can't be an equal pull from all directions. I really don't think you can show an equal pull from all directions, which is why I asked for the math to support your claim.

Cougar
2006-Jun-28, 04:19 AM
An electron shell about a nucleus is a 3D object within a larger 4D space-time and the geometry is not the same. An atom has an identifiable center but our universe does not. Our universe is all center and no edge.
You're obviously right that the model atom is within the universe. But an atom is easily considered in the framework of 3D space and 1D time. And your reference to geometry and the fact that the atom "has an identifiable center" completely misses the point. The question is whether there is ongoing separation between the nucleus and the electron just as there is between our galaxy and that galaxy 8 billion lightyears over there. I'm saying no.


...space would "pull" all points of matter in space equally. and therefore lead to a null movement.
Space isn't thought to be "pulling", but rather expanding. The only thing "pulling on" an object or light beam in space is gravity from other objects... and the overall gravitational effect of the universe as a whole, which can be thought of as giving a certain curvature to the entire space. But as I said, even if the overall gravitational curvature of space may have a "null effect" on a beam of light streaming through billions of lightyears of space (which is debatable), it is the expansion going on under its feet, so to speak, that does affect the characteristics of the beam.

Bob Angstrom
2006-Jun-28, 07:43 AM
[Moderator Note] This post has been moved from the Big Bang Theory Whats wrong with it? thread (http://www.bautforum.com/showthread.php?t=42874). [/Moderator Note]
So, you discount the observation that we are being pulled toward the great attractor? That seems to indicate that we are being pulled somewhere, in direct conflict with North's claim.
We are speaking about galaxies in general and not just those circling within the Virgo cluster or the Great Attracter. These orbits add a minor wrinkle to the mix but the same principles apply structures above and below the galactic scale. Galaxies and their clusters are nothing more than tiny eddies in a giant sea of gravity including the Great Attractor.

And your mathematical proof of this is what? I'd really be interested in how you would get the metric to do this. If your not using a metric based gravity theory, I would really love to see the math behind this statement.North's concept is so simple any math would only complicate the issue. This equation is an over simplification and incomplete but it's a start. Newton's Law of gravity states,

g=G Mm/r2

g is the acceleration of gravity.
G is Newton's gravitational constant.
M is the mass of the universe.
m is the mass of a test galaxy.
r is the distance from the apparent gravitational center of the universe.

In our universe of curved space-time, Every galaxy is at the apparent center of the universe except for local deviations like the Great Attractor so r is zero for our test galaxy and gravitational acceleration g for the galaxy is zero.

In other words, a galaxy at the exact center of the universe would "float free" in zero gravity with no net attraction from any of the other 200 billion galaxies except for local deviations like the Great Attractor. And since every other galaxy is also at the apparent center of the universe, all galaxies are "floating free" from the gravitational attraction of all other galaxies except for local diviations like the Great Attractor. There is no net acceleration on any galaxy to move away from its apparent center towards the true "center" of the universe except for local deviations like the Great attractor. The galaxies are not necessarily being drawn towards the "center" of the universe because the universe has no center except for local deviations like the Great Attractor. North's explanation was clearer without the math except that he failed to mention that there could be local deviations like the Great attractor.

Why can't there be both expansion and gravitational attraction between galaxies? There is evidence for both.There can be both but expansion is not a necessary ingredient.

But, observations indicate that galaxies are not symetrically distributed, which would mean there can't be an equal pull from all directions. I really don't think you can show an equal pull from all directions, which is why I asked for the math to support your claim.Hell no! The radial distribution of galactic gravitational sources is as uniform as a well strained pea soup except for local deviations like the Great Attractor.

Thanatos
2006-Jun-28, 08:04 AM
[Moderator Note] This post has been moved from the Big Bang Theory Whats wrong with it? thread (http://www.bautforum.com/showthread.php?t=42874). [/Moderator Note]
And your mathematical proof of this is what? I'd really be interested in how you would get the metric to do this. If your not using a metric based gravity theory, I would really love to see the math behind this statement.

Huh? Care to explain this mathematically also?Agreed. If 'A' then 'B' then 'C' just doesn't cut it for me when no significant, quantified, observational evidence supporting 'A' is offered.

PS to Bob; I fail to see how Newton's law is relevant. It doesn't even work well in our solar system [e.g. mercury's orbit], much less for objects at cosmological distances.

Bob Angstrom
2006-Jun-28, 08:37 AM
You're obviously right that the model atom is within the universe. But an atom is easily considered in the framework of 3D space and 1D time. And your reference to geometry and the fact that the atom "has an identifiable center" completely misses the point. The question is whether there is ongoing separation between the nucleus and the electron just as there is between our galaxy and that galaxy 8 billion lightyears over there. I'm saying no.Sorry for the misunderstanding. I think I understand now but is there a force that holds the galaxies together the way the EMF holds atoms together?

Thanatos
2006-Jun-28, 09:23 AM
north, you have not offered a shred of objective evidence supporting your alleged 'facts'. You should also polish your writing skills. Poorly communicating an already weak line of reasoning further diminishes your credibility.

Tensor
2006-Jun-28, 11:20 AM
Sorry for the misunderstanding. I think I understand now but is there a force that holds the galaxies together the way the EMF holds atoms together?

Yes, gravity.

north
2006-Jun-29, 09:32 PM
north, you have not offered a shred of objective evidence supporting your alleged 'facts'. You should also polish your writing skills. Poorly communicating an already weak line of reasoning further diminishes your credibility.

interestingly this how Hubble's Law is decribed ;( taken from a first year University text called Astronomy, fourth edition, Chaisson & McMillan)


" The only way that we can have Hubble's Law and retain the cosmological principle is to relize that the Big Bang involved the entire Universe-not just the matter and radiation within it, but the Universe its self."

"Apart from small scale individual random motions, galaxies are not moving with respect to the fabric of space. The component of the galaxies' motion that makes up the Hubble flow is really an expansion of space its self."

THEREFORE SPACE HAS INFACT a three dimensional affect. which, as i said cancels its self out three dimensionaly.

producing a null, as i said.

RussT
2006-Jun-29, 11:18 PM
interestingly this how Hubble's Law is decribed ;( taken from a first year University text called Astronomy, fourth edition, Chaisson & McMillan)


" The only way that we can have Hubble's Law and retain the cosmological principle is to relize that the Big Bang involved the entire Universe-not just the matter and radiation within it, but the Universe its self."

"Apart from small scale individual random motions, galaxies are not moving with respect to the fabric of space. The component of the galaxies' motion that makes up the Hubble flow is really an expansion of space its self."

THEREFORE SPACE HAS INFACT a three dimensional affect. which, as i said cancels its self out three dimensionaly.

producing a null, as i said.


[" The only way that we can have Hubble's Law and retain the cosmological principle is to relize that the Big Bang involved the entire Universe-not just the matter and radiation within it, but the Universe its self."]

There are 2 things here.

1. This is why, whenever someone suggests that the Big Bang might have occurred in "Already Existing Space".......mainstream makes such a big deal of saying NO!
2. The main problem with the Big Bang is...'singularities' (The Friedmann Naked Singularity, the Cosmic Singularity, the Big Bang Singularity, whatever you want to call it).....singularities "ONLY" create (of course, after the radiation cools and becomes the HI) the Matter and Radiation..... Baryonic Matter.......they DON'T create "Space"...They DON'T 'expand space'...they DON'T cause "INFLATION"!

None of this EVER hapened the way the Big Bang has portrayed it!

Actually, the way 'space' gets here is by far the MOST DIFFICULT thing to answer, and all we can really know at this point, is "How The Matter Gets Here"!

If I go into that here though...it would be considered thread hichjacking...so I can't.

[THEREFORE SPACE HAS INFACT a three dimensional affect. which, as i said cancels its self out three dimensionaly.]

But I can refer to this. Yes, North, it is three dimensional, and it does cancel the kind of expansion the BB portays (from the shrinking the universe down to a point and then Re-Inflating it 'suddenly'), because as I have said before, that is an illegal lookback, according to GR!

(North, capitalizing your "I's", or using a little L "l" would help the overall look of your posts, not that it bothers me, I look for content!)

north
2006-Jun-30, 12:02 AM
[" The only way that we can have Hubble's Law and retain the cosmological principle is to relize that the Big Bang involved the entire Universe-not just the matter and radiation within it, but the Universe its self."]

There are 2 things here.


1. This is why, whenever someone suggests that the Big Bang might have occurred in "Already Existing Space".......mainstream makes such a big deal of saying NO!

interestingly enough i have always thought that each particle of matter(quarks,leptons etc) or atoms of matter needs a minimum of space inwhich to exist. therefore if you then multiply this minimum of space needed by the matter, by the amount of matter in say for arguments sake, the big-bang, then the space would obviously be far greater in size(present size) than the mass density at that point of the big-bang its self.( i hope I'm clear ).

by the way the minimum space needed for an atom to exist I suggest is greater or extends further than the electron orbit. by how much i'm not sure but enough that the electron is not "cramped" so to speak.





2. The main problem with the Big Bang is...'singularities' (The Friedmann Naked Singularity, the Cosmic Singularity, the Big Bang Singularity, whatever you want to call it).....singularities "ONLY" create (of course, after the radiation cools and becomes the HI) the Matter and Radiation..... Baryonic Matter.......they DON'T create "Space"...They DON'T 'expand space'...they DON'T cause "INFLATION"!

None of this EVER hapened the way the Big Bang has portrayed it!

Actually, the way 'space' gets here is by far the MOST DIFFICULT thing to answer, and all we can really know at this point, is "How The Matter Gets Here"!


If I go into that here though...it would be considered thread hichjacking...so I can't.

as far as I'm concerned your more than welcome to.

[THEREFORE SPACE HAS INFACT a three dimensional affect. which, as I said cancels its self out three dimensionaly.]

But I can refer to this. Yes, North, it is three dimensional, and it does cancel the kind of expansion the BB portays (from the shrinking the universe down to a point and then Re-Inflating it 'suddenly'), because as I have said before, that is an illegal lookback, according to GR!

(North, capitalizing your "I's", or using a little L "l" would help the overall look of your posts, not that it bothers me, I look for content!)

thanks for being more interested in my content than the overall look. it is ultimately more important, some like to hide behind this flaw of mine.

however I do appreciate your tip!!

Tensor
2006-Jun-30, 02:14 AM
THEREFORE SPACE HAS INFACT a three dimensional affect. which, as i said cancels its self out three dimensionaly. producing a null, as i said.

Repeating the claim,doesn't make it anymore true. I've asked you provide mathematical support showing a manifold has the properties you claim. Or, if you are claiming GR is wrong in this, please provide the support outside of GR. Until you do, this claim is nothing more than handwaving.

Tensor
2006-Jun-30, 02:32 AM
Hell no! The radial distribution of galactic gravitational sources is as uniform as a well strained pea soup except for local deviations like the Great Attractor.

Bob, if you are using GR to analyze the universe, the equations show that it must be either expanding or contracting. Every particle of matter must stay in the same place and not move, a perfect balance between all particles. If one particle moves, then the balance is lost, and the particles will start to attract each other.

When GR was first used to analyze the universe, there was no evidnce for either contraction or expansion of the universe. Which is why Einstein added the Cosmological constant to the GR field equations. To keep the universe static.

So, if you and North are claiming there is no expansion or contraction (and I don't think either of you are claiming contraction), you will have to show where GR is wrong in showing the universe must be either expanding or contracting. Or, alternately, if you don't want to use GR, show where the use of GR to analyze the universe is invalid.

Tensor
2006-Jun-30, 02:38 AM
thanks for being more interested in my content than the overall look. it is ultimately more important, some like to hide behind this flaw of mine.

however I do appreciate your tip!!

If you don't mind tips, the statement should be "three dimensional effect. I tried to PM you with this.

north
2006-Jun-30, 02:43 AM
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



Originally Posted by north

THEREFORE SPACE HAS INFACT a three dimensional affect. which, as i said cancels its self out three dimensionaly. producing a null, as i said.




Repeating the claim,doesn't make it anymore true. I've asked you provide mathematical support showing a manifold has the properties you claim.

until what I'm saying sinks in, repeativeness is sometimes necessary. (and quite frankly i don't like to put it this way it seems arrogant for some Reason). mathematics is important, I understand that, but the lack of the mathematics to back my or a claim, should not make one indifferent to the truth of the Reasoning and the resulting logic or the soundness of the Reason or logic, to the point where one does not consider a concept because of. there are ramifications of BBT and spaces' involvement in it, that have simply not been explored throughly enough.

define "manifold" manifold of what exactly?



Or, if you are claiming GR is wrong in this, please provide the support outside of GR. Until you do, this claim is nothing more than handwaving.

the only thing I'm claiming is this;

interestingly this how Hubble's Law is decribed ;( taken from a first year University text called Astronomy, fourth edition, Chaisson & McMillan)


" The only way that we can have Hubble's Law and retain the cosmological principle is to relize that the Big Bang involved the entire Universe-not just the matter and radiation within it, but the Universe its self."

"Apart from small scale individual random motions, galaxies are not moving with respect to the fabric of space. The component of the galaxies' motion that makes up the Hubble flow is really an expansion of space its self."


is wrong, plain and simple.

remember this, that BBT supplied the Reasoning, I just look it to its logical conclusion. like it or not.

Nereid
2006-Jun-30, 03:36 AM
[snip]
the only thing I'm claiming is this;

interestingly this how Hubble's Law is decribed ;( taken from a first year University text called Astronomy, fourth edition, Chaisson & McMillan)


" The only way that we can have Hubble's Law and retain the cosmological principle is to relize that the Big Bang involved the entire Universe-not just the matter and radiation within it, but the Universe its self."

"Apart from small scale individual random motions, galaxies are not moving with respect to the fabric of space. The component of the galaxies' motion that makes up the Hubble flow is really an expansion of space its self."


is wrong, plain and simple.

remember this, that BBT supplied the Reasoning, I just look it to its logical conclusion. like it or not.Do you realise that the sentences you have quoted are just word-pictures?

That the range of big bang models these try to summarise are not, in essence, words (they are math)?

That the only ways to show these are "wrong, plain and simple" are either

a) show that the math, numbers, equations and stuff has intolerable inconsistencies OR

b) show that good, repeated observations are inconsistent with models built from the math, numbers, equations and stuff.

Or, if you prefer, the "Reasoning" in "BBT" is built on math ... specifically, the math used by Einstein's theory of General Relativity.

So, taking this to its logical conclusion, the "BBT" can only be "wrong, plain and simple" if the math of GR is "wrong, plain and simple".

This is what Tensor has pointed out, several times.

It may be that you have found a way to uncover inconsistencies (faulty logic perhaps) in GR, without the use of any math.

However, if you have, you will have no difficulty stating those inconsistencies using the key terms in GR (such as "manifold").

Bob Angstrom
2006-Jun-30, 07:37 AM
Bob, if you are using GR to analyze the universe, the equations show that it must be either expanding or contracting. Every particle of matter must stay in the same place and not move, a perfect balance between all particles. If one particle moves, then the balance is lost, and the particles will start to attract each other.I see no requirement in GR that the universe must either expand or contract. Particle motions may form local eddies and lumps in the pond but this does not mean the entire pond must be swirling up from, or down, the drain. Why can't a 4D hypersphere be a stable structure?

Nereid
2006-Jun-30, 11:40 AM
I see no requirement in GR that the universe must either expand or contract.Well, Einstein did (that's what lead him to introduce the cosmological constant).

I think you'll find this covered in most standard texts on GR - which one(s) do you have at your disposal?
Particle motions may form local eddies and lumps in the pond but this does not mean the entire pond must be swirling up from, or down, the drain.I'm not sure how this is relevant - are you claiming that a pond is sufficiently close to a GR universe for this word analogy to work? Or that you've done the math and can show the analogy?
Why can't a 4D hypersphere be a stable structure?Maybe such a beast can be stable.

But surely the question is whether a GR universe - with cold mass ("dust") and photons, both of which we know our universe has - can have a stable state?

north
2006-Jul-01, 01:02 PM
Well, Einstein did (that's what lead him to introduce the cosmological constant).

and Einstein obviously put in the cosmlogical constant without really scrutinizing a little more throughly what the deeper implications of Hubble's Law would mean. Albert I would imagine simply didn't have the time. and it all seem to make sense at the time, when as well coupled with Obler's paradox. (surely it's possible Einstein made a mistake, he is Human after all and aren't we all!!)

but as I've pointed out, when looked from a complete three dimensional point of view, there is no expansion at all. all I did was to look at the logical consequences of the Reasoning behind the big-bang and looked at it from, instead of what were use too, a two dimensional perspective, to a three dimensional perspective. the conclusion I came to is really quite obvious when you sit down and think about it a lttle.

now this does not mean that is no dynamics going on out there between galaxies, stars, moons, and the different forms of matter and states thereof. galaxies for instance must massively huge magnetic fields

Tensor
2006-Jul-02, 01:40 AM
and Einstein obviously put in the cosmlogical constant without really scrutinizing a little more throughly what the deeper implications of Hubble's Law would mean. Albert I would imagine simply didn't have the time.

These kinds of comments are one of the things that really make me question your thoughts on this. It would have been quite remarkable for Einstein to scrutinize the Hubble Law concerning the CC, since at the time he proposed it, in 1917, there was no Hubble Law. Hubble didn't find publish his findings about galactic recession until 1929. When analyzed with GR, the prediction was the universe had to be either expanding or contracting. Einstein introduce the CC, to keep the predicted universe static. Which at the time, was thought to be the case.


and it all seem to make sense at the time, when as well coupled with Obler's paradox. (surely it's possible Einstein made a mistake, he is Human after all and aren't we all!!)

Well, he did. He put the CC in the equations as an ad hoc fix to keep the prediction for the universe static. When evidence was found for expansion, he admitted it was a mistake.


but as I've pointed out, when looked from a complete three dimensional point of view, there is no expansion at all. all I did was to look at the logical consequences of the Reasoning behind the big-bang and looked at it from, instead of what were use too, a two dimensional perspective, to a three dimensional perspective.

I don't know why you are used to looking at it from a two dimensional perspective, but, all the analysis uning GR, is done in four dimensions. Three spatial, one time.


the conclusion I came to is really quite obvious when you sit down and think about it a lttle.

It also helps if you don't bother actually doing or following the math on it. Once you understand the math, is should become readily apparent why your idea is wrong. Besides, if it's so obvious, you should be able to produce the math of it like I asked, right?

north
2006-Jul-02, 02:22 AM
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



Originally Posted by north
and Einstein obviously put in the cosmlogical constant without really scrutinizing a little more throughly what the deeper implications of Hubble's Law would mean. Albert I would imagine simply didn't have the time.


These kinds of comments are one of the things that really make me question your thoughts on this. It would have been quite remarkable for Einstein to scrutinize the Hubble Law concerning the CC, since at the time he proposed it, in 1917, there was no Hubble Law. Hubble didn't find publish his findings about galactic recession until 1929. When analyzed with GR, the prediction was the universe had to be either expanding or contracting.

fair enough, I thought is was around the same time. my fault of course for not making sure I was correct.


Einstein introduce the CC, to keep the predicted universe static. Which at the time, was thought to be the case.

it seems his instincts were right then.



Originally Posted by north
and it all seem to make sense at the time, when as well coupled with Obler's paradox. (surely it's possible Einstein made a mistake, he is Human after all and aren't we all!!)


Well, he did. He put the CC in the equations as an ad hoc fix to keep the prediction for the universe static. When evidence was found for expansion, he admitted it was a mistake.

then this where he did not scrutinize enough of the evidence of the thinking at the time.



Originally Posted by north
but as I've pointed out, when looked from a complete three dimensional point of view, there is no expansion at all. all I did was to look at the logical consequences of the Reasoning behind the big-bang and looked at it from, instead of what were use too, a two dimensional perspective, to a three dimensional perspective.


I don't know why you are used to looking at it from a two dimensional perspective, but, all the analysis using GR, is done in four dimensions. Three spatial, one time.

but NOT the consequences of the Hubble's Law on its own merits, three dimensionaly, without GR. was it!!




It also helps if you don't bother actually doing or following the math on it. Once you understand the math, is should become readily apparent why your idea is wrong. Besides, if it's so obvious, you should be able to produce the math of it like I asked, right?

for now Tensor I ask you this question

can you tell me, the mathematics aside, that conceptually I'm wrong?

if so, conceptually discuss with me, how I'm wrong. I will say this again, I DO appreciate that mathematics is very important, but your preying on my known weakness. and since the mathematics must in the end describe the physical world in the end, discuss the physical aspects of what i say with me. since you understand the mathematics, surely you can translate the mathematics into the physical, can you not? realizing that I can't communicate mathematically with you.

challenge me on my own terms, even if it does erk you.

Thanatos
2006-Jul-02, 07:01 AM
North, are you asserting math cannot be trusted, or merely ignoring what you don't understand?

Bob Angstrom
2006-Jul-02, 08:47 PM
Well, Einstein did (that's what lead him to introduce the cosmological constant).

I think you'll find this covered in most standard texts on GR - which one(s) do you have at your disposal?I'm not sure how this is relevant - are you claiming that a pond is sufficiently close to a GR universe for this word analogy to work? Or that you've done the math and can show the analogy?Maybe such a beast can be stable. My pond example was just a crude analogy as are all our analogies regarding the expansion of space. The universe is not expanding like an explosion, or a balloon, or a loaf of raison bread in the oven. The expansion of space is far removed from any form of expansion that we can compare it to. Einsteinís GR suggests a dynamic universe in which either space, or time, or both are changing but it does not require that space alone be the agent of change.
The book "Geometry, Relativity and the Fourth Dimension" by Rudolph Rucker has a model of the universe as a dynamic but stable (neither expanding nor contracting) 4D hyperesphere.

But surely the question is whether a GR universe - with cold mass ("dust") and photons, both of which we know our universe has - can have a stable state?The universe is quite obviously not in a stable state but the dynamic is not necessarily expansion. There is no way we can distinguish between the possibility that the universe is expanding while the atomic world remains stable or if space remains unchanged while the atomic world grows smaller. I could even be a matter of both and quite possibly is.

North, are you asserting math cannot be trusted, or merely ignoring what you don't understand?Math can be used to show that space is expanding while time remains a constant or that time is a variable while space remains a constant (neither expanding nor contracting) , or that the speed of light is a constant while time and space are variables. Expanding space is not the only mathematically valid point of view.

north
2006-Jul-02, 10:33 PM
North, are you asserting math cannot be trusted, or merely ignoring what you don't understand?

sounds like a sophists argument, trying to totaly avoid my point by twisting things around.

Tim Thompson
2006-Jul-02, 10:42 PM
Math can be used to show that space is expanding while time remains a constant or that time is a variable while space remains a constant (neither expanding nor contracting), or that the speed of light is a constant while time and space are variables. Expanding space is not the only mathematically valid point of view.
I think the point is that if one desires to have the adjective scientific attached to one's theory, then one must express that theory in mathematics. If north, by his own admission, cannot do that, than he cannot lay claim to a scientific theory.

Mathematics, like just about anything else, can be made to express anything that the mathematician desires. It can be used to clarify a good theory, or obfuscate a bad theory to the point of making it look like a good theory, to those unsophisticated in the tricks of mathematics. It's the same as sitting in front of a good stage magician, who will pull off the most outrageous tricks right in front of your eyes. If you don't know what to look for, you won't see it.

This is one of the unfortunate & unavoidable weaknesses of a forum like this one. There is no good way for the non-mathematician to recognize garbage. So the scientists become a functional equivalent of some secret priesthood, with mystical incantations of mathematics, and the non-mathematician is suspicious. I put north, for what it's worth, into that category. He is not a mathematician, does not understand it, and in all liklihood does not trust it either. But we have long passed the time when "science" could be done in quaint prose, or language based logical arguments. Either one can do mathematics, or one cannot, and those who cannot do it are locked out of a large chunk of the realm of science, and that's just the way it is.

Finally, I in fact have no idea what north is arguing in favor of, so I cannot address that issue without a better explanation.

RussT
2006-Jul-02, 11:27 PM
I think the point is that if one desires to have the adjective scientific attached to one's theory, then one must express that theory in mathematics. If north, by his own admission, cannot do that, than he cannot lay claim to a scientific theory.

This is absolute BUNK, and the mainstream keeps trying to shove this down everyones throat as though it actually proves that a theory MUST have math to be considered a viable way of describing how our universe works. Now, let me clarify this somewhat. We have 80 + years of 'the math' of GR to call upon to be able the talk about black holes, etc, plus countless parts of theories that could apply to the universe (where the math has been done).
So, in actuality, with all the theories and math, the how does the universe work question is just like one huge puzzle, it is just a matter of fitting all the pieces together correctly.

So, if someone comes up with a word picture, fitting those pieces together in a coherent and self consistent way...THAT IS A THEORY, and then you can use all the math your heart desires to disprove it!

[QUOT=Tim]
Mathematics, like just about anything else, can be made to express anything that the mathematician desires. It can be used to clarify a good theory, or obfuscate a bad theory to the point of making it look like a good theory, to those unsophisticated in the tricks of mathematics.[/QUOTE]

And even those who are!



There is no good way for the non-mathematician to recognize garbage.

This just simply is not true!



So the scientists become a functional equivalent of some secret priesthood, with mystical incantations of mathematics,

That is the way it has been set up, isn't it?

north
2006-Jul-02, 11:39 PM
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



Originally Posted by Bob Angstrom
Math can be used to show that space is expanding while time remains a constant or that time is a variable while space remains a constant (neither expanding nor contracting), or that the speed of light is a constant while time and space are variables. Expanding space is not the only mathematically valid point of view



I think the point is that if one desires to have the adjective scientific attached to one's theory, then one must express that theory in mathematics. If north, by his own admission, cannot do that, than he cannot lay claim to a scientific theory.

I lay down a foundation on which is Reasonable, logical and physically sound. since there has been NO argument at all which physically challenges my argument about Hubble's Law being not three dimensional and the consequences thereof.


Mathematics, like just about anything else, can be made to express anything that the mathematician desires. It can be used to clarify a good theory, or obfuscate a bad theory to the point of making it look like a good theory, to those unsophisticated in the tricks of mathematics. It's the same as sitting in front of a good stage magician, who will pull off the most outrageous tricks right in front of your eyes. If you don't know what to look for, you won't see it.

agreed


This is one of the unfortunate & unavoidable weaknesses of a forum like this one. There is no good way for the non-mathematician to recognize garbage.

yes there is. it by understanding the physical consequences of the mathematics.


So the scientists become a functional equivalent of some secret priesthood, with mystical incantations of mathematics, and the non-mathematician is suspicious. I put north, for what it's worth, into that category. He is not a mathematician, does not understand it,


and in all liklihood does not trust it either.

this I take exception to, DO NOT presume you understand me to the point you can make this type of accusation. it is unequivocally wrong.



But we have long passed the time when "science" could be done in quaint prose, or language based logical arguments. Either one can do mathematics, or one cannot, and those who cannot do it are locked out of a large chunk of the realm of science, and that's just the way it is.

and either you can give me an argument, AGAINST what I've been discussing in the implications of mathematics of Hubble's Law physically or I can only come to conclusion that YOU don't understand the mathematics enough to give me an argument, physically.


Finally, I in fact have no idea what north is arguing in favor of, so I cannot address that issue without a better explanation.

I'LL start by saying that the Universe is not expanding. and enter in Cosmic Plasmas.

north
2006-Jul-02, 11:43 PM
to both Bob Angstrom and RussT

thanks for the support!! it is appreciated


north

worzel
2006-Jul-03, 01:33 AM
north, I don't get what your contention is. I'm guessing others want to see some sort of math because they don't get it either. As far as I can make out you're saying that space can't expanding everywhere because it'll all cancel out - but that doesn't make any sense to me. If you had a grid of expanding rods making up the surface of a sphere then the sphere could just get bigger to accommodate the expanding rods, couldn't it? That's two dimensional, but why would that not work in three dimensions?

north
2006-Jul-03, 03:23 AM
north, I don't get what your contention is. I'm guessing others want to see some sort of math because they don't get it either. As far as I can make out you're saying that space can't expanding everywhere because it'll all cancel out - but that doesn't make any sense to me. If you had a grid of expanding rods making up the surface of a sphere then the sphere could just get bigger to accommodate the expanding rods, couldn't it? That's two dimensional, but why would that not work in three dimensions?

because Hubble's Law implies this;

" The only way that we can have Hubble's Law and retain the cosmological principle is to relize that the Big Bang involved the entire Universe-not just the matter and radiation within it, but the Universe its self."

"Apart from small scale individual random motions, galaxies are not moving with respect to the fabric of space. The component of the galaxies' motion that makes up the Hubble flow is really an expansion of space its self."

so lets then examine your rod scenario.

well we have rods covering the complete, 360 degree surface of a sphere on every point. now picture that these rods also reach into the depth of the sphere, they are trying to physically attract each other.it is the Nature of Hubble's space, three dimensionally. so think of a point 180 degrees west, along the X axis, now picture along the same axis 180 east. now on the surface of the sphere, they are physically doing the same action, expanding, at least so it seems. but actually because they have a "space fabric" (an ether of sorts) at least according to mainstream thinking, the west and east expansions are actually in conflict with one another.because space is three dimensional. while the west fabric of space is expanding westwards, the east is expanding eastwards. now imagine this action taking place around the whole of the sphere. each point around the sphere is, in a sense pulling with equal force against its opposite point.

thus the null expansion.

if I'm still unclear or you have further questions, of course feel free to ask.

Thanatos
2006-Jul-03, 06:54 AM
I am forced to agree - it is a null explanation that explains nothing. It does, however, neatly avoid any testable predictions. You are bringing a knife to a gun fight when you don't offer any math to back up your assertions. There is a reason people ask for the math here.

Bob Angstrom
2006-Jul-03, 08:57 AM
I am forced to agree - it is a null explanation that explains nothing. It does, however, neatly avoid any testable predictions. You are bringing a knife to a gun fight when you don't offer any math to back up your assertions. There is a reason people ask for the math here.As I understand it, North is questioning why the universe appears to be expanding. He is saying there is no force being exerted upon the galaxies move them apart. There ainít nothing pushing and there ainít nothing pulling so why do they appear to be in motion? Or are they in motion? There is no possibly way to express this mathematically in any way that would simplify the issue. He is saying there is no force behind the expansion and you donít need a bunch of equations to explain zero force. If you want to refute the issue, then identify, mathematically or otherwise, what is causing the galaxies to move apart. In curved space-time, a push in one direction becomes a pull from the other so if there is a force the forces will cancel. If that is wrong, then explain why it is wrong and use all the math you want- if you can. Space is not a force. It doesnít push or pull on anything or cause objects to move.

Grey
2006-Jul-03, 12:19 PM
North, let me ask this question. Is it possible for something to be moving if there's no force applied? Isn't a force only required to cause a change in motion (i.e., an acceleration)? That's what Newton showed. So even if we accepted your claim that all the forces canceled out (and you can show that they don't if general relativity is accurate), that doesn't mean that things can't be moving relative to each other, only that the motion couldn't change.

north
2006-Jul-03, 01:38 PM
As I understand it, North is questioning why the universe appears to be expanding. He is saying there is no force being exerted upon the galaxies move them apart. There ainít nothing pushing and there ainít nothing pulling so why do they appear to be in motion? Or are they in motion? There is no possibly way to express this mathematically in any way that would simplify the issue. He is saying there is no force behind the expansion and you donít need a bunch of equations to explain zero force. If you want to refute the issue, then identify, mathematically or otherwise, what is causing the galaxies to move apart. In curved space-time, a push in one direction becomes a pull from the other so if there is a force the forces will cancel. If that is wrong, then explain why it is wrong and use all the math you want- if you can. Space is not a force. It doesnít push or pull on anything or cause objects to move.

Bob

i couldn't put my point any better myself!!!

north

north
2006-Jul-03, 02:18 PM
North, let me ask this question. Is it possible for something to be moving if there's no force applied? Isn't a force only required to cause a change in motion (i.e., an acceleration)? That's what Newton showed.

true


So even if we accepted your claim that all the forces canceled out (and you can show that they don't if general relativity is accurate), that doesn't mean that things can't be moving relative to each other,

true



only that the motion couldn't change.

the thing is though, is that, I think the motion could POSSIBILITY change because of the massively huge magnetic fields of galaxies. as far as I know we don't know the ramifications of the magnetic fields and how they interact with other nearby galatic magnetic fields.

so as it stands its only a POSSIBLITY what I said above. it needs to be properly investigated.

until then yes the motion couldn't change.

Grey
2006-Jul-03, 03:21 PM
So then, there shouldn't be a problem with an expanding universe because of your "balanced forces" argument (since there doesn't need to be a force applied to have things moving away from each other). You would have a problem with the rate of movement changing, but you also acknowledge here that there might be ways around that (you give an example of magnetic fields, but presumably if that's a possibility, than there might be others as well). So that seems to rectify your view with an expanding universe.

north
2006-Jul-03, 03:40 PM
So then, there shouldn't be a problem with an expanding universe because of your "balanced forces" argument

actually what I'm implying is that the Universe is in fact NOT expanding at all.


(since there doesn't need to be a force applied to have things moving away from each other).

but did I not agree with Newton? I did.



You would have a problem with the rate of movement changing, but you also acknowledge here that there might be ways around that (you give an example of magnetic fields, but presumably if that's a possibility, than there might be others as well).



So that seems to rectify your view with an expanding universe.

explain

loglo
2006-Jul-03, 04:49 PM
well we have rods covering the complete, 360 degree surface of a sphere on every point. now picture that these rods also reach into the depth of the sphere, they are trying to physically attract each other.it is the Nature of Hubble's space, three dimensionally. so think of a point 180 degrees west, along the X axis, now picture along the same axis 180 east. now on the surface of the sphere, they are physically doing the same action, expanding, at least so it seems. but actually because they have a "space fabric" (an ether of sorts) at least according to mainstream thinking, the west and east expansions are actually in conflict with one another.because space is three dimensional. while the west fabric of space is expanding westwards, the east is expanding eastwards. now imagine this action taking place around the whole of the sphere. each point around the sphere is, in a sense pulling with equal force against its opposite point.

WMAP observations show that space is flat... Can you show how this argument applies to our universe, or are we talking about a hypothetical one?

Grey
2006-Jul-03, 05:06 PM
explainYour argument is that since the forces on an object will balance out, there should be no motion. But we've agreed (with Newton) that a force is not required for motion, only for a change in motion. Even if the net force is zero, everything could still be moving away from everything else. So, even if we accept your premise (that the forces would all balance out), the conclusion (that there should be no motion) does not follow.

north
2006-Jul-03, 05:50 PM
WMAP observations show that space is flat... Can you show how this argument applies to our universe, or are we talking about a hypothetical one?



WMAP observations show that space is flat... Can you show how this argument applies to our universe,

it is the Nature of galaxies to have a certain physical dynamic. and this physical dynamic makes the Universe "seem" to be flat. notice that some galaxies can be perpendicular to our own galaxy. and for the most part any angle inbetween.

therefore, the Universe is not physically flat, its just that taken on a individual bases, each galaxy on its own, it "seems" that way.

to add, locally( a galaxies dynamics, accreation disc) the Universe gives the impression of flatness, so to speak. but because to Universe is three dimensional it allows other angles, or postions of galaxies to exist.




or are we talking about a hypothetical one?

hypothetical only

Tensor
2006-Jul-03, 06:30 PM
I absolutely hate missing a few days, I get so far behind.



fair enough, I thought is was around the same time. my fault of course for not making sure I was correct.

And to follow on, what else haven't you checked or understood? There are many papers out there discussing the analysis of the universe using GR (including expansion and contraction), yet you propose something that, mathematically, using GR to analyze the universe, has been shown to be wrong.



Well, he did. He put the CC in the equations as an ad hoc fix to keep the prediction for the universe static. When evidence was found for expansion, he admitted it was a mistake.

then this where he did not scrutinize enough of the evidence of the thinking at the time.

He scrutinized it quite well. See the summary at the end. In your static universe, what is the mechinism for the Hubble relationship? That is an observation (and verified out over 100 million LY). A static universe still has to explain that observation.


but NOT the consequences of the Hubble's Law on its own merits, three dimensionaly, without GR. was it!!

Where do you get this? The basic Friedman equations use the four dimensional equations of GR. The Hubble relationship applies to all three directions and dimensions. I'd really like to know where you get the idea of the Hubble Law, or the analysis of expansion doesn't use three spatial dimensions. Now, in some cases, the simplified explanations may appear to have only two spatial dimensions. But, these are simplified from the 3+1 dimensions in the actual papers.


for now Tensor I ask you this question

can you tell me, the mathematics aside, that conceptually I'm wrong?

No, I can't, but that doesn't mean anything. After all, if someone doesn't understand addition, can you tell them conceptually, mathematics aside, that they are wrong if they insist that 2+2 = 5? Or, if someone claims they can accelerate a particle to 500,000 kps. The whole idea is to come up with something conceptually, then check it against the math or observations. In this case, the concept has already been looked at, and was shown to disagree with the math and observations about 80 years ago.


if so, conceptually discuss with me, how I'm wrong. I will say this again, I DO appreciate that mathematics is very important, but your preying on my known weakness. and since the mathematics must in the end describe the physical world in the end, discuss the physical aspects of what i say with me. since you understand the mathematics, surely you can translate the mathematics into the physical, can you not? realizing that I can't communicate mathematically with you.

Sure. Using GR to analyze the univers (using the Friedman equations) a static universe, as you describe, is unstable. It must have all points equidistant from each other at all times. If any of those points, is at anytime, not equidistant from the nearest points, it must collapse. Now the collapse can be prevented by an expansion. This is what is meant when it says GR predicts either an expansion or contraction. Since at any given time, there are a multitude of points that can be observed to be not equidistant.




challenge me on my own terms, even if it does erk you.

It doesn't irk me. But, since this is the ATM section, it is incumbent upon you to provide proof or support on your words and ideas when asked. Not, beg off by claiming you don't have the mathematical backround. The problem is, the use of words to describe the ramifications mathematical equations can be extremely imprecise. Subtle nuances in the equations can be missed. And, on top of that, if you don't understand the math, then how will my concpets convice you? After all, it's quite simple for you to just say to me that my concepts are wrong and yours are right. Any simplified explanations or analogies, while they can give an idea of what is going on, can also cause confusion, when someone tries to push the explanation or analogy too far.

Here is a simplified sumamry. Your claim is that all points exert the same pull as all other points, leaving us with a static universe. The math shows this is only true if all points are, and stay, equidistant from each other. If they are not, the universe must collapse. The collapse can be offset by an expansion. Observations show that all points are not equidistant, and so the universe must either be collapsing or expanding. There is no evidence that the universe is collapsing. The observation of the redshift indicates galaxies are moving away from us, the further away, the faster their radial velocity. This is interpretive evidence of expansion. Is that conceptual enough for you?

Tensor
2006-Jul-03, 06:35 PM
In curved space-time, a push in one direction becomes a pull from the other so if there is a force the forces will cancel. If that is wrong, then explain why it is wrong and use all the math you want- if you can.

Actually, since you are the one making this claim, and this is the ATM section, it is up to you to provide support for your claim. So, please provide us with the math showing this or retract your claim. BTW are you claiming this for all k in the Fiedman equations, or just for certain classes of k.

Tensor
2006-Jul-03, 06:55 PM
So, if someone comes up with a word picture, fitting those pieces together in a coherent and self consistent way...

Actually, it is not a theory. It is simply a hypothesis. Until there is support for the hypothesis, that's all it will remain. And how do you define self-consistent, for a word explanation?


THAT IS A THEORY, and then you can use all the math your heart desires to disprove it!

But if the person doesn't understand the math, how will that disprove it to them?

Most times, when someone can't do the math and relies on word pictures, it almost always a case of someone not understanding what the math actually says. Either that, or someone taking the word picture to a point where it no longer fits.



So the scientists become a functional equivalent of some secret priesthood, with mystical incantations of mathematics,

That is the way it has been set up, isn't it?

No, it's not. To someone who doesn't understand the math, it may seem like that. But, anyone who wants to work at it, they can learn the math and check for themselves. I was out of school for almost 20 years when I went back to learn the math and the theories, on my own. Does this mean I'm a world class expert, no. Does that mean I can't make a mistake in explaining the theories, no. Does this mean I know all I want to about it, no again. But, I can follow the math in the papers. Even though I would by no stretch be considered part(I have no academic affiliation and I don't think any real scientist would know me if they saw me) of the priesthood you seem to think exists. The math isn't mystical, it just requires study to understand it.

north
2006-Jul-03, 07:50 PM
QUOTE=Tensor]I absolutely hate missing a few days, I get so far behind.





Originally Posted by north
fair enough, I thought is was around the same time. my fault of course for not making sure I was correct.




And to follow on, what else haven't you checked or understood? There are many papers out there discussing the analysis of the universe using GR (including expansion and contraction), yet you propose something that, mathematically, using GR to analyze the universe, has been shown to be wrong.

yes. mathematics does not necessarily prove a perspective right, no matter how rigorous the mathematics is.




He scrutinized it quite well. See the summary at the end. In your static universe, what is the mechinism for the Hubble relationship? That is an observation (and verified out over 100 million LY). A static universe still has to explain that observation.

LY, never come accross the abbreviation before explain.




Originally Posted by north
but NOT the consequences of the Hubble's Law on its own merits, three dimensionaly, without GR. was it


Where do you get this? The basic Friedman equations use the four dimensional equations of GR. The Hubble relationship applies to all three directions and dimensions. I'd really like to know where you get the idea of the Hubble Law, or the analysis of expansion doesn't use three spatial dimensions. Now, in some cases, the simplified explanations may appear to have only two spatial dimensions. But, these are simplified from the 3+1 dimensions in the actual papers.

like I said the three dimensional implications of Hubble's Law without GR, on its own merits was not considered.



Originally Posted by north
for now Tensor I ask you this question

can you tell me, the mathematics aside, that conceptually I'm wrong?


No, I can't, but that doesn't mean anything.

then you don't truly understand the physics behind the mathematics.



After all, if someone doesn't understand addition, can you tell them conceptually, mathematics aside, that they are wrong if they insist that 2+2 = 5? Or, if someone claims they can accelerate a particle to 500,000 kps. The whole idea is to come up with something conceptually, then check it against the math or observations. In this case, the concept has already been looked at, and was shown to disagree with the math and observations about 80 years ago.

???


Originally Posted by north
if so, conceptually discuss with me, how I'm wrong. I will say this again, I DO appreciate that mathematics is very important, but your preying on my known weakness. and since the mathematics must in the end describe the physical world in the end, discuss the physical aspects of what i say with me. since you understand the mathematics, surely you can translate the mathematics into the physical, can you not? realizing that I can't communicate mathematically with you



Sure. Using GR to analyze the universe (using the Friedman equations) a static universe, as you describe, is unstable. It must have all points equidistant from each other at all times. If any of those points, is at anytime, not equidistant from the nearest points, it must collapse. Now the collapse can be prevented by an expansion. This is what is meant when it says GR predicts either an expansion or contraction. Since at any given time, there are a multitude of points that can be observed to be not equidistant.

this must stuff is purely assumed.






It doesn't irk me. But, since this is the ATM section, it is incumbent upon you to provide proof or support on your words and ideas when asked. Not, beg off by claiming you don't have the mathematical backround. The problem is, the use of words to describe the ramifications mathematical equations can be extremely imprecise. Subtle nuances in the equations can be missed. And, on top of that, if you don't understand the math, then how will my concpets convice you? After all, it's quite simple for you to just say to me that my concepts are wrong and yours are right. Any simplified explanations or analogies, while they can give an idea of what is going on, can also cause confusion, when someone tries to push the explanation or analogy too far.

I gave a geometrical explaination of my thinking, math if you will, show me then, the math that refutes my analogy.


Here is a simplified sumamry. Your claim is that all points exert the same pull as all other points, leaving us with a static universe. The math shows this is only true if all points are, and stay, equidistant from each other. If they are not, the universe must collapse.

NO, it only shows that the dynamics of the Universe are more complex than we knew. for instance, take in consideration of a galaxies magnetic field. we are just begining to relise its dynamics. true?


The collapse can be offset by an expansion. Observations show that all points are not equidistant, and so the universe must either be collapsing or expanding. There is no evidence that the universe is collapsing. The observation of the redshift indicates galaxies are moving away from us, the further away, the faster their radial velocity. This is interpretive evidence of expansion. Is that conceptual enough for you?

I simply disagree, as i said above, what of the dynamics of galatic magnetic fields?

north
2006-Jul-03, 07:58 PM
Originally Posted by Bob Angstrom
In curved space-time, a push in one direction becomes a pull from the other so if there is a force the forces will cancel. If that is wrong, then explain why it is wrong and use all the math you want- if you can


Actually, since you are the one making this claim, and this is the ATM section, it is up to you to provide support for your claim. So, please provide us with the math showing this or retract your claim. BTW are you claiming this for all k in the Fiedman equations, or just for certain classes of k.

if "k"=1. then what Tensor? for it seems that Fiedman, did not consider this possiblity. which means he must have been influenced by the expansion therory not considering that the "expansion therory" could be wrong. and is in fact wrong.

is this not the sign of the time, in that era. i think so( 1922-24). times have changed Tensor, times have changed.

Tim Thompson
2006-Jul-03, 08:38 PM
I put north, for what it's worth, into that category. He is not a mathematician, does not understand it, and in all liklihood does not trust it either.

this I take exception to, DO NOT presume you understand me to the point you can make this type of accusation. it is unequivocally wrong.
It was not intended to be an "accusation", merely an opinion based on observation. OK, I am wrong and you do in fact trust mathematics. Then you won't mind spending some time to learn it, and use it wisely.

and either you can give me an argument, AGAINST what I've been discussing in the implications of mathematics of Hubble's Law physically or I can only come to conclusion that YOU don't understand the mathematics enough to give me an argument, physically.
Like I said before, I was never able to understand what you were claiming, and a simple response like ...

I'LL start by saying that the Universe is not expanding. and enter in Cosmic Plasmas.
... is hardly informative enough to say much. A few more details would be nice, but I have yet to see any statement out of you in English that I could comprehend as to why you think the universe is not expanding. However, ...

As I understand it, North is questioning why the universe appears to be expanding. He is saying there is no force being exerted upon the galaxies move them apart. There ainít nothing pushing and there ainít nothing pulling so why do they appear to be in motion? Or are they in motion? There is no possibly way to express this mathematically in any way that would simplify the issue. He is saying there is no force behind the expansion and you donít need a bunch of equations to explain zero force. If you want to refute the issue, then identify, mathematically or otherwise, what is causing the galaxies to move apart. In curved space-time, a push in one direction becomes a pull from the other so if there is a force the forces will cancel. If that is wrong, then explain why it is wrong and use all the math you want- if you can. Space is not a force. It doesnít push or pull on anything or cause objects to move.

i couldn't put my point any better myself!!!
Well, congratulations to Bob for figuring out what was beyond me. And considering your response to him, I will assume that this is a proper statement of your reasoning, and go from there.

Let me start by saying that the expanding universe cosmology has two roots, one in observation and one in theory. The root from theory is based on general relativity having a hard time with static universe. GR rather requires a dynamic universe, which is why Lemaitre originally proposed from theory that the universe should be expanding in 1927 (I can't find the 1927 paper, but see for instance Lemaitre, 1931a (http://adsabs.harvard.edu/cgi-bin/nph-bib_query?bibcode=1931MNRAS..91..483L&db_key=AST&d ata_type=HTML&format=&high=4366fa465110033) and Lemaitre, 1931b (http://adsabs.harvard.edu/cgi-bin/nph-bib_query?bibcode=1931MNRAS..91..490L&db_key=AST&d ata_type=HTML&format=&high=4366fa465110033)). The root from observation is based on Edwin Hubble's observation of a redshift - distance relationship, which he published in 1929 (see, i.e., Hubble, 1929a (http://adsabs.harvard.edu/cgi-bin/nph-bib_query?bibcode=1929ASPL....1...93H&db_key=AST&d ata_type=HTML&format=&high=4366fa465111088); Hubble, 1929b (http://adsabs.harvard.edu/cgi-bin/nph-bib_query?bibcode=1929PNAS...15..168H&db_key=AST&d ata_type=HTML&format=&high=4366fa465111088); Hubble & Humason, 1931 (http://adsabs.harvard.edu/cgi-bin/nph-bib_query?bibcode=1931ApJ....74...43H&db_key=AST&d ata_type=HTML&format=&high=4366fa465111088))

So, first & foremost, the obvious interpretation of Hubble's observation is that the universe is expanding. We do not decide on the behavior of the universe based on how we think things should be, but rather based on how they actually are observd to be. So, first & foremost, if you want to argue convincingly that the universe is not expanding, then you must provide an alternate explanation or interpretation of the observed behavior of the universe. I do not see that you are doing that.

Next, since general relativity is a well established theory of physics, you have to show that GR is wrong, or perhaps provide an even better theory for the dynamics & structure of space-time. I don't see you doing this either.

Now, consider this, from the explanation that you accept about yourself: "He is saying there is no force being exerted upon the galaxies move them apart." That is pure asumption, with no basis at all in actual observation. The interpretation of Hubble's observations is that we could indeed see a force acting between the galaxies to push them away, and the interpretation of SNIa data indicates that we do indeed see a force acting to push the galaxies apart. So why is your assumption about the behavior of the universe superior to the interpretation of observation? We do, in fact, see a force that pushes the galaxies apart. There is a force pushing (the expansion of space-time), and there is a force pulling (gravity) and they are not in balance.

But, in general, there does not need to be any force to make the universe expand, so I don't see that your reasoning has any merit. Prior to the advent of the accelerating universe interpretation of SNIa data, it was enough for the universe to be "coasting" after the initial expansion. So, even if there was no force, there could still be an expanding universe.

Furthermore, the idea that opposing redshifts cancel each other out is incomprehensible. Just put motion sensors on a balloon and blow it up. The two motion sensors will both show redshifts relative to each other, but there is no doubt about the reality of the expansion of the balloon. The canceling redshifts agrument is no argument at all.

So I am still left wondering exactly why the universe is not expanding.

Tim Thompson
2006-Jul-03, 08:50 PM
I think the point is that if one desires to have the adjective scientific attached to one's theory, then one must express that theory in mathematics. If north, by his own admission, cannot do that, than he cannot lay claim to a scientific theory.

This is absolute BUNK, ...
No, it's the truth, and you can't handle it. If you can't take the heat, get out of the kitchen, and if you can't handle the math, then you can't handle the science either. A simple explanation in prose, which is all that north can come up with might do as a "starter", an initial statement of an hypothesis, but that's it. It goes no further. Without the appropriate mathematics, you can't do science.

north
2006-Jul-03, 09:21 PM
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



Originally Posted by north
explain


Your argument is that since the forces on an object will balance out, there should be no motion.

NO, what i said was and what my argument is, is that, "space" in and of its self, being balanced is NOT responsible for, not only any motion of objects, nor expansion.



But we've agreed (with Newton) that a force is not required for motion, only for a change in motion.

NO. I've not. Newton I have agreed with, force is required for motion.(sophist,again, twist and turn). to no ones benefit but your own, really.

where you got the opposite is anyones' guess.


Even if the net force is zero,

of space its self.


everything could still be moving away from everything else. So, even if we accept your premise (that the forces would all balance out), the conclusion (that there should be no motion) does not follow.

could be moving away or going towards. the lack of any, overall, Universal force allows the Universe(galaxies etc.) to move as they can and do. locally and geometrically.

as to your last statement ,you are simply ignoring what you will.

remember galatic magnetic fields? I did mention this before. and there interactions.

Grey
2006-Jul-03, 09:26 PM
it is the Nature of galaxies to have a certain physical dynamic. and this physical dynamic makes the Universe "seem" to be flat. notice that some galaxies can be perpendicular to our own galaxy. and for the most part any angle inbetween.

therefore, the Universe is not physically flat, its just that taken on a individual bases, each galaxy on its own, it "seems" that way.

to add, locally( a galaxies dynamics, accreation disc) the Universe gives the impression of flatness, so to speak. but because to Universe is three dimensional it allows other angles, or postions of galaxies to exist.This doesn't address some of the other issues here, but it looks like you have a misconception about what cosmologists mean by the term "flat". They do not mean two dimensional, or flat like a piece of paper. Rather they mean that it obeys Euclidean geometry, as opposed to having positive or negative curvature. A two dimensional surface obeys Euclidean geometry if it is flat, as opposed to being wrapped around in a sphere or some other shape, so that's why the term is being used here, but you seem to think that the mainstream view is that the universe is two dimensional, and that's not the case.

Grey
2006-Jul-03, 09:34 PM
NO. I've not. Newton I have agreed with, force is required for motion.(sophist,again, twist and turn). to know ones benifit but your own, really.

where you got the opposite is anyones' guess.Let's look at the conversation again, shall we?

I asked:

North, let me ask this question. Is it possible for something to be moving if there's no force applied? Isn't a force only required to cause a change in motion (i.e., an acceleration)? That's what Newton showed.You replied:

trueNow, I don't know about you, but that looks an awful lot like you just agreed that a force is not necessary for motion, only for a change in motion (i.e., an acceleration). That's Newton's first law: Objects in motion tend to stay in motion, and objects at rest tend to stay at rest unless an outside force acts upon them. Note especially the first half. No force is required for motion. If you instead claim that a force is required from motion, then I'm afraid that you are disagreeing with Newton. Is that the position you wish to take?

north
2006-Jul-03, 10:05 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by north
NO. I've not. Newton I have agreed with, force is required for motion.(sophist,again, twist and turn). to know ones benifit but your own, really.

where you got the opposite is anyones' guess.

Let's look at the conversation again, shall we?

I asked:



Originally Posted by north
true



Originally Posted by Grey
North, let me ask this question. Is it possible for something to be moving if there's no force applied? Isn't a force only required to cause a change in motion (i.e., an acceleration)? That's what Newton showed.





Originally Posted by Grey
North, let me ask this question. Is it possible for something to be moving if there's no force applied? Isn't a force only required to cause a change in motion (i.e., an acceleration)? That's what Newton showed.

You replied:




Originally Posted by north
true


Let's look at the conversation again, shall we?

I asked:
You replied:
Now, I don't know about you, but that looks an awful lot like you just agreed that a force is not necessary for motion, only for a change in motion (i.e., an acceleration). That's Newton's first law: Objects in motion tend to stay in motion, and objects at rest tend to stay at rest unless an outside force acts upon them. Note especially the first half. No force is required for motion. If you instead claim that a force is required from motion, then I'm afraid that you are disagreeing with Newton. Is that the position you wish to take?


NO I'm not disagreeing with Newton put it that way.

Tim Thompson
2006-Jul-03, 10:50 PM
NO, what i said was and what my argument is, is that, "space" in and of its self, being balanced is NOT responsible for, not only any motion of objects, nor expansion.
According to general relativity, this is incorrect; "space" (more correctly "spacetime") is not balanced, and is directly responsible for the expansion & accelerated expansion of the universe. So, you must necessarily deny the correctness of general relativity. Do you have either observational or theoretical justification for rejecting general relativity? Do you think it makes sense to do so in a non-mathematical argument?

worzel
2006-Jul-03, 10:55 PM
because Hubble's Law implies this;

" The only way that we can have Hubble's Law and retain the cosmological principle is to relize that the Big Bang involved the entire Universe-not just the matter and radiation within it, but the Universe its self."

"Apart from small scale individual random motions, galaxies are not moving with respect to the fabric of space. The component of the galaxies' motion that makes up the Hubble flow is really an expansion of space its self."

so lets then examine your rod scenario.

well we have rods covering the complete, 360 degree surface of a sphere on every point. now picture that these rods also reach into the depth of the sphere, they are trying to physically attract each other.it is the Nature of Hubble's space, three dimensionally. so think of a point 180 degrees west, along the X axis, now picture along the same axis 180 east. now on the surface of the sphere, they are physically doing the same action, expanding, at least so it seems. but actually because they have a "space fabric" (an ether of sorts) at least according to mainstream thinking, the west and east expansions are actually in conflict with one another.because space is three dimensional. while the west fabric of space is expanding westwards, the east is expanding eastwards. now imagine this action taking place around the whole of the sphere. each point around the sphere is, in a sense pulling with equal force against its opposite point.

thus the null expansion.

if I'm still unclear or you have further questions, of course feel free to ask.
That doesn't make any sense whatsoever. I think you are taking the example I used too far - I was just using it to show that a space (a 2d one in this case) could expand everywhere.

If you use a surface as a 2d analogy of space then the rods in my analogy are the coordinates of that space (or a choice of coordinates at least). It seems that you are saying that even in this 2d space the rods (i.e. the coordinates) couldn't expand - but that's obviously not true: just draw some lines on a balloon and then blow it up some more if you don't believe me.

Whether space is expanding or not is a different question, I was only answering your assertion that as a point of pure logic a 3d space couldn't expand everywhere.

Tensor
2006-Jul-04, 03:14 AM
And to follow on, what else haven't you checked or understood? There are many papers out there discussing the analysis of the universe using GR (including expansion and contraction), yet you propose something that, mathematically, using GR to analyze the universe, has been shown to be wrong.

yes. mathematics does not necessarily prove a perspective right, no matter how rigorous the mathematics is.

But the mathematics can eliminate a perspective or idea.





He scrutinized it quite well. See the summary at the end. In your static universe, what is the mechinism for the Hubble relationship? That is an observation (and verified out over 100 million LY). A static universe still has to explain that observation.

LY, never come accross the abbreviation before explain.

Light Year. Itís amazing that you claim an expanding universe is so wrong, yet youíve demonstrated a lack of knowledge on the history of the cosmological models and donít know common abbreviations used in serious scientific papers.





but NOT the consequences of the Hubble's Law on its own merits, three dimensionaly, without GR. was it

Where do you get this? The basic Friedman equations use the four dimensional equations of GR. The Hubble relationship applies to all three directions and dimensions. I'd really like to know where you get the idea of the Hubble Law, or the analysis of expansion doesn't use three spatial dimensions. Now, in some cases, the simplified explanations may appear to have only two spatial dimensions. But, these are simplified from the 3+1 dimensions in the actual papers.


like I said the three dimensional implications of Hubble's Law without GR, on its own merits was not considered.

Do you have any support showing actual scientific papers that do not consider three dimensions when discussing the Hubble relationship? Not popular explanations, not internet web sites, actual scientific papers? Please provide links to such papers or links to such a discussion, including the math, providing support for your contention.







can you tell me, the mathematics aside, that conceptually I'm wrong?

No, I can't, but that doesn't mean anything.

then you don't truly understand the physics behind the mathematics.


Not true. Anyone can conceptually say something, the proof is in the math and observations. In the case of your static universe idea, we have both, and the both refute your idea.




After all, if someone doesn't understand addition, can you tell them conceptually, mathematics aside, that they are wrong if they insist that 2+2 = 5? Or, if someone claims they can accelerate a particle to 500,000 kps. The whole idea is to come up with something conceptually, then check it against the math or observations. In this case, the concept has already been looked at, and was shown to disagree with the math and observations about 80 years ago.
???

What donít you understand? Please explain to me how someone claiming the concept of 2 + 2 = 5 is not wrong, using no mathematical concepts. Or explain why we feel we canít accelerate something to 500,000 kps, using no mathematical concepts.

As for the last sentence, I just pointed out that your concept was looked at 80 years ago. It was rejected because the math and observations have refuted it.







if so, conceptually discuss with me, how I'm wrong. I will say this again, I DO appreciate that mathematics is very important, but your preying on my known weakness. and since the mathematics must in the end describe the physical world in the end, discuss the physical aspects of what i say with me. since you understand the mathematics, surely you can translate the mathematics into the physical, can you not? realizing that I can't communicate mathematically with you

Sure. Using GR to analyze the universe (using the Friedman equations) a static universe, as you describe, is unstable. It must have all points equidistant from each other at all times. If any of those points, is at anytime, not equidistant from the nearest points, it must collapse. Now the collapse can be prevented by an expansion. This is what is meant when it says GR predicts either an expansion or contraction. Since at any given time, there are a multitude of points that can be observed to be not equidistant.

this must stuff is purely assumed.

How do you know this, since you claim you donít understand the math? Since you donít want the math, all I can do is tell you what the math says. If you wish to look up the math, check the link below.

Also, since you claim that explanation is an assumption, Iíll assume you can provide the proof of your statement mathematically, right?









It doesn't irk me. But, since this is the ATM section, it is incumbent upon you to provide proof or support on your words and ideas when asked. Not, beg off by claiming you don't have the mathematical background. The problem is, the use of words to describe the ramifications mathematical equations can be extremely imprecise. Subtle nuances in the equations can be missed. And, on top of that, if you don't understand the math, then how will my concepts convince you? After all, it's quite simple for you to just say to me that my concepts are wrong and yours are right. Any simplified explanations or analogies, while they can give an idea of what is going on, can also cause confusion, when someone tries to push the explanation or analogy too far.

I gave a geometrical explaination of my thinking, math if you will, show me then, the math that refutes my analogy.

But you claimed you didnít understand the math, now you want it. Which is it? Well here (http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/gr-qc/pdf/9812/9812046.pdf) is a paper that discusses with all the math, an analysis of various cosmological models. Feel free to show me exactly where in that math your idea that the universe is static is correct and that paper is wrong.



Here is a simplified sumamry. Your claim is that all points exert the same pull as all other points, leaving us with a static universe. The math shows this is only true if all points are, and stay, equidistant from each other. If they are not, the universe must collapse.

NO, it only shows that the dynamics of the Universe are more complex than we knew. for instance, take in consideration of a galaxies magnetic field. we are just begining to relise its dynamics. true?

What exactly does that have to do with spacetime? That was not part of your original claim. Or, have you given up on your original claim and are now changing your claim, which amounts to moving the goalposts.



The collapse can be offset by an expansion. Observations show that all points are not equidistant, and so the universe must either be collapsing or expanding. There is no evidence that the universe is collapsing. The observation of the redshift indicates galaxies are moving away from us, the further away, the faster their radial velocity. This is interpretive evidence of expansion. Is that conceptual enough for you?

I simply disagree, as i said above,

Well, I did call that:


After all, it's quite simple for you to just say to me that my concepts are wrong and yours are right.

We can go round and round claiming the other is wrong, thatís why I asked for the math. Iíve provided you with the math and discussion that backs up my claim that your idea is wrong. Now, please show me the math that supports your claim..





what of the dynamics of galatic magnetic fields?

What of them? You have some sort of mathematical or observational support that shows those fields have anything to do with whether the spacetime metric is either static or dynamic. Or is this just more vague handwaving.

Tensor
2006-Jul-04, 03:16 AM
if "k"=1. then what Tensor? for it seems that Fiedman, did not consider this possiblity. which means he must have been influenced by the expansion therory not considering that the "expansion therory" could be wrong. and is in fact wrong.

More words without checking your facts,eh? Friedman's published his equations in 1922. As I said before, Hubble didn't publish his relationship until 1929 (although the observations were made by Siphler and Hubbleís gradutate students through 1928). Please explain to me how Friedman could be influence by expansion when it wasn't recognized for seven more years. Basically, the Hubble relationship provides observation support for Friedmanís calculations showing expansion. It really appears you have already come to your conclusion and are trying to fit observations to your conclusion, while ignoring the facts.

As for what about when k=1, Friedman did look at, and it has been analyzed. K=1 is the current standard for the universe (although is could still be zero or negative, the predictions vs observations, at present, can't determine which.).

Letís see, you canít get the facts straight about when predictions were made, when observations were published, and donít know the current view on the expression of curvature in the equations. You also have admitted that you donít know the math. Why would you think that all this would inspire us to take your word picture at face value, with no math?


is this not the sign of the time, in that era. i think so( 1922-24). times have changed Tensor, times have changed.

Unfortunately for your idea, the math hasn't.

Celestial Mechanic
2006-Jul-04, 03:52 AM
[Snip!] As for what about when k=1, Friedman did look at, and it has been analyzed. K=1 is the current standard for the universe (although is could still be zero or negative, the predictions vs observations, at present, can't determine which.). [Snip!]
Don't you mean K=0 is the current consensus about the universe? K=0 for spatially flat, K=1 for a closed universe, K=-1 for an open universe.

Otherwise, your comment is on target. Einstein's first cosmology paper is from 1917, well before Hubble's publications. The consensus of that time was that the universe was static ("from everlasting to everlasting") and Einstein felt compelled to add the cosmological constant in order to arrive at a static solution. Once the cosmological redshift was discovered all were content to relegate the cosmological constant to exercises. Until now, that is . . . ;)

Bob Angstrom
2006-Jul-04, 06:51 AM
How do you know this, since you claim you donít understand the math? Since you donít want the math, all I can do is tell you what the math says. If you wish to look up the math, check the link below.Not to speak for North, but no one is saying the universe is static. The universe is clearly dynamic but the dynamic is not necessarily the expansion of space. Other points of view are possible and permissible by mathematics and the laws of physics. An ensemble of cosmological models may be equally valid but untestable because their differences are in point of view rather than matters of physics and several of those models do not involve the expansion of space. See p. 81 (7) of your paper. If your paper rules out the possibility of a dynamic but non-inflationary universe, show me where.

I have one test question:
Which man is our greatest president? By "greatest" I mean which one can still get out of bed in the morning under his own power.
George Washington, Abraham Lincoln, George W. Bush, or Franklin D. Roosevelt.
Answer: George W is the greatest. Do you see a close similarity between this question and your paper or do I need to explain?

Bob Angstrom
2006-Jul-04, 07:08 AM
Let me start by saying that the expanding universe cosmology has two roots, one in observation and one in theory. The root from theory is based on general relativity having a hard time with static universe. GR rather requires a dynamic universe, which is why Lemaitre originally proposed from theory that the universe should be expanding in 1927 (I can't find the 1927 paper, but see for instance Lemaitre, 1931a (http://adsabs.harvard.edu/cgi-bin/nph-bib_query?bibcode=1931MNRAS..91..483L&db_key=AST&d ata_type=HTML&format=&high=4366fa465110033) and Lemaitre, 1931b (http://adsabs.harvard.edu/cgi-bin/nph-bib_query?bibcode=1931MNRAS..91..490L&db_key=AST&d ata_type=HTML&format=&high=4366fa465110033)). The root from observation is based on Edwin Hubble's observation of a redshift - distance relationship, which he published in 1929 (see, i.e., Hubble, 1929a (http://adsabs.harvard.edu/cgi-bin/nph-bib_query?bibcode=1929ASPL....1...93H&db_key=AST&d ata_type=HTML&format=&high=4366fa465111088); Hubble, 1929b (http://adsabs.harvard.edu/cgi-bin/nph-bib_query?bibcode=1929PNAS...15..168H&db_key=AST&d ata_type=HTML&format=&high=4366fa465111088); Hubble & Humason, 1931 (http://adsabs.harvard.edu/cgi-bin/nph-bib_query?bibcode=1931ApJ....74...43H&db_key=AST&d ata_type=HTML&format=&high=4366fa465111088))

So, first & foremost, the obvious interpretation of Hubble's observation is that the universe is expanding. We do not decide on the behavior of the universe based on how we think things should be, but rather based on how they actually are observd to be. So, first & foremost, if you want to argue convincingly that the universe is not expanding, then you must provide an alternate explanation or interpretation of the observed behavior of the universe. I do not see that you are doing that.

Next, since general relativity is a well established theory of physics, you have to show that GR is wrong, or perhaps provide an even better theory for the dynamics & structure of space-time. I don't see you doing this either.
The Hubble redshifts are not a velocity. They are simply redshifts and the connection between galactic redshifts and motion has yet to be established. You canít imply motion from a static observation. Recessional redshifts are a part of SR, not GR. Non-recessional redshifts are possible within GR and they are not necessarily a violation of GR.

Now, consider this, from the explanation that you accept about yourself: "He is saying there is no force being exerted upon the galaxies move them apart." That is pure asumption, with no basis at all in actual observation. .
A force exerted upon the galaxies should show some evidence of acceleration. There are no observations to confirm that the galaxies are experiencing any external acceleration so the possibility that there IS an acceleration is the one that lacks observation.

The interpretation of Hubble's observations is that we could indeed see a force acting between the galaxies to push them away, and the interpretation of SNIa data indicates that we do indeed see a force acting to push the galaxies apart. So why is your assumption about the behavior of the universe superior to the interpretation of observation? We do, in fact, see a force that pushes the galaxies apart. There is a force pushing (the expansion of space-time), and there is a force pulling (gravity) and they are not in balance.
We "see" nothing at all in the SN1a data and this is why the thing we do not see is called "dark". What we "see" is an apparent acceleration when the BB predicts a slowing of expansion.

With apologies to Hughes Mearns:

As I was walking up the stair,
I saw a force that wasnít there.
It wasnít there again today.
I wish to Heck it would go away.

Tensor
2006-Jul-04, 11:58 AM
Don't you mean K=0 is the current consensus about the universe? K=0 for spatially flat, K=1 for a closed universe, K=-1 for an open universe.

Doh. :doh: As I said, I'm very capable of making an error. I really don't know what I was thinking when I typed that. Actually, this kinda makes my point in regard to the math. It's quite easy to see a problem, with the math. It's not so easy pointing out a problem with the words.



Until now, that is . . . ;)

Yeah. I find it interesting that a lot of ATM types complain about the dogma of the BBT camp. When the acceleration of expansion was quickly incorporated into the BBT, once the observations were found. That doesn't sound too dogmatic to me.

Bob Angstrom
2006-Jul-04, 04:15 PM
Yeah. I find it interesting that a lot of ATM types complain about the dogma of the BBT camp. When the acceleration of expansion was quickly incorporated into the BBT, once the observations were found. That doesn't sound too dogmatic to me.The BBT camp incorporated accelerated expansion and then added the fudge factor of dark energy to fix what was wrong with their theory. Dark energy serves no purpose except to explain away what appears to be a discrepancy between the theory and observation. Usually, when a theory fails the test of observation, it is time to rethink the theory but with the BBT camp it is time to add another miracle to explain how the theory still works. Dark energy is not the first miraculous explanation added to prop up their dogma. Dark matter and inflation are two others. Their karma may be running over their dogma.

Grey
2006-Jul-04, 06:55 PM
NO I'm not disagreeing with Newton put it that way.So, let's just make this clear, because I don't want you to accuse me of sophistry, or of trying to deliberately twist your wording again. Newton said that a force is not required for motion. Rather, a force is required only for a change in motion. You agree with that. That means that we can have two objects moving away from each other without any forces at all, and they will continue to move away from each other unless and until some force acts to change that. Do you agree with that as well?

Tim Thompson
2006-Jul-04, 07:52 PM
The Hubble redshifts are not a velocity. They are simply redshifts and the connection between galactic redshifts and motion has yet to be established.
So, what does "established" mean? I disagree, and I claim that the connection between galactic redshifts & motion has in fact been established, and at a level of confidence such that the large majority of astrophysicists & cosmologists accept the connection. So, what do you know, that they don't know? Why do you think the connection is not established, while so many others think that it has been established? And how do you explain the appearance of a redshift - distance relationship?


You canít imply motion from a static observation.
I disagree here, too; of course you can. In fact, if I take your statement at face value, the I have to conclude that all of astronomy & astrophysics must be wrong, because all astronomical observations are, as you say, "static" observations.

We do know that Doppler shifts result from relative motion, and we do know that they will produce redshifts & blueshifts in terrestrial laboratories. So, if we simply ignore relativity and pretend the universe is Newtonian (that is an option, isn't it?), then it would be perfectly reasonable to assume that Doppler shifts & motion were one possible candidate explanation for the observed redshifts. But, even without that simplifying Newtonian assumption, the basic reasoning still holds. We do know that motion will produce redshifts. And although there is some debate in the astrophysical community (intrinsic redshifts, Wolf effect, plasma redshifts & etc.), none of the alternative choices have been demonstrated, as yet, to be as viable as the obvious choice of motion as the source of cosmological redshifts.


Recessional redshifts are a part of SR, not GR.
A factually false statement. They are part of GR, and can be found in any applicable text book on the subject, such as the gigantic tome by Misner, Thorne & Wheeler, appropriately titled simply Gravitation.


Non-recessional redshifts are possible within GR and they are not necessarily a violation of GR.
Indeed they are, though in any case, eliminating recessional redshifts altogether would require doing serious damage to GR. And, as I have already noted, the alternative non-recessional redshifts offered up so far have not fared well in scientific debate.


A force exerted upon the galaxies should show some evidence of acceleration. There are no observations to confirm that the galaxies are experiencing any external acceleration so the possibility that there IS an acceleration is the one that lacks observation.
This I also label as a factually false statement. There is considerable observational evidence that the expansion of the universe is accelerating, based of course on the assumption of a link between redshift & the expansion of spacetime; i.e, Riess, et al., 1998 (http://adsabs.harvard.edu/cgi-bin/nph-bib_query?bibcode=1998AJ....116.1009R&db_key=AST&d ata_type=HTML&format=&high=4366fa465114887); Garanavich, et al., 1998 (http://adsabs.harvard.edu/cgi-bin/nph-bib_query?bibcode=1998ApJ...509...74G&db_key=AST&d ata_type=HTML&format=&high=4366fa465114887); Riess, et al., 2000 (http://adsabs.harvard.edu/cgi-bin/nph-bib_query?bibcode=2000ApJ...536...62R&db_key=AST&d ata_type=HTML&format=&high=4366fa465114887); Riess, et al., 2004 (http://adsabs.harvard.edu/cgi-bin/nph-bib_query?bibcode=2004ApJ...607..665R&db_key=AST&d ata_type=HTML&format=&high=4366fa465114887). These papers report observations, and observations constitute evidence. You might disagree with the interpretations thereof, but you certainly cannot maintain that the observations, and thefore the evidence, simply do not exist.


We "see" nothing at all in the SN1a data and this is why the thing we do not see is called "dark". What we "see" is an apparent acceleration when the BB predicts a slowing of expansion.
Another factually false statement. BB predicts no such thing. Remember that big bang cosmology is not a theory, but rather a family of theories. Whether or not any specific BB model predicts slowing or accelerating depends very much on the specific details of the specific model.

Of course we "see something" in the SNIa data, namely an apparent acceleration of expansion. We cannot see the cause directly, but that is hardly an issue. All we need to see is an effect, and we know that a cause can't be too far behind. Whether we call it "dark energy", "cosmological constant", or whatever hardly matters. What does matter is that the observed effect requires a cause, one way or another. If we interpret the observed effect as an accelerated expansion, then a force to cause it is hardly anything but a foregone conclusion. If we interpret it as something else, then some other cause must be found.


The BBT camp incorporated accelerated expansion and then added the fudge factor of dark energy to fix what was wrong with their theory. Dark energy serves no purpose except to explain away what appears to be a discrepancy between the theory and observation.
Theories & observations always have some discrepancy at some level. So altering a theory to make it conform to observations does not strike me as a sinful thing to do. Indeed, I would say it is the mark of pretty good science. But then again ...


Usually, when a theory fails the test of observation, it is time to rethink the theory but with the BBT camp it is time to add another miracle to explain how the theory still works.
But this reveals a deep misundersanding of what science is all about. First, it is simply not true at any level that big bang theory has "failed" the test of observation. You may think it has, but in fact it has not. In fact, BBT has been typically consistent with observation at a very good level.

So what do scientists actually do with theories? What are they supposed to do? When a discrepancy is found, there are 3 possible explanations: (1) the observations are erroneous, (2) the theory is erroneous and needs to be modified, and (3) the theory is erroneous, but cannot be modified to the extent required, and must be replaced. Let us assume that (1) is not the case here, and the observations are valid. According to you, we skip (2) and immediatly replace the theory with a new one, regardless of the level of discrepancy. I don't buy that line of reasoning.

The right thing to do is exactly what BB theorists do, and is what scientists should always do. We modify the theory to make it consistent with observations. Only when the inconsistency becomes too great do we then move on to (3) and replace the theory with a new one. That's what happened when the discrepancy between Newtonian mechanics & Maxwell's electromagnetism became too great for either to handle. So in came Special Relativity, to replace Newtonian mechanics with slightly modified mathematical recipes, and radically different approaches to understanding space & time. The same thing will doubtless happen to big bang cosmology eventually, but not any time soon, I think.

north
2006-Jul-04, 08:08 PM
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



Originally Posted by north
NO I'm not disagreeing with Newton put it that way





So, let's just make this clear, because I don't want you to accuse me of sophistry, or of trying to deliberately twist your wording again. Newton said that a force is not required for motion. Rather, a force is required only for a change in motion. You agree with that.

yes and no

for instance could not the motion before a change in motion be do to Newtonian motion in the first place?change upon change, I don't see why not? do you? and then continue back until you get to the origin of the motion in the first place.



That means that we can have two objects moving away from each other without any forces at all, and they will continue to move away from each other unless and until some force acts to change that. Do you agree with that as well?

agreed

north
2006-Jul-04, 09:54 PM
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: London
Posts: 2,043



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



Originally Posted by north
because Hubble's Law implies this;

" The only way that we can have Hubble's Law and retain the cosmological principle is to relize that the Big Bang involved the entire Universe-not just the matter and radiation within it, but the Universe its self."

"Apart from small scale individual random motions, galaxies are not moving with respect to the fabric of space. The component of the galaxies' motion that makes up the Hubble flow is really an expansion of space its self."

so lets then examine your rod scenario.

well we have rods covering the complete, 360 degree surface of a sphere on every point. now picture that these rods also reach into the depth of the sphere, they are trying to physically attract each other.it is the Nature of Hubble's space, three dimensionally. so think of a point 180 degrees west, along the X axis, now picture along the same axis 180 east. now on the surface of the sphere, they are physically doing the same action, expanding, at least so it seems. but actually because they have a "space fabric" (an ether of sorts) at least according to mainstream thinking, the west and east expansions are actually in conflict with one another.because space is three dimensional. while the west fabric of space is expanding westwards, the east is expanding eastwards. now imagine this action taking place around the whole of the sphere. each point around the sphere is, in a sense pulling with equal force against its opposite point.

thus the null expansion.

if I'm still unclear or you have further questions, of course feel free to ask.


That doesn't make any sense whatsoever. I think you are taking the example I used too far - I was just using it to show that a space (a 2d one in this case) could expand everywhere.

If you use a surface as a 2d analogy of space then the rods in my analogy are the coordinates of that space (or a choice of coordinates at least). It seems that you are saying that even in this 2d space the rods (i.e. the coordinates) couldn't expand - but that's obviously not true: just draw some lines on a balloon and then blow it up some more if you don't believe me.


Whether space is expanding or not is a different question, I was only answering your assertion that as a point of pure logic a 3d space couldn't expand everywhere.

exactly. with the inner depth of three dimensions of the sphere, and through all points of the sphere in depth(pointing towards the inner of the sphere, where ever that is,), expansion does become a null.

worzel
2006-Jul-05, 01:52 AM
exactly. with the inner depth of three dimensions of the sphere, and through all points of the sphere in depth(pointing towards the inner of the sphere, where ever that is,), expansion does become a null.
There is no depth. The analogy is between 3D space (or 4D spacetime) and the 2D surface of a sphere. GR has spacetime as a 4D manifold. That means that can be modelled as a surface in 5D Euclidean space. The 2D analogy just helps to think about an arbitrarily curved space expanding by making it a manifold in 3D Euclidean space (which is something we can all easily visualize). In these analogies it must be remembered that we are talking about the 2D curving space only, just as in GR spacetime is 4D even though it can be visualized (mathematically at least) as a hypersurface in 5D Euclidean space.

But anyway, I don't have any problem with directly visualizing a 3D space expanding everywhere. And I still don't understand why you do. If, in my sphere of rods we added rods towars the centert then they too could expand along with all the rods in the surface of the sphere, surely?

north
2006-Jul-05, 02:59 AM
There is no depth.

that has got to be the most non-sensical statement I've come across in a long, long time.

so you have no depth to your own existence?

Bob Angstrom
2006-Jul-05, 08:45 AM
So, what does "established" mean? I disagree, and I claim that the connection between galactic redshifts & motion has in fact been established, and at a level of confidence such that the large majority of astrophysicists & cosmologists accept the connection. So, what do you know, that they don't know? Why do you think the connection is not established, while so many others think that it has been established? And how do you explain the appearance of a redshift - distance relationship?



We do know that Doppler shifts result from relative motion, and we do know that they will produce redshifts & blueshifts in terrestrial laboratories. So, if we simply ignore relativity and pretend the universe is Newtonian (that is an option, isn't it?), then it would be perfectly reasonable to assume that Doppler shifts & motion were one possible candidate explanation for the observed redshifts. But, even without that simplifying Newtonian assumption, the basic reasoning still holds. We do know that motion will produce redshifts. And although there is some debate in the astrophysical community (intrinsic redshifts, Wolf effect, plasma redshifts & etc.), none of the alternative choices have been demonstrated, as yet, to be as viable as the obvious choice of motion as the source of cosmological redshifts.
We also know that gravity can produce redshifts and, if the universe was much smaller in the past, it was once more gravitationally dense and light from gravitationally dense sources is redshifted. In an expanding universe, light from deep space should be redshifted in part by recessional velocity and in part by gravity. But unless we can identify how much of the redshift is gravitational we canít say how much of the redshift is motion related.



A factually false statement. They are part of GR, and can be found in any applicable text book on the subject, such as the gigantic tome by Misner, Thorne & Wheeler, appropriately titled simply Gravitation.How can recessional redshifts be a part of GR? Some of the questions you asked are related to the distinction between recessional redshifts SR and gravitational redshifts GR so this is an important issue to clarify first.






This I also label as a factually false statement. There is considerable observational evidence that the expansion of the universe is accelerating, based of course on the assumption of a link between redshift & the expansion of spacetime; i.e, Riess, et al., 1998 (http://adsabs.harvard.edu/cgi-bin/nph-bib_query?bibcode=1998AJ....116.1009R&db_key=AST&d ata_type=HTML&format=&high=4366fa465114887); Garanavich, et al., 1998 (http://adsabs.harvard.edu/cgi-bin/nph-bib_query?bibcode=1998ApJ...509...74G&db_key=AST&d ata_type=HTML&format=&high=4366fa465114887); Riess, et al., 2000 (http://adsabs.harvard.edu/cgi-bin/nph-bib_query?bibcode=2000ApJ...536...62R&db_key=AST&d ata_type=HTML&format=&high=4366fa465114887); Riess, et al., 2004 (http://adsabs.harvard.edu/cgi-bin/nph-bib_query?bibcode=2004ApJ...607..665R&db_key=AST&d ata_type=HTML&format=&high=4366fa465114887). These papers report observations, and observations constitute evidence. You might disagree with the interpretations thereof, but you certainly cannot maintain that the observations, and thefore the evidence, simply do not exist.There is no evidence that our galaxy or any others are experiencing an acceleration. This is the observation that is lacking.



Another factually false statement. BB predicts no such thing. Remember that big bang cosmology is not a theory, but rather a family of theories. Whether or not any specific BB model predicts slowing or accelerating depends very much on the specific details of the specific model.Prior to 1998, all of the BB models predicted a slowing of expansion and none predicted an acceleration. Can you name an exception?



Of course we "see something" in the SNIa data, namely an apparent acceleration of expansion. We cannot see the cause directly, but that is hardly an issue. All we need to see is an effect, and we know that a cause can't be too far behind. Whether we call it "dark energy", "cosmological constant", or whatever hardly matters. What does matter is that the observed effect requires a cause, one way or another. If we interpret the observed effect as an accelerated expansion, then a force to cause it is hardly anything but a foregone conclusion. If we interpret it as something else, then some other cause must be found.


Theories & observations always have some discrepancy at some level. So altering a theory to make it conform to observations does not strike me as a sinful thing to do. Indeed, I would say it is the mark of pretty good science. But then again ...


But this reveals a deep misundersanding of what science is all about. First, it is simply not true at any level that big bang theory has "failed" the test of observation. You may think it has, but in fact it has not. In fact, BBT has been typically consistent with observation at a very good level.

So what do scientists actually do with theories? What are they supposed to do? When a discrepancy is found, there are 3 possible explanations: (1) the observations are erroneous, (2) the theory is erroneous and needs to be modified, and (3) the theory is erroneous, but cannot be modified to the extent required, and must be replaced. Let us assume that (1) is not the case here, and the observations are valid. According to you, we skip (2) and immediatly replace the theory with a new one, regardless of the level of discrepancy. I don't buy that line of reasoning.

The right thing to do is exactly what BB theorists do, and is what scientists should always do. We modify the theory to make it consistent with observations. Only when the inconsistency becomes too great do we then move on to (3) and replace the theory with a new one. That's what happened when the discrepancy between Newtonian mechanics & Maxwell's electromagnetism became too great for either to handle. So in came Special Relativity, to replace Newtonian mechanics with slightly modified mathematical recipes, and radically different approaches to understanding space & time. The same thing will doubtless happen to big bang cosmology eventually, but not any time soon, I think.Edward Harrison once modified the BBT by explaining how the universe may be larger, older, and more massive than our present estimates indicate. His model did away with the need for an inflationary period and dark matter and the problem of star clusters that appear to be older than the universe. His model may also do away with dark energy but I donít know if it has been brought up to date. Nothing about his model required anything exotic and I see nothing wrong with his alterations. However, liberally adding exotics such as inflation, dark matter, and dark energy goes beyond good science. There have been an annoying number of recent observations of objects that appear to be older than a 15 billion year old universe. I feel another exotic addition to the BBT coming on. Dark aging perhaps.

Tobin Dax
2006-Jul-05, 09:22 AM
that has got to be the most non-sensical statement I've come across in a long, long time.

so you have no depth to your own existence?

There is depth (and time) in our existence. There isn't on the 2-dimensional surface of a balloon, though. [Keep reading. Believe it or not, things are explained later in paragraphs. If you read worzel's paragraph, you'll see that.] The use of an expanding balloon is an *analogy.* We don't really mean the universe is that way, it's just a convenient way to describe it without math. The math tells us that the 4D space-time of the universe can be the surface of a 5D "sphere." Gravity is still restricted to 4D space-time, though, and so it cannot reach through the center of the sphere to affect things. This is where your mistake is. On the balloon, gravity can only work in 2D, on the surface. Gravity does not transmit through the depth of the balloon.

So, can your explanation if you are an ant on the balloon, with no concept or access to its depth?

Tensor
2006-Jul-05, 12:34 PM
We also know that gravity can produce redshifts and, if the universe was much smaller in the past, it was once more gravitationally dense and light from gravitationally dense sources is redshifted. In an expanding universe, light from deep space should be redshifted in part by recessional velocity and in part by gravity. But unless we can identify how much of the redshift is gravitational we canít say how much of the redshift is motion related.

We can. Look up scale factor. Pages 777-778 of Gravitation



How can recessional redshifts be a part of GR? Some of the questions you asked are related to the distinction between recessional redshifts SR and gravitational redshifts GR so this is an important issue to clarify first.

In GR it is perfectly reasonable to change a frame of reference to see the recession as either a velocity or cosmological.


There is no evidence that our galaxy or any others are experiencing an acceleration. This is the observation that is lacking.

Did you read what Tim wrote? There is observational evidence. You may disagree with the interpretation of those observations, but they may be interpreted as an acceleration.



Prior to 1998, all of the BB models predicted a slowing of expansion and none predicted an acceleration. Can you name an exception?

Yeah, and prior to 1928 all models of the universe were static. New observations can change theoretical models. So what? Tim's point was there is not one theory you can call the BBT. Theories on Stellar evolution, gravity, particle physics, etc. are part of the overall BBT.


and the problem of star clusters that appear to be older than the universe.

That was back a few years ago. You have followed the more recent research, right" Like the Hubble observations that have corrected that.
Here (http://hubblesite.org/newscenter/newsdesk/archive/releases/2002/10/text/) and by some guy you may have heard about here (http://www.tim-thompson.com/oldstars.html)



There have been an annoying number of recent observations of objects that appear to be older than a 15 billion year old universe.

Something more specific, perhaps?

Grey
2006-Jul-05, 02:29 PM
yes and no

for instance could not the motion before a change in motion be do to Newtonian motion in the first place?change upon change, I don't see why not? do you? and then continue back until you get to the origin of the motion in the first place.Sure, if we assume that an object was initially motionless (relative to some frame of reference), and is now in motion relative to that same frame of reference, then presumably there was a force at some point in time. But we won't observe any such force now, nor do we have any particular way of knowing what the nature of that force was in the first place. Agreed?


That means that we can have two objects moving away from each other without any forces at all, and they will continue to move away from each other unless and until some force acts to change that. Do you agree with that as well?
agreedGreat. So we also presumably agree that there could be many objects, all moving away from each other, and they would continue to move away from each other without any forces being exerted, right?

Tim Thompson
2006-Jul-05, 03:23 PM
... But unless we can identify how much of the redshift is gravitational we canít say how much of the redshift is motion related.
Surely you jest. Of course we can identify how much of the redshift is gravitational, it is a well defined quantity. Like I said, get a book on GR and look it up, it's no secret. This is not an issue.


How can recessional redshifts be a part of GR? Some of the questions you asked are related to the distinction between recessional redshifts SR and gravitational redshifts GR so this is an important issue to clarify first.
Personally, I would think that the course of wisdom would be to read a bit about GR before you start talking about it. Gravitational redshifts are not the only redshifts in GR, which you would have known already, had you done so. GR includes both gravitational redshifts & expansion redshifts, and they are distinctly different, although both well defined. There is no issue to clarify here, except the one where you go and study GR for a while. If Misner, Thorne & Wheeler (http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0716703440/qid=1152111050/sr=1-1/ref=sr_1_1/102-7716823-1956916?s=books&v=glance&n=283155) does not suit your fancy, Weinberg's Gravitation and Cosmology (http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0471925675/qid=1152111108/sr=1-1/ref=sr_1_1/102-7716823-1956916?s=books&v=glance&n=283155) is a classic too. If the math is too much, try Edward Harrison's Cosmology - The Science of the Universe (http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/052166148X/qid=1152111193/sr=1-1/ref=sr_1_1/102-7716823-1956916?s=books&v=glance&n=283155). Try reading Davis & Lineweaver's Expanding Confusion (http://adsabs.harvard.edu/cgi-bin/nph-bib_query?bibcode=2004PASA...21...97D&db_key=AST&d ata_type=HTML&format=&high=4366fa465110741) paper. The expansion redshift in GR is distinct & different from either the special relativistic redshift or the gravitational redshift.


There is no evidence that our galaxy or any others are experiencing an acceleration. This is the observation that is lacking.
My only reaction to this statement is stunned disbelief. I cannot comprehend how you can say this, or expect anyone to believe it, especially in light of the fact that you say it in response to the list of observations I provided. Yes, there is evidence that other galaxies are being accelerated, and I have given it to you. What you choose to do with the information, including continuing to pretend it does not exist, is your own affair.


Prior to 1998, all of the BB models predicted a slowing of expansion and none predicted an acceleration. Can you name an exception?
I have already addressed this very point, and you even quoted my explanation yourself, so how can you ask this question with a straight face?

BB predicts no such thing. Remember that big bang cosmology is not a theory, but rather a family of theories. Whether or not any specific BB model predicts slowing or accelerating depends very much on the specific details of the specific model.
Prior to 1998 BB theories did not predict an accelerated expansion because observations did not imply such a thing. After 1998, when observations (the ones that you claim do not exist) implied an accelerated expansion, BB models were modified to match the observations (which really only amounted to a tweak, since the basic mathematical elements were already in the equations). Like I said before, there is not "a" BB model or "a" BB cosmology, there are a whole lot of them. BB is not a theory, it is a meta theory, or a theory about theories, a metaphysical principle derived from observation. You act like any modification of BB models is some kind of terrible defeat for the mainstream, when in fact they only confirm the underlying strength of the BB principle of an expanding universe.


Edward Harrison once modified the BBT by explaining how the universe may be larger, older, and more massive than our present estimates indicate. His model did away with the need for an inflationary period and dark matter and the problem of star clusters that appear to be older than the universe. His model may also do away with dark energy but I donít know if it has been brought up to date. Nothing about his model required anything exotic and I see nothing wrong with his alterations. However, liberally adding exotics such as inflation, dark matter, and dark energy goes beyond good science.
The last sentence is not acceptable. Adding "exotics" as you call them is perfectly good science, it is science correctly done. It is in fact the simplest and most economic solution to the issues raised by observation and I reject your criticism as misguided & wrong.


There have been an annoying number of recent observations of objects that appear to be older than a 15 billion year old universe.
I am unaware of such annoying observations. Feel free to provide specific examples of same as you wish.

Grey
2006-Jul-05, 04:23 PM
Prior to 1998, all of the BB models predicted a slowing of expansion and none predicted an acceleration. Can you name an exception?And this isn't even really true. Plenty of people spent time playing with models that would lead to accelerating expansion before this time. Students sometimes did them as exercises, just to see how things would work out. Of course, all such models were considering nonphysical because we didn't see any evidence for an acceleration. That's why they were never the models that cosmologists seriously worked with, to see if they could accurately represent what we see in the universe. So such models existed, as games to play with potential alternate universes. When we saw evidence that the universe actually seemed to work that way, it was a simple matter to take what was idle speculation and adapt it to more sophisticated models of the universe.

We still do this today. For example, here (http://super.colorado.edu/~michaele/Lambda/evol.html) is a discussion of some of the possible universes that we can model with general relativity. We can pretty much rule out some of these (like the "bouncing" or "loitering" universes), so those models aren't seriously pursued, but the models do exist. The reason we don't consider them is not because general relativity can't handle them (it can), but because the evidence does not support them.

RussT
2006-Jul-05, 11:31 PM
The vacuum energy density behaves differently from matter and energy density in another regard. As the universe expands, matter and energy are spread out over more physical space and thus their gravitational attraction is diminished. For the vacuum energy, however, the PdV work done by the vacuum during adiabatic expansion provides exactly the amount of energy to fill the new volume to the same density. Therefore the cosmological constant remains truly constant, and its gravitational repulsion (or attraction) never changes during the universe's evolution.

http://super.colorado.edu/~michaele/Lambda/gr.html

The Bold is mine, and this is showing how it is 'assumed' that 'space' (remember here, that we now know it is made of 'something'!) is somehow, just making more of itself, to "FILL THE NEW VOLUME TO THE SAME DENSITY".

This is one of the main problems with the expansion premise right here.

I agree that GR is correct, and that must mean a contracting or expanding universe, but until we know how this..."FILL THE NEW VOLUME TO THE SAME DENSITY", in other words, how 'space' is getting here, starting the universe off at T=0 and thinking that we can 'see' (CMB) that beginning from our little planet, is tantamount to Earth being the center of the universe!:naughty:

Something is certainly happening in the VOIDS, but to 'force' the universe to start from a point is doing exactly what many of you have said numerous times...

There is no reason that the universe must follow what 'you' think it should.

The Universe is WaYYYYYYY more "dynamic" than anyone has even fathomed!

Bob Angstrom
2006-Jul-06, 02:09 AM
Something more specific, perhaps?These are some observations of galaxy clusters that provide a difficult fit for the standard model.
Galaxies theoretically young look old.
..."The total mass of the cluster is enough to contain 500 trillion stars comparable in mass to our Sun. That's a surprising stellar mass for a galaxy cluster to have achieved at such an early era in the evolution of the universe, said Stanford, a researcher at the University of California, Davis, and at Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory.
This observation reminds us that the big bang theory still meets too many surprises for it to serve as the foundation for the rest of science.
He writes, "We have not yet demonstrated that inflation actually happened, nor do we know the identity of the inflation field or the functional form of its effective potential.... We have no compelling model for the recent epoch of accelerated expansion."

http://www.panspermia.org/whatsnew.htm
Note] go to third article to read whole context

http://www.newscientist.com/article.ns?id=dn7087

http://www.jhu.edu/news_info/news/home04/jul04/earlyuni.html

Bob Angstrom
2006-Jul-06, 03:22 AM
Surely you jest. Of course we can identify how much of the redshift is gravitational, it is a well defined quantity. Like I said, get a book on GR and look it up, it's no secret. This is not an issue.
Personally, I would think that the course of wisdom would be to read a bit about GR before you start talking about it. Gravitational redshifts are not the only redshifts in GR, which you would have known already, had you done so. GR includes both gravitational redshifts & expansion redshifts, and they are distinctly different, although both well defined. There is no issue to clarify here, except the one where you go and study GR for a while. If Misner, Thorne & Wheeler (http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0716703440/qid=1152111050/sr=1-1/ref=sr_1_1/102-7716823-1956916?s=books&v=glance&n=283155) does not suit your fancy, Weinberg's Gravitation and Cosmology (http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0471925675/qid=1152111108/sr=1-1/ref=sr_1_1/102-7716823-1956916?s=books&v=glance&n=283155) is a classic too. If the math is too much, try Edward Harrison's Cosmology - The Science of the Universe (http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/052166148X/qid=1152111193/sr=1-1/ref=sr_1_1/102-7716823-1956916?s=books&v=glance&n=283155). Try reading Davis & Lineweaver's Expanding Confusion (http://adsabs.harvard.edu/cgi-bin/nph-bib_query?bibcode=2004PASA...21...97D&db_key=AST&d ata_type=HTML&format=&high=4366fa465110741) paper. The expansion redshift in GR is distinct & different from either the special relativistic redshift or the gravitational redshift.Rather than a list of books, I would prefer an explanation of how we can separate a Doppler recessional redshift from a cosmological "GR" redshift if that is not too difficult. I donít know if I can find the information I need in the texts you mentioned because some of the authors seem to be having the same problem and that doesnít give me much confidence.

This is a good article about the problem of GR combined SR redshifts:
http://cecelia.physics.indiana.edu/life/redshift.html
Big Bang supporters Sten Odenwald and Rick Fienberg wrote in their article "Galaxy Redshifts Reconsidered" (Sky & Telescope, February 1993, pp 31-5):
" It is tempting to refer to cosmological redshifts as Doppler shifts. This choice of interpretation has in the years since Hubble's work led to an unfortunate misunderstanding of big bang cosmology, obscurring one of its most mysterious beauties. As noted with a hint of frustration by cosmologists such as Steven Weinberg and Jaylant Narlikar and John Wheeler, "The frequency of light is also affected by the gravitational field of the universe, and it is neither useful nor strictly correct to interpret the frequency shifts of light...in terms of the special relativistic Doppler effect."

"In the future it is hoped that a death knell will finally have sounded for the last vestage of the older thinking. With the Doppler interpretation of the cosmological redshift at last reconsidered, and rejected, we will finally be able to embrace the essential beauty and mystery of cosmic expansion as it was originally envisioned by its discoverers."

And this is another:
http://www.flatrock.org.nz/topics/science/a_very_different_universe.htm
"He (Edward Harrison) is especially bothered by cosmologists assuming that redshifts can tell them the true expansion of space unless they choose a density value first."
As I understand this article Harrison is saying we need to know the density value of the universe first so we can know how much of the distant redshift is cosmological (GR related) and how much is expansion (SR related) but the density value is unknown because we canít trust redshifts to give us the true expansion of space. This is a "catch 22" We canít reliably interpret distant redshifts without a density value and we can't determine the density value without reliable redshift estimates.

The last sentence is not acceptable. Adding "exotics" as you call them is perfectly good science, it is science correctly done. It is in fact the simplest and most economic solution to the issues raised by observation and I reject your criticism as misguided & wrong.
Donít get me wrong, modification is great but adding one "exotic" on top of another, on top of another, is perfectly good science only for Creationists. We can do better.

I have already addressed this very point, and you even quoted my explanation yourself, so how can you ask this question with a straight face?I asked if you could name a BBT among the several that did not predict a slowing of expansion. I certainly don't know of any either.

Bob Angstrom
2006-Jul-06, 03:43 AM
Yeah, and prior to 1928 all models of the universe were static.The first Big Bang type expansionist model that I know of was published by Poe in the 1850's. Pretty good work for a poet.

http://www.poedecoder.com/essays/eureka/

Tensor
2006-Jul-06, 12:03 PM
http://www.panspermia.org/whatsnew.htm
Note] go to third article to read whole context

http://www.newscientist.com/article.ns?id=dn7087

http://www.jhu.edu/news_info/news/home04/jul04/earlyuni.html

Care to try again? Here's your comment:


There have been an annoying number of recent observations of objects that appear to be older than a 15 billion year old universe.

None of those links shows something that is older than a 13.7 billion year universe (WMAP age estimate). Neither did any of those links indicate that the big band is in trouble. Your second link mentions that computer models show that large clusters at that time period should be rare, not that large clusters are impossible. Which happens to be what we observe. There is a possibility that early galactic evolution theory may have a few problems, but not the big bang in it's entirety.

north
2006-Jul-06, 09:07 PM
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



Originally Posted by north
yes and no

for instance could not the motion before a change in motion be do to Newtonian motion in the first place?change upon change, I don't see why not? do you? and then continue back until you get to the origin of the motion in the first place


Sure, if we assume that an object was initially motionless (relative to some frame of reference), and is now in motion relative to that same frame of reference, then presumably there was a force at some point in time. But we won't observe any such force now, nor do we have any particular way of knowing what the nature of that force was in the first place. Agreed?

there is though rotation, magnetic fields ,high energy plasma and to assume an astronomical object was initially motionless, i don't know.... is there any astronomical object that is ever motionless?



Originally Posted by Grey
That means that we can have two objects moving away from each other without any forces at all, and they will continue to move away from each other unless and until some force acts to change that. Do you agree with that as well?



Originally Posted by north
agreed



Great. So we also presumably agree that there could be many objects, all moving away from each other, and they would continue to move away from each other without any forces being exerted, right?

except for the initial force(s) that caused the "movement" in the first place.

Tobin Dax
2006-Jul-06, 09:49 PM
North, are you going to respond to the fact that you've misinterpreted the balloon analogy?

north
2006-Jul-06, 10:02 PM
North, are you going to respond to the fact that you've misinterpreted the balloon analogy?

okay how so?

north
2006-Jul-06, 11:11 PM
North, are you going to respond to the fact that you've misinterpreted the balloon analogy?

notice by the way i have NOT mentioned any ballon scenario, this what BBT and my argument is based on;




" The only way that we can have Hubble's Law and retain the cosmological principle is to relize that the Big Bang involved the entire Universe-not just the matter and radiation within it, but the Universe its self."

"Apart from small scale individual random motions, galaxies are not moving with respect to the fabric of space. The component of the galaxies' motion that makes up the Hubble flow is really an expansion of space its self."

(by the way it is taken from a University Text, from which is mentioned when originally quoted by me)

this is what my argument is based on.


There is depth (and time) in our existence. There isn't on the 2-dimensional surface of a balloon, though. [Keep reading. Believe it or not, things are explained later in paragraphs. If you read worzel's paragraph, you'll see that.] The use of an expanding balloon is an *analogy.* We don't really mean the universe is that way, it's just a convenient way to describe it without math. The math tells us that the 4D space-time of the universe can be the surface of a 5D "sphere." Gravity is still restricted to 4D space-time, though, and so it cannot reach through the center of the sphere to affect things. This is where your mistake is. On the balloon, gravity can only work in 2D, on the surface. Gravity does not transmit through the depth of the balloon.

So, can your explanation if you are an ant on the balloon, with no concept or access to its depth?

now how do my quotes and what you say above relate?

by the way i had no idea of your response.

Bob Angstrom
2006-Jul-07, 06:15 AM
Care to try again? Here's your comment:

None of those links shows something that is older than a 13.7 billion year universe (WMAP age estimate). Neither did any of those links indicate that the big band is in trouble. Your second link mentions that computer models show that large clusters at that time period should be rare, not that large clusters are impossible. Which happens to be what we observe. There is a possibility that early galactic evolution theory may have a few problems, but not the big bang in it's entirety.Observations have never been a threat to the BBT and mature looking galaxies in a young universe are no exception. If galactic evolution can not be explained by conventional means we can always invoke dark aging to explain how galaxies suddenly appeared.

Tensor
2006-Jul-07, 06:26 AM
Observations have never been a threat to the BBT and mature looking galaxies in a young universe are no exception. If galactic evolution can not be explained by conventional means we can always invoke dark aging to explain how galaxies suddenly appeared.

In other words, you don't have any actual observation or examples of any object more than 15 Billion years old. Which means your original comment has no support and was flat out wrong.

Tobin Dax
2006-Jul-07, 06:39 AM
notice by the way i have NOT mentioned any ballon scenario, this what BBT and my argument is based on;

(by the way it is taken from a University Text, from which is mentioned when originally quoted by me)

this is what my argument is based on.

now how do my quotes and what you say above relate?

by the way i had no idea of your response.

No, your argument is based on a misunderstanding of other things (unless I'm missing the direct connection between the textbook quotes and your own misinterpretation of the balloon/sphere analogy that directly follows it). Look at what you actually said yourself, your sphere scenario, in post #52. This is the same as the balloon analogy. The universe is the two-dimensional surface of the sphere, and gravity cannot propogate through the third dimension into the sphere in that scenario.

Or, if your sphere scenario is not your explanation of why the BBT is wrong, please give it again, fully, in your own words.

Edit: BTW, I know the text you refer to. A Freshman level textbook with minimum math is not the best place to find information to use against mainstream theories. There is not nearly enough detail in that book to do it.

Grey
2006-Jul-07, 12:41 PM
there is though rotation, magnetic fields ,high energy plasma and to assume an astronomical object was initially motionless, i don't know.... is there any astronomical object that is ever motionless?Note that I specified with respect to a particular reference frame. All objects are motionless with respect to some reference frame - just pick a frame moving with the object! But all I was specifically saying is that, since we agree that motion continues without a force, we don't have to see any force acting on an object now in order to see it continue to move, right? If we observe it moving (relative to us, say), we can surmise that either it's always been moving relative to us, or some force imparted that motion long ago, but we wouldn't try to say that it can't possibly be moving because there's no force making it move. We know that no force is necessary for it to move. Are we agreed here?


except for the initial force(s) that caused the "movement" in the first place.But we won't observe that force now, of course. See my comment above.

north
2006-Jul-07, 10:29 PM
No, your argument is based on a misunderstanding of other things (unless I'm missing the direct connection between the textbook quotes and your own misinterpretation of the balloon/sphere analogy that directly follows it). Look at what you actually said yourself, your sphere scenario, in post #52. This is the same as the balloon analogy. The universe is the two-dimensional surface of the sphere, and gravity cannot propogate through the third dimension into the sphere in that scenario.

Or, if your sphere scenario is not your explanation of why the BBT is wrong, please give it again, fully, in your own words.

Edit: BTW, I know the text you refer to. A Freshman level textbook with minimum math is not the best place to find information to use against mainstream theories. There is not nearly enough detail in that book to do it.


the sphere scenario was used to make my point( i wasn't thinking ballon, it just seems that way) that if space its self is responsible( which it seems to be) for the expansion in BBT then it is wrong.

north
2006-Jul-07, 10:36 PM
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



Originally Posted by north
there is though rotation, magnetic fields ,high energy plasma and to assume an astronomical object was initially motionless, i don't know.... is there any astronomical object that is ever motionless?




Note that I specified with respect to a particular reference frame. All objects are motionless with respect to some reference frame - just pick a frame moving with the object! But all I was specifically saying is that, since we agree that motion continues without a force, we don't have to see any force acting on an object now in order to see it continue to move, right? If we observe it moving (relative to us, say), we can surmise that either it's always been moving relative to us, or some force imparted that motion long ago, but we wouldn't try to say that it can't possibly be moving because there's no force making it move. We know that no force is necessary for it to move. Are we agreed here?

so are you talking about perspective here?




Originally Posted by north
except for the initial force(s) that caused the "movement" in the first place.



But we won't observe that force now, of course. See my comment above.

agreed

Tobin Dax
2006-Jul-10, 11:30 AM
the sphere scenario was used to make my point( i wasn't thinking ballon, it just seems that way) that if space its self is responsible( which it seems to be) for the expansion in BBT then it is wrong.

So your example was a uniform distribution of galaxies, which happens to be in the shape of a spherical shell, and it shows that gravity works in 3D space, which somehow shows that space itself can't be expanding. Is that right? If so, you seem to have skipped a step or two, so please explain it better. If not, well, please explain it again.

Either way: please explain that idea again (differently) in your own words (no 100-level textbook quotes) and as thoroughly as possible.

TravisM
2006-Jul-10, 04:01 PM
I couldn't resist:


Observations have never been a threat to the BBT...snip

Yup. That's pretty much why it's still the top contender...

"If it walks like a [object] and sounds like an [object] and smells like an [object], it stands to reason it might just be an [object]." Some how I think some might object to this statement...

north
2006-Jul-10, 08:40 PM
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



Originally Posted by north
the sphere scenario was used to make my point( i wasn't thinking ballon, it just seems that way) that if space its self is responsible( which it seems to be) for the expansion in BBT then it is wrong.



So your example was a uniform distribution of galaxies, which happens to be in the shape of a spherical shell, and it shows that gravity works in 3D space, which somehow shows that space itself can't be expanding. Is that right?

No, simply that space is regarded as the fundamental principle for which the Universe is expanding.




If so, you seem to have skipped a step or two, so please explain it better. If not, well, please explain it again.

Did


Either way: please explain that idea again (differently) in your own words (no 100-level textbook quotes) and as thoroughly as possible.


I can't explain it any more clearly than I already have. I gave a three dimensional consequences(geometric) of space expansion.

make your point.

Dragon Star
2006-Jul-10, 08:48 PM
No, simply that space is regarded as the fundamental principle for which the Universe is expanding.

Can you explain why you think this exactly? Not only did I not just explain this too you in another thread, but you still believe that?

north
2006-Jul-10, 09:01 PM
Can you explain why you think this exactly? Not only did I not just explain this too you in another thread, but you still believe that?




Originally Posted by north
No, simply that space is regarded as the fundamental principle for which the Universe is expanding


Can you explain why you think this exactly? Not only did I not just explain this too you in another thread, but you still believe that?

NO but others are still on about it.

by the way we didn't get into it but why do feel there is no conflict with by your position, space is nothing and the quote? which suggests the opposite.

Dragon Star
2006-Jul-10, 09:08 PM
Explained Here (http://www.bautforum.com/showthread.php?t=42502&page=4#98)

north
2006-Jul-10, 09:38 PM
Explained Here (http://www.bautforum.com/showthread.php?t=42502&page=4#98)

very good discussion.

one question I do have, is why KenG thinks that as the Universe gets older why space its self increases.

perhaps I've missed this point.

Dragon Star
2006-Jul-10, 10:04 PM
Space increases because of increased space between objects due to expansion.

Say I am floating 2 feet from you in space, I then push off of you and we both float away from each-other, the space between us increases.

I think that's what he means.:)

north
2006-Jul-10, 10:15 PM
Space increases because of increased space between objects due to expansion.

Say I am floating 2 feet from you in space, I then push off of you and we both float away from each-other, the space between us increases.

I think that's what he means.:)

I don't think this the correct interpretation, because what your saying is that mass is responsible for the increase in space, but KenG, if I got him right suggests that space is increasing without any increase in mass, in the Universe. (it is in a way a steady state perspective) at least he doesn't mention any increase in mass.

north
2006-Jul-10, 10:38 PM
KenG is suggesting that mass and space are seperate entities. I disagree.

both come into existence simultaneously.

mass and space have a symbiosis relationship so to speak. you can't find one without the other.

Dragon Star
2006-Jul-10, 10:46 PM
No, that's not what I mean, I mean there is more space because of cosmological expansion, sorry, my mistake that I forgot the cosmological part. Space fills the universe wherever it can, as cosmological expansion continues to accelerate, and space fills up (expands) drawing everything away from each-other because of the laws of general relativity.

north
2006-Jul-10, 10:54 PM
No, that's not what I mean, I mean there is more space because of cosmological expansion, sorry, my mistake that I forgot the cosmological part. Space fills the universe wherever it can, as cosmological expansion continues to accelerate, and space fills up (expands) drawing everything away from each-other because of the laws of general relativity.

therefore space is no longer a "nothing", it has substance.

because of the theory of GR.

therefore space, in and of its self matters. to the GR. perspective.

correct? I say, yes.

Dragon Star
2006-Jul-10, 11:05 PM
KenG is suggesting that mass and space are separate entities. I disagree.

both come into existence simultaneously.

mass and space have a symbiosis relationship so to speak. you can't find one without the other.

Space is a fundamental quantity, just like time and mass, no quantity can express another because there is nothing more fundamental known. Which suggest (I think) as you say they co exist.

But, mass warps space, so are you suggesting that every bit of space in the universe is warped by mass? Can you direct me to something such as a report or paper that states this?

Dragon Star
2006-Jul-10, 11:09 PM
therefore space is no longer a "nothing", it has substance.

because of the theory of GR.

therefore space, in and of its self matters. to the GR. perspective.

correct? I say, yes.

Honestly I don't know, I will ask Ken to come over and help explain this, I don't want to put words in his mouth.

north
2006-Jul-10, 11:29 PM
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



Originally Posted by north
KenG is suggesting that mass and space are separate entities. I disagree.

both come into existence simultaneously.

mass and space have a symbiosis relationship so to speak. you can't find one without the other.


Space is a fundamental quantity, just like time and mass, no quantity can express another because there is nothing more fundamental known. Which suggest (I think) as you say they co exist.

I'm thinking that you mean "quality" rather than quantity here, I hope.

otherwise yes, we agree.


But, mass warps space,

mass doesn't warp space. mass warps mass within space.

look think of this way, if the Earth was raised where the north pole of the Earth was level with the north pole of the Sun then light would not be bent. further, if the Earth was raised so that the south pole of the Earth was raised, to the level to the north pole of the Sun there would be, if not , no bending of light , much less.

I'm talking about the Suns atmosphere here by the way.



so are you suggesting that every bit of space in the universe is warped by mass?

depends on whether space has mass within it.


Can you direct me to something such as a report or paper that states this?

no

Ken G
2006-Jul-10, 11:32 PM
therefore space is no longer a "nothing", it has substance.
These types of questions often come down to what you mean by the words. Science has two parts-- one part tells us how to do the math that makes the quantitative predictions, and we don't really even need words for that part. The other part is the words we choose to describe what is going on, to give ourselves a picture, and feel like we understand something. This latter part is never very unique, and it is really only the former part that is the "meat" of science. But the second part is still important, because we do want to feel like we understand. So I could describe one way to think about time and space, and perhaps someone else would use a different picture but get all the right answers. At the end of the day, it's getting the right answers that matters.

Still, one way to think about time and space is basically is this: time is the concept we use to keep everything from happening at once, and space is the concept we use to keep everything from happening at the same time. So we speak of spacetime coordinates of an event, and this tells us when and where something happened. It is the event itself that actually happened, not the spacetime coordinates, nevertheless we need the latter to be able to use quantitative descriptions of the former. Does this make spacetime real? Probably it means that the invariant aspects of spacetime, like its curvature, are real. But not space or time separately. They are no more real than your address, or phone number-- which may be real to you, but have an arbitrary character that we could distinguish from the things that are actually happening in your home.

north
2006-Jul-11, 12:32 AM
These types of questions often come down to what you mean by the words. Science has two parts-- one part tells us how to do the math that makes the quantitative predictions, and we don't really even need words for that part. The other part is the words we choose to describe what is going on, to give ourselves a picture, and feel like we understand something. This latter part is never very unique, and it is really only the former part that is the "meat" of science. But the second part is still important, because we do want to feel like we understand. So I could describe one way to think about time and space, and perhaps someone else would use a different picture but get all the right answers.


At the end of the day, it's getting the right answers that matters.

exactly




Still, one way to think about time and space is basically is this: time is the concept we use to keep everything from happening at once, and space is the concept we use to keep everything from happening at the same time.

I'm not sure I agree with this, I'm assuming that time, you are referring to is as we know it. I though have viewed time as movement.

space is not a concept. it is the essence of depth. without space there is no depth.

we just order both.



So we speak of spacetime coordinates of an event, and this tells us when and where something happened. It is the event itself that actually happened, not the spacetime coordinates, nevertheless we need the latter to be able to use quantitative descriptions of the former.

agreed

and the confusion which the quantitative perspective brings is enormus.

events though physically still happen, they don't all happen at the same time. movement.




Does this make space-time real? Probably it means that the invariant aspects of space-time, like its curvature, are real.

only in the presence of mass.



But not space or time separately. They are no more real than your address, or phone number--

space is real, it allows existence. it allows extentsion. although time( is arbitrary) to ones perspective.

I disagree both my address and phone number exist



which may be real to you, but have an arbitrary character

whether a "thing" has a certain character or physicality to them does not make them less real.

where did you get this idea? philosophy?


that we could distinguish from the things that are actually happening in your home.

of course certain things take on a characteristic because that is the Nature of the thing.

north
2006-Jul-11, 12:39 AM
by the way I've seen no answer by KenG on this question;


one question I do have, is why KenG thinks that as the Universe gets older why space its self increases.

with apparently NO increase in mass.

Cougar
2006-Jul-12, 04:39 PM
by the way I've seen no answer by KenG on this question;

one question I do have, is why KenG thinks that as the Universe gets older why space its self increases.

with apparently NO increase in mass.
1) Observations show that space is apparently expanding.
2) Space isn't very heavy. But there's a lot of it.

north
2006-Jul-13, 09:27 PM
1) Observations show that space is apparently expanding.

it "appears" that way but whether it actually is, is yet to seen. one thing that is certain, it is NOT because of space its self.



2) Space isn't very heavy.

obviously



But there's a lot of it.

not surprised

north
2006-Jul-13, 09:49 PM
as well I asked this question of whether the Universe is Euclidean or not on Halton Arps site

http://www.haltonarp.com/?...

I got an interesting reply from a Brian O'neill

go to >forums then to> General Astronomy, then go to the very first thread , then to page 2

RussT
2006-Jul-14, 12:09 AM
North;

I did not ee the answer from O'Neil or the question you posed.

Do you know how long that forum has been going?

RussT
2006-Jul-14, 12:21 AM
it "appears" that way but whether it actually is, is yet to seen. one thing that is certain, it is NOT because of space its self.

This is ambiguous.

Do you mean by this that...space is NOT creating more of itself?


Quote:
Originally Posted by Cougar
2) Space isn't very heavy.


[obviously]

Are you guys SURE of this?

According to one of Nereids posts on her CDM thread, in one extensive cluster survey, the mass of the Baryonic Matter, all the stars, gases and dust, was only 1 or 2 % of the mass of the entire cluster!

north
2006-Jul-14, 12:31 AM
North;

I did not see the answer from O'Neil or the question you posed.

Do you know how long that forum has been going?

go to "perceptual effects of astrophysics" this is a much different site than usual. there are NO user names, just your real name(mine in this case). but when you look closely, notice "updates" it gives "time" little else.no names. just go where I mentioned you'll see.( I've tried Halton's site by logging out, to see if I could get to where I mentioned, so far it seems that I can).therefore I would imagine you can as well.

RussT if still you have a problem just log on.

north

north
2006-Jul-14, 12:49 AM
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



Originally Posted by Cougar
1) Observations show that space is apparently expanding
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



Originally Posted by North
it "appears" that way but whether it actually is, is yet to seen. one thing that is certain, it is NOT because of space in and of its self.


This is ambiguous.

Do you mean by this that...space is NOT creating more of itself?

yes.

by the way I saw a fault in my expression, therefore I made a correction( "it is NOT because of space IN AND OF ITS SELF")




Originally Posted by Cougar
2) Space isn't very heavy.



obviously


Are you guys SURE of this?

According to one of Nereids posts on her CDM thread, in one extensive cluster survey, the mass of the Baryonic Matter, all the stars, gases and dust, was only 1 or 2 % of the mass of the entire cluster!


so are you saying that space is 98%!!!

RussT
2006-Jul-14, 01:19 AM
yes.

by the way I saw a fault in my expression, therefore I made a correction( "it is NOT because of space IN AND OF ITS SELF")

So, if space is expanding (which it has to have done over the course of 10, 15, 20 or more billions of years), and it is NOT simply "making more of itself' as many seem to think it does, then what is really happening? What is making more of the Non Baryonic Dark Matter that makes up 'all' of the darkness of space, that has such obvious gravitational effects, but that we can't detect or find?

RussT
2006-Jul-14, 01:32 AM
go to "perceptual effects of astrophysics" this is a much different site than usual. there are NO user names, just your real name(mine in this case). but when you look closely, notice "updates" it gives "time" little else.no names. just go where I mentioned you'll see.( I've tried Halton's site by logging out, to see if I could get to where I mentioned, so far it seems that I can).therefore I would imagine you can as well.

RussT if still you have a problem just log on.

north

Ahh, I found it. I hope that helped you with your 3D concepts.

north
2006-Jul-14, 02:23 AM
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



Originally Posted by North
yes.

by the way I saw a fault in my expression, therefore I made a correction( "it is NOT because of space IN AND OF ITS SELF")


So, if space is expanding (which it has to have done over the course of 10, 15, 20 or more billions of years), and it is NOT simply "making more of itself' as many seem to think it does, then what is really happening? What is making more of the Non Baryonic Dark Matter that makes up 'all' of the darkness of space, that has such obvious gravitational effects, but that we can't detect or find?

dark matter is just the results of a galaxy that is contracting, again. the contraction of the galaxy is lowering the energy of light. and along the way produces microwaves. as the contraction of the galaxy becomes stronger and stronger.

just to ask, what is the lowest frequencey of light energy that we have tried to detect. as far as dark matter goes?

I agree with Peter Wilson but with a different perspective. if I understand Peter right.

north
2006-Jul-14, 02:31 AM
Ahh, I found it. I hope that helped you with your 3D concepts.

yes it did. Brian shows that I'm right. Universe is not flat.

north
2006-Jul-14, 04:38 AM
it is interesting to note that redshifts,blue shifts are based on the accretion disks.

what does anybody think we would get, as far as light shifts are concerned, if instead we focused on the galatic core its self? from above and below.

what results then would we get? has anybody done this, in their observations?

any shift of light spectrum from the accretion disk should carry the galatic core with it, obviously, relative to other galatic cores.

in otherwords the galatic cores must themselves be receding from each other at there own shift, relative to each other.

and this should be true. if the redshifts of the interpretation accretion discs are true. both accretion discs and galatic cores shifts, should be in tune so to speak.


hmmm...?

Nereid
2006-Jul-14, 10:57 PM
(source (http://www.bautforum.com/showpost.php?p=770569&postcount=5)):

any theory in which expansion of the Universe is NOT apart of the theory, is certainly and absolutely a good start. period.So, do we conclude, from the use of the word "period", that, in your view, cosmology can (and should?) be done by fiat (http://www.answers.com/topic/fiat)?

If so, how is this compatible with doing science? And why should such an arbitrary declaration, by north, carry any significance, among scientists?

If you don't intend "period" to indicate finality (debate over, no further discussion possible, or allowed), then what scientific basis do you have for your assertion? I'm particularly interested in why you use the words "certainly" and "absolutely".If I have missed your answers to these direct, pertinent questions on your idea, as presented in this thread, north, I apologise (and would ask you to please give me the post number(s) of where you did answer).

If not, would you please answer these questions?

north
2006-Jul-15, 10:52 PM
no your right I didn't answer the below questions of yours. so here they are;




Originally Posted by Nereid
Quote:
Originally Posted by north
any theory in which expansion of the Universe is NOT apart of the theory, is certainly and absolutely a good start. period.

So, do we conclude, from the use of the word "period", that, in your view, cosmology can (and should?) be done by fiat?

NO you couldn't thats too broad of a brush. so my use of "period" is to emphasize my arguement. nothing more should be implied.


If so, how is this compatible with doing science?

your reading to much ito it. notice some just ignored my "period" and discussed with me any way. as I thought it would be. and should be. they still tried to prove me wrong.


And why should such an arbitrary declaration, by north, carry any significance, among scientists?

arbitrary?????

doesn't matter who the person is, what should matter MOST is the content, the Reasoning and the following logic of what is said.


If you don't intend "period" to indicate finality (debate over, no further discussion possible, or allowed), then what scientific basis do you have for your assertion? I'm particularly interested in why you use the words "certainly" and "absolutely".

I KNEW the debate woud not end "just because I said so", come on Nereid.

notice that I did not DISCONTINUE the discussion. ans as far as I know I didn't come across as arrogant in the following discussions.

when I use certainly and/or absolutely its my way of saying I'm very confident in what I'm saying. and leave it at that.

if you wish to continue the discussion or debate, you are of course welcome to continue it.

and if you can prove me wrong, then I'll admit that I was wrong. so be it.

Nereid
2006-Jul-16, 09:31 PM
Thank you for clarifying your stance, north.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Quote:
Originally Posted by north
i say this because since space its self seems to be the "reason" for exspansion of the the Universe, at least in BBT, that when looked at three dimensionaly,360degrees, and at the mi-nutest points,geometrically speaking, space would "pull" all points of matter in space equally. and therefore lead to a null movement.
First, I think that you may have misunderstood this aspect of modern cosmology ... the expansion of the universe follows from an application of Einstein's General Relativity, to the universe as a whole. When you add mass and photons to such a GR universe (realistic additions, because the universe we live in obviously contains both), it must either expand or contract.

So, an objection to an expanding (or contracting) universe is, at first blush, a rejection of GR.

Is this the thrust of your post? That GR is fundamentally flawed?

If so, in what way does "when looked at three dimensionaly,360degrees, and at the mi-nutest points,geometrically speaking, space would "pull" all points of matter in space equally" contradict GR?

Alternatively, from this north idea, what results of the hundreds of experiments and observations (http://relativity.livingreviews.org/) have been misinterpreted? (I assume that you do not dispute the validity of the results of these experiments and observations - do you?)whether there is a contradiction of GR is not the point really, that is for you to figure out.I can choose to interpret this response as "I, north, haven't done any work, whatsoever, concerning the match between observation and GR theory, nor between the north idea and any of these observations and experiments".

I can choose to interpret this response in other ways too.

But, since this is BAUT's ATM section, I will simply ask the following question:

To what extent does the north idea, of space etc, match the detailed, quantitative results of the hundreds (thousands?) of experiments and observations reported on the Living Reviews of Relativity website?

If this question is insufficiently clear, please ask for clarification; if you need time to answer it, please say so (and give an indication of when you expect you will be able to answer; if you cannot answer this question, please say so.
simply stated, space is NOT responsible for redshifts, Reasonably and/or logiclly. and that is a fact.As I said earlier, I'm glad that you have clarified your stance, and removed fiat as the basis of your claim.

To what extent is "this is a fact" similar to your "certainly" and "absolutely"?
and my perspective it seems has never been considered.

as for your last statement. it is quite clear that we have not been thinking three dimensionally, spacially. and therefore yes like it or not , the observations have been misinterpreted.It may be that someone has already asked about, and/or you have already characterised, the extent to which your idea has any form, other than handwaving and word salad.

Specifically, have you described (or even summarised) your idea quantitatively? For example, using the rich set of tools that mathematicians have developed to handle dimensions, geometry, space, etc?

I'm curious because, as you know, the mathematical study of 'space', dimensions, geometry, etc has a long and fascinating history. Further, as you know, the logical foundations of mathematics have been clarified and detailed, at great length.
this nothing to do with me, i simply pointed out a flaw in the interpretation of the conclusions which have been drawn from the observations.

Reasonably.

if you doubt my Reasonable conclusions, on my spacial ramifications, then lets focus on this first.

give me an argument that says i'm wrong. then we will move forward from there.

[snip]The easiest way to proceed, it seems to me, is to ask you, the proponent of this ATM idea, to answer relevant, pertinent questions, concerning the extent to which it has any basis in the centuries of work done by mathematicians (and, if necessary to go to this level, logicians).

I have just done that.

north
2006-Jul-16, 11:13 PM
Thank you for clarifying your stance, north.I can choose to interpret this response as "I, north, haven't done any work, whatsoever, concerning the match between observation and GR theory, nor between the north idea and any of these observations and experiments".

I can choose to interpret this response in other ways too.

But, since this is BAUT's ATM section, I will simply ask the following question:

To what extent does the north idea, of space etc, match the detailed, quantitative results of the hundreds (thousands?) of experiments and observations reported on the Living Reviews of Relativity website?

If this question is insufficiently clear, please ask for clarification; if you need time to answer it, please say so (and give an indication of when you expect you will be able to answer; if you cannot answer this question, please say so.As I said earlier, I'm glad that you have clarified your stance, and removed fiat as the basis of your claim.

To what extent is "this is a fact" similar to your "certainly" and "absolutely"?It may be that someone has already asked about, and/or you have already characterised, the extent to which your idea has any form, other than handwaving and word salad.

Specifically, have you described (or even summarised) your idea quantitatively? For example, using the rich set of tools that mathematicians have developed to handle dimensions, geometry, space, etc?

I'm curious because, as you know, the mathematical study of 'space', dimensions, geometry, etc has a long and fascinating history. Further, as you know, the logical foundations of mathematics have been clarified and detailed, at great length.The easiest way to proceed, it seems to me, is to ask you, the proponent of this ATM idea, to answer relevant, pertinent questions, concerning the extent to which it has any basis in the centuries of work done by mathematicians (and, if necessary to go to this level, logicians).

I have just done that.

Nereid, fair enough but;

its one thing to "mathematicly" represent space with dimensions and geometry, its quite another to now transform these equations into the reality of physical space.

that is the problem here.

if one includes any aspect into ones theory. one must be able to take the mathematical representation into the physical. and obviously this has not been done. for if it had been someone would have said so by now, would they not?

for space to be involved and actually be fundamental to any theory, one must investigate "space" its self. this has not been done. to include "space" into whatever theory has been taken for granted really. when you think about it.

as RussT said earlier on this thread we don't know how "space" became.

so therefore there three problems with space being included which must be addressed are;

1) when space is looked at from three dimensions in expansion, physically, it becomes a null.

2) space needs to have a fabric in order to interact with matter.

3) space also needs a tensil strength which is fantastic enough to actually move any astronomical object.

these questions have not been put forward nor asked have they?

now whether I go against a thousand mathematicians and stand alone in a discussion with them or whether I have a thousand supporters, will not change the validity of my questions.

I will be open to arguments against the questions I propose but I will not simply think that I'm wrong, because I'm alone with my thinking. its not my way.

I've used Reason and logic and the ramifications of. if that flies in the face of the thinking of today. then it does.

north

north
2006-Jul-17, 07:09 PM
by the way this question of redshifts has not been addressed and that is;

--------------------------------------------------------------------------

it is interesting to note that redshifts,blue shifts are based on the accretion disks.

what does anybody think we would get, as far as light shifts are concerned, if instead we focused on the galatic core its self? from above and below.

what results then would we get? has anybody done this, in their observations?

any shift of light spectrum from the accretion disk should carry the galatic core with it, obviously, relative to other galatic cores.

in otherwords the galatic cores must themselves be receding from each other at there own shift, relative to each other.

and this should be true. if the redshifts of the interpretation accretion discs are true. both accretion discs and galatic cores shifts, should be in tune so to speak.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

think about it, we assume that as the accretion discs of the galaxy goes, so does the Galatic center.

but it is possible that the accretion discs behave differently from the galatic core its self.

so far it seems nobody has done this.

Celestial Mechanic
2006-Jul-17, 07:36 PM
[Snip!] as RussT said earlier on this thread we don't know how "space" became.
That's OK--we don't know how matter "became" either. ;)

So therefore there three problems with space being included which must be addressed are:

1) When space is looked at from three dimensions in expansion, physically, it becomes a null.
What exactly does this mean?

2) Space needs to have a fabric in order to interact with matter.
Why? What sort of "fabric" does matter have that enables it to interact with other bits of matter? Cotton? Linen? Polyester? Seriously, what do you mean when you throw the word "fabric" around in this context?

3) Space also needs a tensile strength which is fantastic enough to actually move any astronomical object.
No it doesn't. Locally that galaxy isn't moving with any more than its peculiar velocity relative to the underlying space. Expanding space is not "pushing" anything around, therefore it doesn't require tensile strength at all. (Although it might have some.)

Sakharov did have the idea that gravity is due to a kind of elasticity of space, that is, the presence of stress-energy is resisted by the flexing of space. The Einsteinian gravity constant, 8*pi*G/c4, serves as a factor of proportionality between the amount of stress energy and the curvature of spacetime necessary to cancel it.

These questions have not been put forward nor asked have they?
I'm sure they have but keeping asking anyway.

Now whether I go against a thousand mathematicians and stand alone in a discussion with them or whether I have a thousand supporters, will not change the validity of my questions. I will be open to arguments against the questions I propose but I will not simply think that I'm wrong, because I'm alone with my thinking. It's not my way.
As concise a statement of the ATM credo as I've ever seen. But keep searching. :)

I've used Reason and Logic [snip!]. If that flies in the face of the thinking of today, then it does.
Aristotle used reason and logic very convincingly, so much so that his works were venerated second only to Holy Writ for 1500 years. Real progress in science wasn't made until people put down Aristotle and actually looked at the world around them. I hope you aren't making the mistake that Aristotle and his followers did.

north
2006-Jul-17, 08:44 PM
Originally Posted by north
So therefore there three problems with space being included which must be addressed are:

1) When space is looked at from three dimensions in expansion, physically, it becomes a null.


What exactly does this mean?

space pulls equally from each point on a three dimensional sphere. depth.




Originally Posted by north
2) Space needs to have a fabric in order to interact with matter.


Why?

well, is this not obvious? how does, space which has no fabric then, interact with matter?

that is for you to explain. not me.



What sort of "fabric" does matter have that enables it to interact with other bits of matter? Cotton? Linen? Polyester? Seriously, what do you mean when you throw the word "fabric" around in this context?

we are talking about SPACE here not interactions between matter.



Originally Posted by north
3) Space also needs a tensile strength which is fantastic enough to actually move any astronomical object.


No it doesn't. Locally that galaxy isn't moving with any more than its peculiar velocity relative to the underlying space.

"underlying space"? so the accretion disc is redshifted but not the galatic center? inotherwords? interesting.


Expanding space is not "pushing" anything around, therefore it doesn't require tensile strength at all. (Although it might have some.)

this is a contradiction of the physics of any expansion. to think expansion pushes anything is conceptualy wrong. expansion "pulls away".

therefore space a tensile strength.




Sakharov did have the idea that gravity is due to a kind of elasticity of space, that is, the presence of stress-energy is resisted by the flexing of space. The Einsteinian gravity constant, 8*pi*G/c4, serves as a factor of proportionality between the amount of stress energy and the curvature of spacetime necessary to cancel it.

niether addresses the properties of space its self. isn't space handy, there is no definition of space but it sure does alot of things.



Originally Posted by north
These questions have not been put forward nor asked have they?


I'm sure they have but keeping asking anyway.

apparently they have not.



Originally Posted by north
Now whether I go against a thousand mathematicians and stand alone in a discussion with them or whether I have a thousand supporters, will not change the validity of my questions. I will be open to arguments against the questions I propose but I will not simply think that I'm wrong, because I'm alone with my thinking. It's not my way


As concise a statement of the ATM credo as I've ever seen. But keep searching. :)

NO, the onus is on you not me


Aristotle used reason and logic very convincingly, so much so that his works were venerated second only to Holy Writ for 1500 years. Real progress in science wasn't made until people put down Aristotle and actually looked at the world around them. I hope you aren't making the mistake that Aristotle and his followers did.

I'm certainly NOT. actually quite the opposite.

Nereid
2006-Jul-17, 09:49 PM
Nereid, fair enough but;

its one thing to "mathematicly" represent space with dimensions and geometry, its quite another to now transform these equations into the reality of physical space.Well, the most powerful way to do this is to produce models (from the equations), see what sorts of observables they predict, set up experiments (or perform observations) to see if, in fact, that's how the universe behaves (or at least, the part of it which is within the scope of our experiments and observations).

As I indicated earlier, one theory (GR) does a sterling job - it matches the results of hundreds (or thousands, I didn't count) of good observations and experiments, which were (mostly) set up expressly to test it.

But perhaps I have misunderstood - how do you, north, propose that "the reality of physical space" be determined?
that is the problem here.

if one includes any aspect into ones theory. one must be able to take the mathematical representation into the physical. and obviously this has not been done. for if it had been someone would have said so by now, would they not?

for space to be involved and actually be fundamental to any theory, one must investigate "space" its self. this has not been done. to include "space" into whatever theory has been taken for granted really. when you think about it.Well, there are lots of good popularisations which take several hundred pages of text - without any equations - to do pretty much what you say.

But perhaps I have misunderstood. For avoidance of doubt, what is this "space" that you refer to?

More precisely, with what tools (e.g. rulers, clocks, accelerometers) can it be detected? measured?
as RussT said earlier on this thread we don't know how "space" became.Indeed he did.

So?
so therefore there three problems with space being included which must be addressed are;I am in the slow class today - I cannot see the connection between "how "space" became" and any of the three points you list. Please clarify.
1) when space is looked at from three dimensions in expansion, physically, it becomes a null.I am in the slow class today - "null", to me, is a mathematical concept, as in "the null set". Is this what what you mean? If not, please clarify.
2) space needs to have a fabric in order to interact with matter.Is this a (north) postulate? Or a requirement that follows from (a) theory?

I note, in passing, that, with some care, you can present this as a summary of GR. But I feel pretty confident that you are not referring to GR here, since earlier you seemed to have stated that GR can't be 'right' (if only because there is no stationary solution to GR equations applied to the universe).
3) space also needs a tensil strength which is fantastic enough to actually move any astronomical object.What is the range that this 'tensil strength' must have, based on observations of astronomical observations?
these questions have not been put forward nor asked have they?Who knows?

Wrt this ATM section of BAUT, that you have put them forward, as an ATM idea, allows any BAUT member to challenge them ... starting with asking you to clarify what you mean by the various terms that you have used (which is what I have just done).
now whether I go against a thousand mathematicians and stand alone in a discussion with them or whether I have a thousand supporters, will not change the validity of my questions.Indeed.

But let me ask this question: which publications, among the tens of thousands in the technical literature, presents an approach - using logic - that is similar to yours?

More specifically, if any BAUT member wishes to understand the ideas you have presented, in this thread, better, where can they turn? What books can they read? What papers?
I will be open to arguments against the questions I propose but I will not simply think that I'm wrong, because I'm alone with my thinking. its not my way.I'm confused - how can there be "arguments against the questions I propose"?

I mean, a question isn't an argument, is it? All that one can do with a question is answer it (or ask for clarification), surely?
I've used Reason and logic and the ramifications of. if that flies in the face of the thinking of today. then it does.Reason and logic have a very long history - as Celestial Mechanic noted, there is at least one ancient Greek philosopher who excelled in both.

But let me not jump to hasty assumptions - which codified, elaborated, detailed, enunciated, written-up (etc) forms of "Reason" and "logic" did you use, to hone your idea? What reference texts, of "Reason" and "logic", did you use, to check your work?

Nereid
2006-Jul-17, 09:57 PM
by the way this question of redshifts has not been addressed and that is;

--------------------------------------------------------------------------

it is interesting to note that redshifts,blue shifts are based on the accretion disks.I don't follow you - what "accretion disks" are you referring to?
what does anybody think we would get, as far as light shifts are concerned, if instead we focused on the galatic core its self? from above and below.

[snip]What do you mean by the term "the galatic core its self"?
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

think about it, we assume that as the accretion discs of the galaxy goes, so does the Galatic center.

but it is possible that the accretion discs behave differently from the galatic core its self.

so far it seems nobody has done this.Well, once you have clarified the key terms that you have used, perhaps we can begin to discuss it?

Nereid
2006-Jul-17, 10:06 PM
[snip]

well, is this not obvious? how does, space which has no fabric then, interact with matter?

that is for you to explain. not me.Actually, as these are your own concepts, north, it is for you to explain.

For starters, please provide as clear a definition of the key terms you have used as possible.

(BTW, if you like to start a new thread, in the Q&A section, on the relationship between 'space' and 'matter', in GR, I think you will learn that, within the scope of GR, there are some beautiful, and deep, connections. Further, GR has passed all experimental and observational tests, to date, so to the level of those tests, the universe seems to "have a deep respect" for GR).
we are talking about SPACE here not interactions between matter.

[snip]How can we detect, or measure, "SPACE", without using "interactions between [SPACE and] matter"?

north
2006-Jul-17, 10:11 PM
Originally Posted by north
by the way this question of redshifts has not been addressed and that is;

it is interesting to note that redshifts,blue shifts are based on the accretion disks.



I don't follow you - what "accretion disks" are you referring to?

why would it matter?




what does anybody think we would get, as far as light shifts are concerned, if instead we focused on the galatic core its self? from above and below.

[snip]


What do you mean by the term "the galatic core its self"?

globular center.


Well, once you have clarified the key terms that you have used, perhaps we can begin to discuss it?

done

Tensor
2006-Jul-17, 11:17 PM
it is interesting to note that redshifts,blue shifts are based on the accretion disks.

What are you refering to here?


what does anybody think we would get, as far as light shifts are concerned, if instead we focused on the galatic core its self? from above and below.

Which light shifts are you refering too?


what results then would we get? has anybody done this, in their observations?

You'll have to be more clear on what you mean by redshift. Are you refering to the galactic arms for rotation or the entire galaxy for the cosmological? Your meanings here see to be non standard and are causing confusion.


any shift of light spectrum from the accretion disk should carry the galatic core with it, obviously, relative to other galatic cores.

No it shouldn't. All you are measuring in the galactic arms is the rotation of the galaxy. Which is quite separate from the either a cosmological or velocity shift of the entire galaxy.


so therefore there three problems with space being included which must be addressed are

Actually, the following are not problems, they are flat statements by you.


1) when space is looked at from three dimensions in expansion, physically, it becomes a null.

You've made this statement before, and you have yet to answer my question on what math and the equations you used to come to this conclusion. Earlier in this thread, I provided you a link which refutes this statement and contention. So, either provide some mathematical support for it, show where the refutation I provided is wrong. Continued use of this statement is sorta worthless, in face of a refutation and no support from you.


2) space needs to have a fabric in order to interact with matter.

So you say. Why?


3) space also needs a tensil strength which is fantastic enough to actually move any astronomical object.

Again, so you say. Why does space have to have a tensile stregth?

I find it interesting that you want to claim there are problems with space, because you see a need for something more physical, but aren't ranting against particle physics. We can model both particles and space, but really don't know what either "really" are. So, what exactly is the difference between space and particles that cause you to question space, but not particles?

north
2006-Jul-18, 12:30 AM
Originally Posted by north

it is interesting to note that redshifts,blue shifts are based on the accretion disks.


What are you refering to here?

accretion discs. can be be more plain than that? no





Originally Posted by north
what does anybody think we would get, as far as light shifts are concerned, if instead we focused on the galatic core its self? from above and below.


Which light shifts are you refering too?

both are the result of accretion disc shifts of light.



Originally Posted by north
what results then would we get? has anybody done this, in their observations?


You'll have to be more clear on what you mean by redshift. Are you refering to the galactic arms for rotation or the entire galaxy for the cosmological? Your meanings here see to be non standard and are causing confusion.[\quote]

arms(accretion discs). this not non-standard, this is what astronomy analyzses to see redshifts.



Originally Posted by north
any shift of light spectrum from the accretion disk should carry the galatic core with it, obviously, relative to other galatic cores.


No it shouldn't.

yes it should. otherwise


All you are measuring in the galactic arms is the rotation of the galaxy.

and your trying to tell that the redshift is not based on accretion disc or galatic arms of the galaxy?


Which is quite separate from the either a cosmological or velocity shift of the entire galaxy.

the entire galaxy from the point of view of the arms or accretion discs. where else then does the redshift originate from? we have assumed that the globular center of the galaxy, behaves the same. I'm saying we don't know that because we have not tried to see whether the globular center is actually behaving the same way, relative to other globular centers.

when Hubble thought that the Universe was expanding did he not see that the galaxies were moving away? yes but what was he actually looking at the arms and there light shift implications.


Originally Posted by north
so therefore there three problems with space being included which must be addressed are


Actually, the following are not problems, they are flat statements by you.

really. but you do not directly answer them do you? hand waving!!




Originally Posted by north
1) when space is looked at from three dimensions in expansion, physically, it becomes a null.


You've made this statement before, and you have yet to answer my question on what math and the equations you used to come to this conclusion.

is the math really neccesary? imagine the three dimensional physics involved.


Earlier in this thread, I provided you a link which refutes this statement and contention.

which, if I recall rightly has to do with WMAP. good point.

which only makes the expansion of space more complicated. expansion of space is not homogeneous.



So, either provide some mathematical support for it, show where the refutation I provided is wrong. Continued use of this statement is sorta worthless, in face of a refutation and no support from you.

the support I have is about the physical ramifications. which in the end it all comes down to.

are you wrong or right, time will tell.

but so far none of this proves that space is responsible for the expansion of space its self.







So you say. Why?



Again, so you say. Why does space have to have a tensile stregth?

I find it interesting that you want to claim there are problems with space, because you see a need for something more physical, but aren't ranting against particle physics. We can model both particles and space, but really don't know what either "really" are. So, what exactly is the difference between space and particles that cause you to question space, but not particles?

north
2006-Jul-18, 12:39 AM
So you say. Why?

didn't get the full context here.




Again, so you say. Why does space have to have a tensile strength?

since space expansion has pull affects. on all astronomical objects.


I find it interesting that you want to claim there are problems with space, because you see a need for something more physical, but aren't ranting against particle physics. We can model both particles and space,

first, how do you model space?

and why the dicotomy between space and particles?

Tensor
2006-Jul-18, 01:24 AM
didn't get the full context here.

Your post somehow got broken up. I'll answer this one first, then go back and try to figure out the other one.


since its expansion pull affects all astronomical objects.

It is quite obvious that you are trying to apply an analogy to where it may not work. What proof do you have that space requires a tensile strength to have objects embedded in it move along with that expansion?



first, how do you model space?

In GR, the underlying math is called Differential Geometry (DG) (http://people.hofstra.edu/faculty/Stefan_Waner/diff_geom/tc.html). The concept of the manifold is the model for space. When we speak of the curvature of space, it the curvature of the manifold, described by the DG equations, that we are talking about.


and why the dicotomy between space and particles

Did you mean dichotomy here? And even if you did, I don't understand the question. There aren't two mutually exclusive groups. We can model both. Unless you mean there are two different theories used to do the modeling.

If you truly have questions, that is no problem. But, making flat statements, when it is obvious you don't understand, mathematically, scientifically, or physically what is behind those statements, really weakens your case.

north
2006-Jul-18, 01:53 AM
Your post somehow got broken up. I'll answer this one first, then go back and try to figure out the other one.


It is quite obvious that you are trying to apply an analogy to where it may not work. What proof do you have that space requires a tensile strength to have objects embedded in it move along with that expansion?

how could space, (which affects all astronomical objects), not have tensile strength?





In GR, the underlying math is called Differential Geometry (DG) (http://people.hofstra.edu/faculty/Stefan_Waner/diff_geom/tc.html). The concept of the manifold is the model for space. When we speak of the curvature of space, it the curvature of the manifold, described by the DG equations, that we are talking about.

the thing is that both the geometry and manifold are based on math. not on the physical. which ultimately proves its worth.




Originally Posted by north
and why the dicotomy between space and particles


Did you mean dichotomy here? And even if you did, I don't understand the question. There aren't two mutually exclusive groups. We can model both. Unless you mean there are two different theories used to do the modeling.

I just thought that you were dichotomizing.

no I don't. both are simultaneous. matter and space are inclusive.




If you truly have questions, that is no problem. But, making flat statements, when it is obvious you don't understand, mathematically, scientifically, or physically what is behind those statements, really weakens your case.

what case? and in what way?

so then you obviously agree that accretion discs and/or arms of a galaxy are the root of redshift astronomy?

since you have not said otherwise.

Tim Thompson
2006-Jul-18, 03:55 AM
how could space, (which affects all astronomical objects), not have tensile strength?
Flowing water carries things along just fine, and does it without tensile strength. So why should "space" have tensile strength? Why does it need tensile strength?

RussT
2006-Jul-18, 09:17 AM
Tim Thompson
Senior Member Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: Los Angeles
Posts: 1,320

Why?

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



Originally Posted by north
how could space, (which affects all astronomical objects), not have tensile strength?



Flowing water carries things along just fine, and does it without tensile strength. So why should "space" have tensile strength? Why does it need tensile strength?

Let's try this a little differently.

Here is what I think north is really asking.

The farther galaxies are away from us the faster they are receding.

So, if 'space' is expanding, how are the galaxies "ANCHORED" to the expanding 'space', and being carried farther away in accordance with the Hubble flow?

According to the current 'group' of Big Bang theories the universe is expanding and the farther galaxies are from us, the faster they are expanding away from us.

[(which affects all astronomical objects)]

Here is the part that needs to be qualified.

When we look at our solar system, the sun and planets slip through space and the only gravitational consideration for our planets is the Baryonic Matter of our sun and the other planets...in other words no DM needed.

When we look at the galaxy rotation curves..., some dark matter needed, and galaxy clusters...lots of dark matter needed.

and when we get past individual clusters, now the universe is expanding, and this expansion is seen in the VOIDS...expanding clusters apart in all directions and now we need Dark Energy, to show this universal expansion.

The way the expansion is currently shown, it is 'purely mathematical'...there has been NOTHING showing that Dark Energy has any kind of physical traits what-so-ever, that would allow it to carry, push, pull, or otherwise affect the Baryonic Matter of the galaxies, as 'space itself' expands.

Celestial Mechanic
2006-Jul-18, 12:59 PM
[Snip!] When we look at our solar system, the sun and planets slip through space and the only gravitational consideration for our planets is the Baryonic Matter of our sun and the other planets...in other words no DM needed.
What about the Pioneer anomaly? Could it be the place where the effects of DM begin to be felt? A lot of research is being done right now to try to answer this.

When we look at the galaxy rotation curves..., some dark matter needed, and galaxy clusters...lots of dark matter needed. And when we get past individual clusters, now the universe is expanding, and this expansion is seen in the VOIDS...expanding clusters apart in all directions and now we need Dark Energy, to show this universal expansion.
A fair assessment. It is one reason for caution, that maybe some extension to general relativity could create this effect without the need for actual dark matter or energy. This is a hot topic of current research!

The way the expansion is currently shown, it is 'purely mathematical'...there has been NOTHING showing that Dark Energy has any kind of physical traits whatsoever, that would allow it to carry, push, pull, or otherwise affect the Baryonic Matter of the galaxies, as 'space itself' expands.
You really ought to read up on and try to understand general relativity before criticizing it. Dark matter and dark energy do have "physical traits" that allow it to affect spacetime--dark matter and dark energy, indeed all matter and energy contributes terms to the stress-energy tensor. And the stress-energy tensor is proportional to the Einstein tensor. The Einstein tensor is derived from the Riemann or curvature tensor, which is in turn derived from the metric of spacetime.

In other words, everything contributes to gravity, not just mass (since everything has stress-energy), and nothing is immune.

Grey
2006-Jul-18, 07:48 PM
by the way this question of redshifts has not been addressed and that is;

--------------------------------------------------------------------------

it is interesting to note that redshifts,blue shifts are based on the accretion disks.

what does anybody think we would get, as far as light shifts are concerned, if instead we focused on the galatic core its self? from above and below.

what results then would we get? has anybody done this, in their observations?

any shift of light spectrum from the accretion disk should carry the galatic core with it, obviously, relative to other galatic cores.

in otherwords the galatic cores must themselves be receding from each other at there own shift, relative to each other.

and this should be true. if the redshifts of the interpretation accretion discs are true. both accretion discs and galatic cores shifts, should be in tune so to speak.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

think about it, we assume that as the accretion discs of the galaxy goes, so does the Galatic center.

but it is possible that the accretion discs behave differently from the galatic core its self.

so far it seems nobody has done this.This post wasn't very clear, and used some nonstandard terminology that you wouldn't clarify, so that's perhaps why nobody has addressed it well, north. I'll try to interpret and respond. First, the disk of a spiral galaxy is not called an "accretion disk". It's just a disk. An accretion disk is specifically matter that is accumulating and spiralling in toward a compact object like a black hole or neutron star. The disk of a galaxy is in a stable orbit.

Now, the analysis of redshifts is in fact based on light coming from both the core and the disk of galaxies, contrary to your apparent assumption that this is not the case. What we see when we look at the light coming from the galaxy is that there is an overall redshift to the light. Then, if we're looking at it edge-on, we'll see that one side is slightly more redshifted than the other, and one is slightly less redshifted by the same amount. So the average redshift of the whole galaxy is the same as the redshift of the core. This rotation curve is consistent with a galaxy that has all of its light redshifted due to recession (or some other explanation, perhaps), and then has an additional Doppler shift superimposed due to the rotation of the disk (with one side moving toward us while the other side is moving away from us).

For elliptical galaxies, this isn't quite as clean, because there isn't an overall rotation (the individual stars still orbit the center, but not all in the same direction or plane). We see instead a general broadening of the spectral lines, which is typical for light emitted from objects that are in more or less random motion. This is again consistent with the galaxy as a whole being redshifted, and then Doppler shifts of the light from stars due to their individual motion superimposed.

Tensor
2006-Jul-18, 07:52 PM
The Einstein tensor is derived from the Riemann or curvature tensor, which is in turn derived from the metric of spacetime.

People I know consider me a warped tensor. :D

RussT
2006-Jul-19, 09:26 AM
Originally Posted by RussT
[Snip!] When we look at our solar system, the sun and planets slip through space and the only gravitational consideration for our planets is the Baryonic Matter of our sun and the other planets...in other words no DM needed.

Originally Posted by Celestial Mechanic
What about the Pioneer anomaly? Could it be the place where the effects of DM begin to be felt? A lot of research is being done right now to try to answer this.

If this was the case, wouldn't it already have been found in the orbits of the outer planets?




Originally Posted by RussT
When we look at the galaxy rotation curves..., some dark matter needed, and galaxy clusters...lots of dark matter needed. And when we get past individual clusters, now the universe is expanding, and this expansion is seen in the VOIDS...expanding clusters apart in all directions and now we need Dark Energy, to show this universal expansion.

Originally Posted By Celestial Mechanic
A fair assessment. It is one reason for caution, that maybe some extension to general relativity could create this effect without the need for actual dark matter or energy. This is a hot topic of current research!

[A fair assessment.]

Thank you.

Non-Baryonic Cold Dark Matter and Dark Energy are just placeholders (maybe not the best names) for what is really there...what really 'physically' makes up 'space/spacetime'...it is not just a pure vacuum!




Originally Posted by RussT
The way the expansion is currently shown, it is 'purely mathematical'...there has been NOTHING showing that Dark Energy has any kind of physical traits whatsoever, that would allow it to carry, push, pull, or otherwise affect the Baryonic Matter of the galaxies, as 'space itself' expands.

Originally Posted By Celestial Mechanic
You really ought to read up on and try to understand general relativity before criticizing it. Dark matter and dark energy do have "physical traits" that allow it to affect spacetime--dark matter and dark energy, indeed all matter and energy contributes terms to the stress-energy tensor. And the stress-energy tensor is proportional to the Einstein tensor. The Einstein tensor is derived from the Riemann or curvature tensor, which is in turn derived from the metric of spacetime.

[You really ought to read up on and try to understand general relativity before criticizing it.]

I wasn't so much criticizing, as I was trying to clarify a particular line of reasoning that definitely needs to be clarified. Also, just because I don't agree with a particular way something is being explained in GR, doesn't mean I don't understand it. I definitely think GR can be shown to describe our universe correctly!


[Dark matter and dark energy do have "physical traits" that allow it to affect spacetime--dark matter and dark energy, indeed all matter and energy contributes terms to the stress-energy tensor.]

Well, since we know the DM/DE are placeholders for what we don't know and we only know the mass of the Baryonic Matter, that can only mean that we don't know what the 'physical make' up of stress-energy tensor is either.

And as I said the rest of this is mathematical 'space'.

[In other words, everything contributes to gravity, not just mass (since everything has stress-energy), and nothing is immune.]

I m sorry, but this does not show how galaxies are "Anchored" to space.

[everything contributes to gravity, not just mass]

So, if you took all of the Baryonic Matter out of space, how would everything else contribute to gravity?

BTW, when the question of, how is a galaxy physically anchored to the space it is in, is answered, that will also answer the galaxy rotation curves dilema!

But alas, it will take the unification of Gravity in GR and QFT to do it.

Celestial Mechanic
2006-Jul-19, 12:52 PM
[Snip!] So, if you took all of the Baryonic Matter out of space, how would everything else contribute to gravity?
The same way it does with baryonic matter--through its contribution to the stress-energy tensor.

BTW, when the question of, how is a galaxy physically anchored to the space it is in, is answered, that will also answer the galaxy rotation curves dilemma! But alas, it will take the unification of Gravity in GR and QFT to do it.
The word "anchored" should be understood in a figurative sense. Galaxies do have motions relative to the underlying space, the so-called "peculiar motions". There is nothing "anchoring" galaxies to anything, nor is space pushing or pulling galaxies along. Space expands and the galaxies just go along for the ride.

north
2006-Jul-20, 01:36 AM
The word "anchored" should be understood in a figurative sense. Galaxies do have motions relative to the underlying space, the so-called "peculiar motions". There is nothing "anchoring" galaxies to anything, nor is space pushing or pulling galaxies along. Space expands and the galaxies just go along for the ride.

there is contradiction here, space neither pushs or pulls galaxies along, yet at the same time, in expanding space, galaxies just go along for the ride!!

HOW does space do this, "How DO GALAXIES GO ALONG FOR THE RIDE" when at the same time, space has no fabric ,on which the galaxies would need to ride!!

galaxies can't ride on nothing!!

explain.

Celestial Mechanic
2006-Jul-20, 04:01 AM
there is contradiction here, space neither pushs or pulls galaxies along, yet at the same time, in expanding space, galaxies just go along for the ride!!

HOW does space do this, "How DO GALAXIES GO ALONG FOR THE RIDE" when at the same time, space has no fabric ,on which the galaxies would need to ride!!

galaxies can't ride on nothing!!

explain.
Read Gravitation by Misner, Thorne, and Wheeler. Read again and reread until understood.

Tensor
2006-Jul-20, 11:44 AM
Read Gravitation by Misner, Thorne, and Wheeler. Read again and reread until understood.

Isn't that a kinda, sorta lifetime proposition? ;) Although you're right, it would save a lot of time around here. Since, if that book (actually, any textbook on GR) was understood, there would be a lot less errors among the posters in posting what GR "claims".

Tobin Dax
2006-Jul-20, 12:39 PM
Isn't that a kinda, sorta lifetime proposition? ;) Although you're right, it would save a lot of time around here. Since, if that book (actually, any textbook on GR) was understood, there would be a lot less errors among the posters in posting what GR "claims". Which is why I stay out of those discussions. Hmm, maybe if I start reading MTW again, I'll fall asleep easier. That may not be worth lugging the darn book home, though. :)

north
2006-Jul-20, 08:43 PM
Read Gravitation by Misner, Thorne, and Wheeler. Read again and reread until understood.

so you've REPLACED our discussion of SPACE with gravity hmmm.. so then you admit that space has then no properties in and of is self on which "galaxies go for the ride".

Celestial Mechanic
2006-Jul-20, 08:57 PM
so you've REPLACED our discussion of SPACE with gravity hmmm.. so then you admit that space has then no properties in and of is self on which "galaxies go for the ride".
Utter nonsense. It has a metric. Study GR and you'll understand. :)

north
2006-Jul-20, 09:03 PM
This post wasn't very clear, and used some nonstandard terminology that you wouldn't clarify, so that's perhaps why nobody has addressed it well, north. I'll try to interpret and respond. First, the disk of a spiral galaxy is not called an "accretion disk". It's just a disk. An accretion disk is specifically matter that is accumulating and spiralling in toward a compact object like a black hole or neutron star. The disk of a galaxy is in a stable orbit.

Now, the analysis of redshifts is in fact based on light coming from both the core and the disk of galaxies, contrary to your apparent assumption that this is not the case. What we see when we look at the light coming from the galaxy is that there is an overall redshift to the light. Then, if we're looking at it edge-on, we'll see that one side is slightly more redshifted than the other, and one is slightly less redshifted by the same amount. So the average redshift of the whole galaxy is the same as the redshift of the core. This rotation curve is consistent with a galaxy that has all of its light redshifted due to recession (or some other explanation, perhaps), and then has an additional Doppler shift superimposed due to the rotation of the disk (with one side moving toward us while the other side is moving away from us).

For elliptical galaxies, this isn't quite as clean, because there isn't an overall rotation (the individual stars still orbit the center, but not all in the same direction or plane). We see instead a general broadening of the spectral lines, which is typical for light emitted from objects that are in more or less random motion. This is again consistent with the galaxy as a whole being redshifted, and then Doppler shifts of the light from stars due to their individual motion superimposed.

Grey

I see what you mean. but all the redshifting is still confined the disc of the galaxy. from left and right of the outer disk and the stars closer to the equatorial center of the Galaxy center but still within the disc its self. as well if we were to rotate our perspective along the plane of the disc, would we not find that the average of the redshift of the sides with respect to the center core change, and therefore no longer be the average that we once had initially. since as we rotate our perspective the stars at the core would become, (moving from say right to left) closer to us but the outer discs stars outer edges would stay the same.

and as I explained to Nereid before when asked to define what I mean't by core I defined it as the "globular center" not the equatorial center.

Nereid
2006-Jul-20, 09:06 PM
Read Gravitation by Misner, Thorne, and Wheeler. Read again and reread until understood.so you've REPLACED our discussion of SPACE with gravity hmmm.. so then you admit that space has then no properties in and of is self on which "galaxies go for the ride".My own take on this*:

GR is a successful theory of physics (it is internally consistent, and matches thousands of good observational and experimental results, in a wide range of domains and environments).

In GR, "space" and "gravity" are intimately related; if you wish to discuss "space", you must also discuss "gravity".

If you, north (or anyone else), wishes to propose an idea of "space", then you are, of course, perfectly welcome to do so.

Ditto, re "gravity".

However, given the tremendous success of GR, as a theory of physics, if you propose your idea of "space" (or "gravity") here in the ATM section of BAUT, you will, sooner or later, be asked about how your idea relates to GR.

You may, of course, say something like "I don't know, since I haven't studied GR".

Irrespective of whether you are asked about the relationship of GR to your idea, or not, you will, sooner or later, be asked about the extent to which your idea matches good observational and experimental results. And such questions may be stated in such a way that quantitative answers are expected.

You may, of course, say something like "I don't know, since I haven't studied any of the relevant observations or experiments", or "I don't know, since I haven't done any quantitative work with my idea".

(or, you may provide details of how well your idea matches good observational and experimental results).

Other than posts which clarify your idea (definition of key terms, relationship with other ideas, internal structure - including logic, and so on), I for one don't see what else (content-wise) this thread could cover. Perhaps other BAUT members could add their suggestions?

Oh, there is one, and it hasn't been asked (yet, AFAIK): how could your idea, north, be shown to be wrong?

For example, could I point my telescope at {some object, or in some direction}, and see something that you say won't be there? (or the reverse, not see something that you say will be there?)

*which I've already said, one way or another; and which several others have already said, one way or another.

north
2006-Jul-20, 09:18 PM
Utter nonsense. It has a metric. Study GR and you'll understand. :)

what I'm trying to understand is the physical properties of space. which in the end is where the metric either stands or falls.

if any physical mathematics can't be described and/or translated into the physical or reality whats the point?

and really since BB and/or GR propose ( or anyother theory for that matter that employs space and that it has properties that do such in such, in the theory) it is incumbent of those that are the proponent of the theory to explain how space does this.

north
2006-Jul-20, 09:26 PM
My own take on this*:

GR is a successful theory of physics (it is internally consistent, and matches thousands of good observational and experimental results, in a wide range of domains and environments).

In GR, "space" and "gravity" are intimately related; if you wish to discuss "space", you must also discuss "gravity".

If you, north (or anyone else), wishes to propose an idea of "space", then you are, of course, perfectly welcome to do so.

Ditto, re "gravity".

However, given the tremendous success of GR, as a theory of physics, if you propose your idea of "space" (or "gravity") here in the ATM section of BAUT, you will, sooner or later, be asked about how your idea relates to GR.

You may, of course, say something like "I don't know, since I haven't studied GR".

Irrespective of whether you are asked about the relationship of GR to your idea, or not, you will, sooner or later, be asked about the extent to which your idea matches good observational and experimental results. And such questions may be stated in such a way that quantitative answers are expected.

You may, of course, say something like "I don't know, since I haven't studied any of the relevant observations or experiments", or "I don't know, since I haven't done any quantitative work with my idea".

(or, you may provide details of how well your idea matches good observational and experimental results).

Other than posts which clarify your idea (definition of key terms, relationship with other ideas, internal structure - including logic, and so on), I for one don't see what else (content-wise) this thread could cover. Perhaps other BAUT members could add their suggestions?

Oh, there is one, and it hasn't been asked (yet, AFAIK): how could your idea, north, be shown to be wrong?

For example, could I point my telescope at {some object, or in some direction}, and see something that you say won't be there? (or the reverse, not see something that you say will be there?)

*which I've already said, one way or another; and which several others have already said, one way or another.

Nereid let me ask you something.

is gravity the result of matter IN space and the interactions of or would gravity still be present if there was no mass in the universe( then empty space)?

gravity can't warp, curve and bend purely empty space.(devoid of any type of matter).

Nereid
2006-Jul-20, 10:11 PM
Nereid let me ask you something.

is gravity the result of matter IN space and the interactions of or would gravity still be present if there was no mass in the universe( then empty space)?

gravity can't warp, curve and bend purely empty space.(devoid of any type of matter).Celestial Mechanic (and others) have already answered this, from the perspective of GR:
Read Gravitation by Misner, Thorne, and Wheeler. Read again and reread until understood.There are, of course, other materials which cover the same (or similar) ground. For example, Sten Odenwald's "Patterns in the Void" (ISBN 0-8133-3938-3) includes a good treatment of your questions, without using a single equation.

There are many 'one paragraph' answers to your questions, taking only the GR perspective.

For example: in GR, 'space without mass' is meaningless - it is mass which creates gravity which creates space (or, if you prefer, it is space which creates gravity which creates mass - 'creates' carries with it rather too much baggage to be very helpful, ordered sequences, for example).

Another example: the 'existence' of space depends upon the 'existence' of mass (like all one sentence word summaries, this does rough justice to some important distinctions, such as 'mass-energy').

However, this is all 'according to GR'. "Space", in quantum theory, is something quite different ... as you've no doubt learned from reading posts in BAUT, GR and quantum theory are mutually incompatible, at many levels.

One mind-bending sentence: in quantum theory, the nature of 'space' is much more counter-intuitive than the nature of 'space' in GR; for example, in quantum theory, entities that have an enormous mass (up to a trillion times the mass of the entire universe?) come and go, in 'empty space', all the time ... but you can never 'see' them, in your everyday life.

And the strange and beautiful thing is that these two (classes of) theory - GR and quantum theory - have passed every test we have dreamed up, to date ... with flying colours. What does this mean? Among other things, it means that the universe seems to behave exactly as if it runs according to these two theories.

north
2006-Jul-20, 11:10 PM
Celestial Mechanic (and others) have already answered this, from the perspective of GR:There are, of course, other materials which cover the same (or similar) ground. For example, Sten Odenwald's "Patterns in the Void" (ISBN 0-8133-3938-3) includes a good treatment of your questions, without using a single equation.

There are many 'one paragraph' answers to your questions, taking only the GR perspective.

[quote=Nereid]For example: in GR, 'space without mass' is meaningless - it is mass which creates gravity which creates space (or, if you prefer, it is space which creates gravity which creates mass - 'creates' carries with it rather too much baggage to be very helpful, ordered sequences, for example).

I myself would have put it this way, mass and space are simulataneous, which then allows gravity to be.


Another example: the 'existence' of space depends upon the 'existence' of mass (like all one sentence word summaries, this does rough justice to some important distinctions, such as 'mass-energy').

again simultaneous, but energy-mass would be better than just mass.

so then agreed, although I still again reversed the order. from "mass-energy"


However, this is all 'according to GR'. "Space", in quantum theory, is something quite different ... as you've no doubt learned from reading posts in BAUT, GR and quantum theory are mutually incompatible, at many levels.


One mind-bending sentence: in quantum theory, the nature of 'space' is much more counter-intuitive than the nature of 'space' in GR; for example, in quantum theory, entities that have an enormous mass (up to a trillion times the mass of the entire universe?) come and go, in 'empty space', all the time ... but you can never 'see' them, in your everyday life.

a trillion times Nereid??? I agree with your question here.


And the strange and beautiful thing is that these two (classes of) theory - GR and quantum theory - have passed every test we have dreamed up, to date ... with flying colours. What does this mean? Among other things, it means that the universe seems to behave exactly as if it runs according to these two theories.

yet GR at first, was of a static Universe, I still think that Albert's instincts were right. it is the interpertation of Hubble's observations that through him off. not thinking that perhaps there he was right and to actually stick to his theory and based on his thoery, take a more in depth study of redshifts could mean otherwise.

interestingly though I remember on a site quite awhile ago that a certain astonomical photo resembled the geomerty of in a QM book I have of what the book called "Surfaces of constant probability density"!! do you think I can find that photo again, not so far but I'll try again, damn thats annoying!!

by the way any comments on #169?

Tensor
2006-Jul-21, 03:03 AM
again simultaneous, but energy-mass would be better than just mass.

so then agreed, although I still again reversed the order. from "mass-energy"

Actually, in GR, Stress-energy is the correct term. The Einstein tensor (the amount of spacetime warpage) is dependent on the Stress-Energy tensor (the amount of Stress-Energy). Mass can be converted to energy by multiplying by c2.


yet GR at first, was of a static Universe, I still think that Albert's instincts were right.

Are you still claiming this? I went over this in another thread, and you agreed. Nope, GR predicted either an expanding or collapsing universe. Einstein added lamda in an adhoc manner to keep the universe static.


it is the interpertation of Hubble's observations that through him off.

Nope, he changed GR to be compatible with a static universe, before the Hubble observations were published.



not thinking that perhaps there he was right and to actually stick to his theory and based on his thoery,

If he would have stuck to his theory, he could (and should) have predicted an expanding universe. It obviously wasn't collapsing, it couldn't be static, and that left expansion.



take a more in depth study of redshifts could mean otherwise.

Well, see, that's the problem. The redshift-distance relationship has been studied and has been confirmed out to 100 MLY. There isn't another explanation, that has shown to be valid, that matches the redshift distance relationship.




by the way any comments on #169?

What you wrote makes no sense. Grey did an excellent job of explaining the redshift of galaxies and the spiral arms. The center bulge has a redshift. One arm is slightly less and the other is slightly more. Those slight differences in the arms redshifts can tell us about the rotation of the galaxy.

north
2006-Jul-21, 03:31 AM
Actually, in GR, Stress-energy is the correct term. The Einstein tensor (the amount of spacetime warpage) is dependent on the Stress-Energy tensor (the amount of Stress-Energy). Mass can be converted to energy by multiplying by c2.



Are you still claiming this? I went over this in another thread, and you agreed. Nope, GR predicted either an expanding or collapsing universe. Einstein added lamda in an adhoc manner to keep the universe static.



Originally Posted by north
it is the interpertation of Hubble's observations that through him off.




Nope, he changed GR to be compatible with a static universe, before the Hubble observations were published.

why? not that I know of.


If he would have stuck to his theory, he could (and should) have predicted an expanding universe. It obviously wasn't collapsing, it couldn't be static, and that left expansion.

contradiction to your rsponse above.



Originally Posted by north
take a more in depth study of redshifts could mean otherwise.

Well, see, that's the problem. The redshift-distance relationship has been studied and has been confirmed out to 100 MLY. There isn't another explanation, that has shown to be valid, that matches the redshift distance relationship.

only because of our perspective.



What you wrote makes no sense. Grey did an excellent job of explaining the redshift of galaxies and the spiral arms. The center bulge has a redshift. One arm is slightly less and the other is slightly more. Those slight differences in the arms redshifts can tell us about the rotation of the galaxy.

ahhh but it does

Tensor
2006-Jul-21, 04:45 PM
Are you still claiming this? I went over this in another thread, and you agreed. Nope, GR predicted either an expanding or collapsing universe. Einstein added lamda in an adhoc manner to keep the universe static.

I missed this. It was Bob that agreed. My appologies.






it is the interpertation of Hubble's observations that through him off.

Nope, he changed GR to be compatible with a static universe, before the Hubble observations were published.


why? not that I know of.

Einstein's work was done in 1917. GR predicted either a expanding or collapsing universe, not a static universe. So, to allow the theory to agree with current thought and observations, he changed GR by adding lamda. Eleven years later (1928) Hubble published his findings about receding galaxies. After some research, he eliminated lamda.



If he would have stuck to his theory, he could (and should) have predicted an expanding universe. It obviously wasn't collapsing, it couldn't be static, and that left expansion.


contradiction to your rsponse above.

How is that contradictory? Remember, galaxies weren't positively identified as galaxies until 1923 (When Hubble found cephids in M31). The theory predicted either collapse or expansion. If it was collapsing, the night sky would have been bright, it's not. The theory showed it couldn't be static. So, as I said, that left expansion. If he would have stuck with the theory, he could (and should) have predicted it, as a consequence of the theory.






take a more in depth study of redshifts could mean otherwise.



Well, see, that's the problem. The redshift-distance relationship has been studied and has been confirmed out to 100 MLY. There isn't another explanation, that has shown to be valid, that matches the redshift distance relationship.


only because of our perspective.

What's that supposed to mean? We've found cephid variables (our most reliable distance indicator) out to 100 MLY. The distance indicated by the redshift agrees with those distance indicators. What exactly does perspective have to do with it?






What you wrote makes no sense. Grey did an excellent job of explaining the redshift of galaxies and the spiral arms. The center bulge has a redshift. One arm is slightly less and the other is slightly more. Those slight differences in the arms redshifts can tell us about the rotation of the galaxy.

ahhh but it does

I went back and reread it. And it still doesn't make sense. Could you reexplain it?

Nereid
2006-Jul-21, 06:54 PM
(apologies to any BAUT readers who feel that this is getting repetitious)

Three questions, if I may, north, about your idea:

1) How does your idea (of space, gravity, and cosmology) relate to General Relativity?

2) To what extent do your ideas quantitatively match the relevant obervational and experimental results?

3) How, in principle, could your idea be shown to be wrong?

north
2006-Jul-24, 07:25 PM
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



Originally Posted by north
again simultaneous, but energy-mass would be better than just mass.

so then agreed, although I still again reversed the order. from "mass-energy"


Actually, in GR, Stress-energy is the correct term. The Einstein tensor (the amount of spacetime warpage) is dependent on the Stress-Energy tensor (the amount of Stress-Energy).

stress-energy? space-time warpage?

explain further both



Mass can be converted to energy by multiplying by c2.

what is more fundamental, energy or mass? I say energy.

north
2006-Jul-24, 07:34 PM
Originally Posted by Tensor
Are you still claiming this? I went over this in another thread, and you agreed. Nope, GR predicted either an expanding or collapsing universe. Einstein added lamda in an adhoc manner to keep the universe static.


I missed this. It was Bob that agreed. My appologies.

appology accepted.

(thanks for doing so by the way)

RussT
2006-Jul-24, 08:12 PM
Clarification;

When I asked how galaxies were 'anchored' to the space they are in so that they could 'go along for the ride' of Hubble expansion, I was NOT saying that they weren't anchored, and that space should just be expanding past them!

They are 'anchored' to the space they are in, I just wanted to see if Celestial Mechanic could explain specifically, how they are anchored.

After reading Publius's explanation to Grav in Q&A about how the "G" sheet is used as the stress-energy tensor, I see how that could be considered as a way to explain that, however, it does not 'specifically' explain how galaxies are anchored to be able to be 'moved' by any kind of expansion of space.

In other words, other than peculiar or proper motion (the gravitational attraction by other baryonic matter), any other motion galaxies experience would have to come from expansion and would necessitate that they be anchored to be moved anywhere by non-baryonic dark matter.

Expanasion is happening, in the voids, moving clusters!

north
2006-Jul-24, 08:37 PM
Originally Posted by north
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tensor
What you wrote makes no sense. Grey did an excellent job of explaining the redshift of galaxies and the spiral arms. The center bulge has a redshift. One arm is slightly less and the other is slightly more. Those slight differences in the arms redshifts can tell us about the rotation of the galaxy.


ahhh but it does



I went back and reread it. And it still doesn't make sense. Could you re-explain it?

sure

take the circumference of the disc, of galaxy its self. left is receding and right proceding.

then look inward, along the plane of the disc, stars are spread out( arms), relative to the galatic core some are closer to the core, some are not.

rotate your perspective and keep doing so, until you have completed the full circumference rotation of the galaxy and at the same time taken measurements of the redshift(100 examples) of the inner stars, relative to the outer edges you will find a variance of the redshift average. because the outer edges of the galaxy don't change but the stars position within the galaxy does, relative to the core of the galaxy, and therefore to the outer edges of the galaxy.

Celestial Mechanic
2006-Jul-24, 08:44 PM
Clarification;

When I asked how galaxies were 'anchored' to the space they are in so that they could 'go along for the ride' of Hubble expansion, I was NOT saying that they weren't anchored, and that space should just be expanding past them!
Too bad; you would have been correct then.

They are 'anchored' to the space they are in, I just wanted to see if Celestial Mechanic could explain specifically, how they are anchored.
You will not get such an explanation from me because I have categorically stated that galaxies are not "anchored" to anything, much less the space underneath. No anchoring is necessary.

north
2006-Jul-24, 09:18 PM
(apologies to any BAUT readers who feel that this is getting repetitious)

Three questions, if I may, north, about your idea:

1) How does your idea (of space, gravity, and cosmology) relate to General Relativity?

space has no substance therefore there is no warping of of space. gravity is centripital force. and Cosmology, Universe is static.( as far as an expanding Universe is concerned. this does not take away from the physical dynamics that otherwise is taking place in our Universe).


2) To what extent do your ideas quantitatively match the relevant obervational and experimental results?

redshifts for example?

then I disagree with the interpretation of.


3) How, in principle, could your idea be shown to be wrong?

look at Grav's "pi" thread and Peter Wilson's thread.

Nereid, as well, how then can your idea be shown to be wrong?

RussT
2006-Jul-24, 09:22 PM
Originally Posted by RussT
Clarification;

When I asked how galaxies were 'anchored' to the space they are in so that they could 'go along for the ride' of Hubble expansion, I was NOT saying that they weren't anchored, and that space should just be expanding past them!



Too bad; you would have been correct then.

Back when I said the clusters were expanding apart in all directions, you said that was a "fair assessment", and as those clusters are farther and farther away from us, the faster they are expanding away, and as you get to the casual horizon, they are expanding away faster than the speed of light (which is supposed to be okay, because it is just 'space' expanding, and not baryonic matter actually traveling faster than the speed of light).

So, if the clusters of galaxies are expanding away from us faster as they are farther away, how can 'space' be expanding 'past' them.

That would also have to mean that the only motion from the galaxies is proper/peculiar motion, casued only be the association of baryonic matter with baryonic matter.

And, How does this "more space' being added (now that we know it is something physical, not just a vacuum) get created? How does the density of 'space' per meter or whatever, remain the same? If all the baryonic matter that will ever exist in the universe has already been created, how is more dark energy (which is still 'space' and is physical) being created?

BTW, when a SMBH is created, it 'spins' or actually 'torques' space into the shapes of the galaxies, and the baryonic matter must follow the curvature of that space, and must remain in the gravity well created, and that is what anchors it to the space it is in.

Tensor
2006-Jul-25, 12:17 AM
appology accepted.

Thank you, sir. While I don't agree with your ideas, I don't have anything against you personally and it's nice to know we can clear up a misunderstanding while still debating other points.


(thanks for doing so by the way)

Hey, I was wrong. I accused you of agreeing to something that someone else agreed to. I screwed it up, and I'll own up to it. It was in the "what is fundamental in cosmology thread". I was debating with both you and Bob, and obviously got who agreed with me wrong.

north
2006-Jul-25, 12:38 AM
Thank you, sir. While I don't agree with your ideas, I don't have anything against you personally

fair enough.


and it's nice to know we can clear up a misunderstanding while still debating other points.

yes it is. and very important. at least to us anyway.

relaxing is it not?

to fear mistakes by ones self is to fear TRUTH. and to fear Truth brings in illusion and its consequences.




Hey, I was wrong. I accused you of agreeing to something that someone else agreed to. I screwed it up, and I'll own up to it. It was in the "what is fundamental in cosmology thread". I was debating with both you and Bob, and obviously got who agreed with me wrong.

your courage to say you were wrong is a quality of character. it is a strength of character which is rare. and appreciated by me, really!!

Tensor
2006-Jul-25, 01:20 AM
stress-energy? space-time warpage?

explain further both

spacetime warpage is the same thing as spacetime curvature. Either can be used. The general public is more used to speaking of curvature. I like warpage better than curvature, as I think it's a better description for the time dimension.

Stress-energy is simply the total quantity of energy in a given volume. It is
the energy density (energy density can be found by multplying the mass density by c2. in the given volume plus the momentum ("stress") through the three spatial directions of that given volume.

In GR, these are represented in the Einstein Field equations. The tensor that is used on the right side of the GR field equation (usually designated as "T") is the Stress-Energy. The amount of spacetime warpage (or curvature) is proportional to the Stress Tensor, multiplied by the proportinality constant (8Pi). The warpage is represented by Einstein Tensor ("G"), which can be constructed from or converted to the Ricci curvature tensor, the Ricci curvature scalar, and the metric tensor.

In GR, space is modeled using what's called a manifold in Differential Geometry. The curvature of the manifold is represented by G. Using this manifold as a model for space, GR predictions have been confirmed for the precession of Mercury's perihelion, the amound of bending of starlight near the sun, the inspiral of binary pulsars, and a tenative confirmation of frame dragging (with more results due from gravity probe B). That's one reason I disagree with your claim that space isn't curve. If it isn't, it sure can be modeled as such.

If you want, I can provide some links. I won't have time until the end of the week though. Feel free to google any or all of the terms before then.



what is more fundamental, energy or mass? I say energy.

And I'll say either. Think of it this way, they are different aspects of the same thing. Numerically, you can convert one to the other through c2.

Nereid
2006-Jul-25, 01:32 AM
(apologies to any BAUT readers who feel that this is getting repetitious)

Three questions, if I may, north, about your idea:

1) How does your idea (of space, gravity, and cosmology) relate to General Relativity?space has no substance therefore there is no warping of of space. gravity is centripital force. and Cosmology, Universe is static.( as far as an expanding Universe is concerned. this does not take away from the physical dynamics that otherwise is taking place in our Universe).Would you please clarify your answer?

Specifically:

a) what is the geometry of "space" in the north idea, and how does it differ from GR?

b) how do "the physical dynamics that otherwise is taking place in our Universe", in the north idea, differ from the equivalent GR description/explanation?

2) To what extent do your ideas quantitatively match the relevant obervational and experimental results?redshifts for example?

then I disagree with the interpretation of.Would you please clarify your answer?

Specifically:

a) what are the three (say) key sets of observational or experimental results, relevant to the domain of the north idea*, that this idea of yours matches, quantitatively?

b) Which "redshifts" observations (or experimental results) does your idea match, quantitatively?

3) How, in principle, could your idea be shown to be wrong?look at Grav's "pi" thread and Peter Wilson's thread.Would you please clarify your answer?

Specifically:

a) which threads (and which posts in those threads)?

b) please summarise the posts, in those threads, as they relate to how your idea could be shown to be wrong.
Nereid, as well, how then can your idea be shown to be wrong?Did I propose an ATM idea? Please tell me where I presented such an ATM idea.

*Presumably cosmology - the nature and evolution of the universe - is one, but maybe there are others.

north
2006-Jul-25, 01:45 AM
spacetime warpage is the same thing as spacetime curvature. Either can be used. The general public is more used to speaking of curvature. I like warpage better than curvature, as I think it's a better description for the time dimension.

Stress-energy is simply the total quantity of energy in a given volume. It is
the energy density (energy density can be found by multplying the mass density by c2. in the given volume plus the momentum ("stress") through the three spatial directions of that given volume.

In GR, these are represented in the Einstein Field equations. The tensor that is used on the right side of the GR field equation (usually designated as "T") is the Stress-Energy. The amount of spacetime warpage (or curvature) is proportional to the Stress Tensor, multiplied by the proportinality constant (8Pi). The warpage is represented by Einstein Tensor ("G"), which can be constructed from or converted to the Ricci curvature tensor, the Ricci curvature scalar, and the metric tensor.

In GR, space is modeled using what's called a manifold in Differential Geometry. The curvature of the manifold is represented by G. Using this manifold as a model for space, GR predictions have been confirmed for the precession of Mercury's perihelion, the amound of bending of starlight near the sun, the inspiral of binary pulsars, and a tenative confirmation of frame dragging (with more results due from gravity probe B). That's one reason I disagree with your claim that space isn't curve. If it isn't, it sure can be modeled as such.

If you want, I can provide some links. I won't have time until the end of the week though. Feel free to google any or all of the terms before then.

I noticed though that "energy in a given volume" is used by you which in a way is my point.

that it is not space that is curved but the mass and/or energy within this volume that is.

imagine a volume of space with neither energy and/or mass. could this volume of space be warped or curved? I say no



And I'll say either. Think of it this way, they are different aspects of the same thing. Numerically, you can convert one to the other through c2.

true

but volume of space is space and prove your point one must be able to warp or curve the said space devoid of any energy and/or mass in it.

RussT
2006-Jul-25, 02:07 AM
but volume of space is space and prove your point one must be able to warp or curve the said space devoid of any energy and/or mass in it.

This is part of the key!

The energy and mass you are refering to here is "Baryonic".

If you took all of this away, space would still have a fabric, but without the baryonic matter present, you would not be able to detect (you would have nothing to compare it to) where it is warped, or where the voids are.

The only places we see (detect the warpages), the influence of the Non-baryonic Cold Dark Matter, is in galaxy rotations and galaxy clusters, where we can see the influence on the baryonic matter.

north
2006-Jul-25, 02:29 AM
This is part of the key!

The energy and mass you are refering to here is "Baryonic".


If you took all of this away, space would still have a fabric,

but how do you KNOW this? that space has a fabric.



but without the baryonic matter present, you would not be able to detect (you would have nothing to compare it to) where it is warped, or where the voids are.

RussT

does this not seem a contradiction to you? your relying on the baryonic matter to tell you where the voids are(less energy/mass) but at the sametime not saying that voids(space) in and of its self is actually warped or curved.


The only places we see (detect the warpages), the influence of the Non-baryonic Cold Dark Matter, is in galaxy rotations and galaxy clusters, where we can see the influence on the baryonic matter.

ether?

north
2006-Jul-25, 02:45 AM
RussT

further you can't just use the "fabric of space" to describe one aspect of observations.

for space to truly have a "fabric" it must be true also for all observations.

in Tensor's example of Mercury perihelion, that means that a planet must also affect space its self.

if this is true then "bare space" so to speak must be detectable.

therefore the first place to look for this "fabric" of space is around Mercury.

true or not?

Tensor
2006-Jul-25, 02:52 AM
imagine a volume of space with neither energy and/or mass. could this volume of space be warped or curved? I say no

I would say yes. Remember, density is an average over the whole volume. Think of it this way. If you have an object that had one cc of volume and masses one gram, then put that object in box that had one cc of volume, the density in that box is 1 gram/cc. If you increase the size of the box to two cc, your density falls to 1/2 gram/cc, but only half the box has anything in it. The other half is empty. It's the same with energy density. All the energy density can be concentrated in a smaller volume, but over any volume, you will have an energy density and you can calculated the curvature over that volume. Think the sun and the sun's gravitational field. Ignoring the planet's energy density, all the energy density is concetrated in the sun, and if you take the volume at, say 1 AU, you will have a density based on a sphere with a radius of 1 AU and, except for the sun in the center, there is nothing else, but spacetime at 1 AU is curved, and the Earth follows that curve.


but volume of space is space and prove your point one must be able to warp or curve the said space devoid of any energy and/or mass in it.

I'm just telling you what the equations say. Now, I suppose you can ask why does mass curve space, and I would have to say, because it does. There really isn't a good answer, at this point, as to the why.

north
2006-Jul-25, 03:23 AM
Originally Posted by north
imagine a volume of space with neither energy and/or mass. could this volume of space be warped or curved? I say no


I would say yes. Remember, density is an average over the whole volume. Think of it this way. If you have an object that had one cc of volume and masses one gram, then put that object in box that had one cc of volume, the density in that box is 1 gram/cc. If you increase the size of the box to two cc, your density falls to 1/2 gram/cc, but only half the box has anything in it. The other half is empty. It's the same with energy density. All the energy density can be concentrated in a smaller volume, but over any volume, you will have an energy density and you can calculated the curvature over that volume. Think the sun and the sun's gravitational field. Ignoring the planet's energy density, all the energy density is concetrated in the sun, and if you take the volume at, say 1 AU, you will have a density based on a sphere with a radius of 1 AU and, except for the sun in the center, there is nothing else, but spacetime at 1 AU is curved, and the Earth follows that curve.

okay

lets say for arguments sake what your saying is true.

then our next task should be seeking the fabric of space its self.


I'm just telling you what the equations say. Now, I suppose you can ask why does mass curve space, and I would have to say, because it does. There really isn't a good answer, at this point, as to the why.

the equations work I won't argue that but they work for the wrong reasons.

I've given this example before but nevertheless I'll give it again;

Earths position as it is sees' the star light from another star behind the sun because the light from this star is bent by the sun.

now if I were to raise the Earth so that the north pole of the Earth is level with the north pole of the sun, the light from this star which is behind the sun, would be alot less bent if not straight.

now if we were to raise the Earth again so that the south pole of the Earth were to be level with the north pole of the sun you would find that the light from the star, behind the sun would not be bent, relative to the Earths' north pole position.( now if I'm not exact well I still think my point has been made)

why because the north pole of the Earth is ABOVE the influence of the suns' atmosphere. and of the star light behind the sun.

therefore it is a matter of Earths' position(in this case) and the matter in that space of position, relative to the star light behind the sun.

Tobin Dax
2006-Jul-25, 07:10 AM
First, north, you seem to have missed Nereid's questions. It might be a good idea to respond to those.


I've given this example before but nevertheless I'll give it again;

Earths position as it is sees' the star light from another star behind the sun because the light from this star is bent by the sun.

now if I were to raise the Earth so that the north pole of the Earth is level with the north pole of the sun, the light from this star which is behind the sun, would be alot less bent if not straight.

now if we were to raise the Earth again so that the south pole of the Earth were to be level with the north pole of the sun you would find that the light from the star, behind the sun would not be bent, relative to the Earths' north pole position.( now if I'm not exact well I still think my point has been made)

why because the north pole of the Earth is ABOVE the influence of the suns' atmosphere. and of the star light behind the sun.

therefore it is a matter of Earths' position(in this case) and the matter in that space of position, relative to the star light behind the sun.

Doing what you propose moves the Earth past the GR deflection angle, so it really doesn't show anything.
Since you say this is an "atmospheric effect," can you show us mathematically how that works and that it gets the same answer as GR? Can you also show how it works to get the same answers as GR in intergalactic areas of galactic clusters where we see gravitational lensing, too?

RussT
2006-Jul-25, 11:16 AM
but how do you KNOW this? that space has a fabric.

There are several things that tell us this, but the main one is General Relativity itself. For baryonic matter to 'warp' space and create a gravity well for stars and planets to 'fall' into, 'space has to warp (curve) and put quite simply...a pure vacuum cannot curve or warp!



does this not seem a contradiction to you? your relying on the baryonic matter to tell you where the voids are(less energy/mass) but at the sametime not saying that voids(space) in and of its self is actually warped or curved.

No, there is no contradiction here. Seeing the galaxies in clusters is what shows us that there are voids with very few or no galaxies at all, and they have looked extensively for them.

What I meant earlier about the voids, was that since there are no galaxies in them, it is impossible to see how the dark matter (extra gravity] is even there, or what it is doing or how it might be moving.

This whole Dark Matter/Dark Energy thing can get very confusing, so you really need to start googling and reading up on all of it, but I'll say a few things here that may help.

The universe (according to current thinking) is made up of ~70% Dark Energy, ~26% Dark Matter, and ~4% Baryonic Matter.

So DE/DM is all the Darkness of space. Now, we don't know what makes up the darkness yet, So, Dark Matter and Dark Energy are just placeholders (made up names that try to say something that makes sense) until they can determine what the darkness of 'space'/spacetime is actually made of, and it is definitely made of something! Thats what the Higgs boson/field, Gravitons, and String theory is all about.

Now, when they look at galaxy rotation curves and clusters of galaxies, it is easy to calculate (for them), that there is 'extra gravity' that HAS to be there to account for certain conditions (mostly keeping the stars and galaxies inplace so they don't 'fly away').

What is the only way that they know how to account for gravity? With baryonic matter, but they have looked very gard for any sign of additional unaccounted for baryonic matter, and can't find enough to account for the 'extra gravity', so they are calling that Non-baryonic Dark Matter (and it can't be fast, so it can't be hot, so it must be Cold Non-Baryonic Dark Matter until they figure out what it really is.

So DM is here to stay because it is not really theory specific, unless GR is shown to all be totally false, which will not happen!

Dark Energy on the other hand is totally theory specific because it is used to show how the FRW universe and the expansion based on the Big Bang application of that to the universe is experiencing an accelerating expansion that supposed started approximately 6 billion years ago.

So whether you call it aether, quintesence, DM/DE, stress/energy tensor, or any other names you want to think up, they are all just placeholders, because no one knows what makes up the Darkness of space!

north
2006-Jul-25, 06:49 PM
it seems that I'm being blocked for now answering Nereid's response not enough characters it seems???

north
2006-Jul-25, 07:05 PM
first I want to appologize to Nereid, I didn't see your response until later and it was to late for me to respond. I should have though given you a quick note to say I ackowledge your response and I'll respond later.

I wasn't intensionaly ignoring you.



Would you please clarify your answer?

Specifically:

a) what is the geometry of "space" in the north idea, and how does it differ from GR?

b) how do "the physical dynamics that otherwise is taking place in our Universe", in the north idea, differ from the equivalent GR description/explanation?Would you please clarify your answer?

Specifically:

a) what are the three (say) key sets of observational or experimental results, relevant to the domain of the north idea*, that this idea of yours matches, quantitatively?

b) Which "redshifts" observations (or experimental results) does your idea match, quantitatively?Would you please clarify your answer?

Specifically:

a) which threads (and which posts in those threads)?

b) please summarise the posts, in those threads, as they relate to how your idea could be shown to be wrong.Did I propose an ATM idea? Please tell me where I presented such an ATM idea.

*Presumably cosmology - the nature and evolution of the universe - is one, but maybe there are others.

by the way Nereid, what is your reponse to #169 on this thread?

north
2006-Jul-25, 07:24 PM
first I want to appologize to Nereid, I didn't see your response until later and it was to late for me to respond. I should have though given you a quick note to say I ackowledge your response and I'll respond later.

I wasn't intensionaly ignoring you.

[Quote=Nereid]
Originally Posted by Nereid
Would you please clarify your answer?

Specifically:

a) what is the geometry of "space" in the north idea, and how does it differ from GR?

there is no geometry of space and that it is matter In space which is cuved or warped that is where we differ.


b) how do "the physical dynamics that otherwise is taking place in our Universe", in the north idea, differ from the equivalent GR description/explanation?Would you please clarify your answer?

the physical dynamics include Cosmic Plasmas. GR does not.


Specifically:

a) what are the three (say) key sets of observational or experimental results, relevant to the domain of the north idea*, that this idea of yours matches, quantitatively?

the observations that the stars in a said galaxy are at different distances from the discs' core.


b) Which "redshifts" observations (or experimental results) does your idea match, quantitatively?Would you please clarify your answer?

none. to my knowledge analyzing redshifts from different perspective has not been done.

north
2006-Jul-25, 07:33 PM
Specifically:

a) which threads (and which posts in those threads)?

#161 on Peter Wilson's thread


b) please summarise the posts, in those threads, as they relate to how your idea could be shown to be wrong.

they are explained on the #161 response.



Did I propose an ATM idea? Please tell me where I presented such an ATM idea.

you didn't, but if you can ask me this question, about how my theory could be wrong, surely I can in turn ask the same of you.

*Presumably cosmology - the nature and evolution of the universe - is one, but maybe there are others.

north
2006-Jul-25, 07:40 PM
First, north, you seem to have missed Nereid's questions. It might be a good idea to respond to those.

Done




Originally Posted by north
I've given this example before but nevertheless I'll give it again;

Earths position as it is sees' the star light from another star behind the sun because the light from this star is bent by the sun.

now if I were to raise the Earth so that the north pole of the Earth is level with the north pole of the sun, the light from this star which is behind the sun, would be alot less bent if not straight.

now if we were to raise the Earth again so that the south pole of the Earth were to be level with the north pole of the sun you would find that the light from the star, behind the sun would not be bent, relative to the Earths' north pole position.( now if I'm not exact well I still think my point has been made)

why because the north pole of the Earth is ABOVE the influence of the suns' atmosphere. and of the star light behind the sun.

therefore it is a matter of Earths' position(in this case) and the matter in that space of position, relative to the star light behind the sun.



Doing what you propose moves the Earth past the GR deflection angle, so it really doesn't show anything.
Since you say this is an "atmospheric effect," can you show us mathematically how that works and that it gets the same answer as GR? Can you also show how it works to get the same answers as GR in intergalactic areas of galactic clusters where we see gravitational lensing, too?

the point is this. the stars light does not get bent or curved unless there is energy/matter inbetween you and the stars position.

Nereid
2006-Jul-25, 07:45 PM
by the way Nereid, what is your reponse to #169 on this thread?Here is #169 in this thread, in its entirety:

This post wasn't very clear, and used some nonstandard terminology that you wouldn't clarify, so that's perhaps why nobody has addressed it well, north. I'll try to interpret and respond. First, the disk of a spiral galaxy is not called an "accretion disk". It's just a disk. An accretion disk is specifically matter that is accumulating and spiralling in toward a compact object like a black hole or neutron star. The disk of a galaxy is in a stable orbit.

Now, the analysis of redshifts is in fact based on light coming from both the core and the disk of galaxies, contrary to your apparent assumption that this is not the case. What we see when we look at the light coming from the galaxy is that there is an overall redshift to the light. Then, if we're looking at it edge-on, we'll see that one side is slightly more redshifted than the other, and one is slightly less redshifted by the same amount. So the average redshift of the whole galaxy is the same as the redshift of the core. This rotation curve is consistent with a galaxy that has all of its light redshifted due to recession (or some other explanation, perhaps), and then has an additional Doppler shift superimposed due to the rotation of the disk (with one side moving toward us while the other side is moving away from us).

For elliptical galaxies, this isn't quite as clean, because there isn't an overall rotation (the individual stars still orbit the center, but not all in the same direction or plane). We see instead a general broadening of the spectral lines, which is typical for light emitted from objects that are in more or less random motion. This is again consistent with the galaxy as a whole being redshifted, and then Doppler shifts of the light from stars due to their individual motion superimposed.Grey

I see what you mean. but all the redshifting is still confined the disc of the galaxy. from left and right of the outer disk and the stars closer to the equatorial center of the Galaxy center but still within the disc its self. as well if we were to rotate our perspective along the plane of the disc, would we not find that the average of the redshift of the sides with respect to the center core change, and therefore no longer be the average that we once had initially. since as we rotate our perspective the stars at the core would become, (moving from say right to left) closer to us but the outer discs stars outer edges would stay the same.

and as I explained to Nereid before when asked to define what I mean't by core I defined it as the "globular center" not the equatorial center.I guess this is difficult to explain further (beyond what Grey wrote), without some diagram or three, but let me try.

Let's imagine we have a nucleus, surrounded by two rings of 360 points (we'll call them 'stars'). The stars in each ring are the same distance from the nucleus; the stars in the second ring are further away from the nucleus than those in the first ring. As seen from the nucleus, the stars in each ring are 1o apart.

Let us imagine that the stars are in circular motion around the nucleus, with those in the second ring taking 2.5 times as long to go round the nucleus as those in the first ring; the direction of motion is the same (i.e. either stars in both rings move clockwise, or in both move counter-clockwise) . (We are not concerned, for now, just how the stars maintain their orbits, nor what their masses are, or anything else; we are focussed on the motion, and how that motion is perceived by distant observers).

Now, we position lots and lots of observers, a long way away from this 'galaxy' (say, 1,000 times as far away as the distance of the stars in the second ring from the nucleus). We will start with the nucleus motionless with respect to (wrt) all observers.

For observers who are along the 'rotation axis' of the galaxy (i.e. the distance from an observer to all stars in the first ring is exactly the same; the distance to all stars in the second ring is exactly the same, but different), there is no redshift or blueshift: none of the 720 stars shows any red- or blueshift.

For an observer in the plane of the galaxy, the nucleus will have no redshift or blueshift; and if there is a star along the line from the observer to the nucleus, then that star will also have no redshift of blueshift. All the other stars will have either a redshift or a blueshift, with the maximum red/blueshift, in each ring, being for stars that are furthest from the nucleus, as seen by this observer. Further, all stars on one 'side' of the nucleus will be redshifted; all stars on the other side will be blueshifted. Whether the maximum redshift for stars in the first ring is greater than the maximum redshift for stars in the second ring depends upon the distance between the rings (more later).

Now here's the piece that I feel you may be tripping over: every observer in the plane of the galaxy sees the same pattern of redshifts and blueshifts! Further, if each of these observers is spaced exactly 1o apart (as seen from the nucleus), they will see exactly the same redshifts and blueshifts.

OTOH, you may be tripping over what observers in a plane perpendicular to the plane of the galaxy would see? The details of the red- and blueshift patterns are a little more complicated, but the summary is the same: all observers with the same geometric perspective* will see the same pattern of red and blueshifts; the range of observed red/blueshifts decreases from a maximum for observers in the plane of the galaxy to zero, for observers on the axis of rotation.

Does this help?

*crudely, the angle at which the galaxy is 'tilted'.

Tobin Dax
2006-Jul-25, 07:52 PM
the point is this. the stars light does not get bent or curved unless there is energy/matter inbetween you and the stars position.
(That Tensor quote is mine, btw.) That doesn't really differ from GR. I fail to see your point. Are you claiming that lensing isn't gravitational, as you seem to be? If so, what causes it and how are you going to show us that you're right? If not, how is this important in showing us that you're right and GR is wrong? (Especially since this is one the easiest tests for GR, and one that has worked time after time.)

north
2006-Jul-25, 07:55 PM
Originally Posted by north
but how do you KNOW this? that space has a fabric.


There are several things that tell us this, but the main one is General Relativity itself. For baryonic matter to 'warp' space and create a gravity well for stars and planets to 'fall' into, 'space has to warp (curve) and put quite simply...a pure vacuum cannot curve or warp!

but the thing is Russ, the stars, strickly speaking are not "falling into a well" so to speak are they. for this to happen it would mean that the stars are falling towards the south pole of the galaxy( rubber sheet with a ball put in the center which warps th rubber sheet), they are not. what the stars ARE doing is moving along the equatorial plane of the galatic disc. the center of the galaxy its self.

Nereid
2006-Jul-25, 08:02 PM
Just quickly...
[snip]
a) what is the geometry of "space" in the north idea, and how does it differ from GR?there is no geometry of space and that it is matter In space which is cuved or warped that is where we differ.

[snip]If "there is no geometry of space", how can we measure distances, areas, volumes, angles, etc?

For example, if I have a triangle, in the north idea, what will the sum of the (interior) angles be?

north
2006-Jul-25, 08:13 PM
Originally Posted by north
does this not seem a contradiction to you? your relying on the baryonic matter to tell you where the voids are(less energy/mass) but at the sametime not saying that voids(space) in and of its self is actually warped or curved


No, there is no contradiction here. Seeing the galaxies in clusters is what shows us that there are voids with very few or no galaxies at all, and they have looked extensively for them.

just because there are NO galaxies at such and such at point in space does not mean that there is no energy there.

Cosmic Plasmas are not necessarily seen but they do however reside in space that seems empty. and what of chiral condensate?


What I meant earlier about the voids, was that since there are no galaxies in them, it is impossible to see how the dark matter (extra gravity] is even there, or what it is doing or how it might be moving.

above


This whole Dark Matter/Dark Energy thing can get very confusing, so you really need to start googling and reading up on all of it, but I'll say a few things here that may help.

The universe (according to current thinking) is made up of ~70% Dark Energy, ~26% Dark Matter, and ~4% Baryonic Matter.

So DE/DM is all the Darkness of space. Now, we don't know what makes up the darkness yet, So, Dark Matter and Dark Energy are just placeholders (made up names that try to say something that makes sense) until they can determine what the darkness of 'space'/spacetime is actually made of, and it is definitely made of something! Thats what the Higgs boson/field, Gravitons, and String theory is all about.

Now, when they look at galaxy rotation curves and clusters of galaxies, it is easy to calculate (for them), that there is 'extra gravity' that HAS to be there to account for certain conditions (mostly keeping the stars and galaxies inplace so they don't 'fly away').

What is the only way that they know how to account for gravity? With baryonic matter, but they have looked very hard for any sign of additional unaccounted for baryonic matter, and can't find enough to account for the 'extra gravity', so they are calling that Non-baryonic Dark Matter (and it can't be fast, so it can't be hot, so it must be Cold Non-Baryonic Dark Matter until they figure out what it really is.

So DM is here to stay because it is not really theory specific, unless GR is shown to all be totally false, which will not happen!

Dark Energy on the other hand is totally theory specific because it is used to show how the FRW universe and the expansion based on the Big Bang application of that to the universe is experiencing an accelerating expansion that supposed started approximately 6 billion years ago.

So whether you call it aether, quintesence, DM/DE, stress/energy tensor, or any other names you want to think up, they are all just placeholders, because no one knows what makes up the Darkness of space!

can they or have they thought of looking at this DE/DM from a Cosmic Plasma point of view.

for interestingly enough BB uses Cosmic Plasma as the origin of BB in the begining but has not included Cosmic Plasmas in its overall theory.( in the thread "Was there space before the big bang I was asked to go to this site by Dragon Star

http://www.astro.ubc.ca/people/scott/cmb_intro.html there you will find what I'm saying)

RussT
2006-Jul-26, 10:11 AM
but the thing is Russ, the stars, strickly speaking are not "falling into a well" so to speak are they. for this to happen it would mean that the stars are falling towards the south pole of the galaxy( rubber sheet with a ball put in the center which warps th rubber sheet), they are not. what the stars ARE doing is moving along the equatorial plane of the galatic disc. the center of the galaxy its self.

north, this was a way to show that space is not a vacuum. To warp or curve it must be made of something, it has a 'fabric'.

I already explained above how the curvature of the space, a galaxy is in, occurs and why the baryonic matter must follow that curvature.

RussT
2006-Jul-26, 10:23 AM
can they or have they thought of looking at this DE/DM from a Cosmic Plasma point of view.

Plasma is baryonic matter only and has nothing to do with DE/Cold Non-Baryonic Dark Matter!!!

Just my two cents worth north, but awhile back you said that a few years ago you were considering a friction scenario (it is NOT ZPE) causing galaxies to form in the darkness of space, and this is much closer to what is happening, so you might want to consider going back to that in your thinking, read up on DM/DE and think more on the gravity/GR line. Let the Plasma stuff go, it does have some validity in some galactic processes, but it does not work for the universe as a whole, IMHO.

Celestial Mechanic
2006-Jul-26, 12:47 PM
Plasma is baryonic matter only and has nothing to do with DE/Cold Non-Baryonic Dark Matter!!!
Electrons are non-baryonic AND they quite obviously can be a constituent of plasmas.

Tobin Dax
2006-Jul-26, 06:03 PM
Electrons are non-baryonic AND they quite obviously can be a constituent of plasmas.
But haven't leptons pretty much been ruled out as being a constituent of CDM?

edit: spelling/tense

Celestial Mechanic
2006-Jul-26, 09:10 PM
But haven't leptons pretty much been ruled out as being a constituent of CDM? [Snip!]
True, but that was not what I was responding to. I was responding to RussT's claim that plasma is baryonic matter only.

RussT
2006-Jul-27, 07:48 AM
That's okay, he's just nit picking anyway. He knows what I meant.

It did cause me to read up on 'free' electrons though.

Thanks Celestial.

Tobin Dax
2006-Jul-27, 08:07 PM
True, but that was not what I was responding to. I was responding to RussT's claim that plasma is baryonic matter only.

Whoops. Guess I didn't read that carefully enough.

RussT
2006-Jul-27, 08:18 PM
Posted by Tim Thompson 2002
However, the anisotropies in the cosmic microwave background allow for the determination of both the total gravitational mass of the universe, and the part of that mass which is baryonic. The direct implication is that the total is much larger than the baryonic, and the difference must therefore be nonbaryonic (baryons are particles which interact with electromagnetic fields at some nonzero level; all of the "ordinary" matter that you encounter is baryonic).

[(baryons are particles which interact with electromagnetic fields at some nonzero level; all of the "ordinary" matter that you encounter is baryonic).]

Well, unless this has changed since 2002, this says differently.

And From Wkipedia;
The electron is a fundamental subatomic particle that carries an electric charge. It is a spin-½ lepton that participates in electromagnetic interactions.

Celestial Mechanic
2006-Jul-27, 08:39 PM
Posted by Tim Thompson 2002
[Snip!] (baryons are particles which interact with electromagnetic fields at some nonzero level; all of the "ordinary" matter that you encounter is baryonic).
This sounds like defining baryons to be equivalent to non-neutrinos; this is not the definition of baryon that particle physicists use. It sounds rather akin to stellar physicists defining metals to be any element other than hydrogen and helium, much to the disapproval of chemists. If this is the intended definition, then I shall just have to grit my teeth and try to understand. Maybe "ordinary matter" would be better, but that term might carry an implication of being first generation only, that is matter made up of u-quarks, d-quarks, electrons and electron-neutrinos (and their antiparticles).

Well, unless this has changed since 2002, this says differently.

And From Wkipedia;
The electron is a fundamental subatomic particle that carries an electric charge. It is a spin-Ĺ lepton that participates in electromagnetic interactions.
This is true, but again to particle physicists a baryon is a hadron (strongly interacting particle), and leptons are particles that do not have strong interactions. Leptons of the correct helicity have weak interactions; leptons with electric charge have electromagnetic interactions.

RussT
2006-Jul-28, 08:52 AM
Thanks Celestial;

I don't think we want the readers thinking that since free electrons 'could' be considered non-baryonic, that they could also be considered a candidate for Dark Matter! Yea, 26% of the universe is made up of free electrons and are the 'extra gravity' that explains the rotation curves of spiral galaxies and cluster dynamics. LOL.

In the 2nd part of the 3 part Elegant Universe (I had not seen the 3 part one)
2 Tuesdays ago, Brian Greene 'hammered home' that of the 4 forces, Strong, Weak, EM, and gravity, gravity and therfore Cold Dark Matter seemed totally seperated from the other three.

So, Since the Strong, Weak, and EM forces are all concerned with baryonic matter, and gravity and Dark Matter are sooo different, it seems to me that there is probably a Different way that they get here VS the baryonic matter.

Nereid
2006-Jul-28, 10:45 PM
[snip]
b) how do "the physical dynamics that otherwise is taking place in our Universe", in the north idea, differ from the equivalent GR description/explanation?Would you please clarify your answer?the physical dynamics include Cosmic Plasmas. GR does not.In what ways - quantitatively - does the inclusion of "Cosmic Plasmas" in "the physical dynamics that otherwise is taking place in our Universe" differ from the equivalent GR description/explanation?

Specifically:

a) what are the three (say) key sets of observational or experimental results, relevant to the domain of the north idea*, that this idea of yours matches, quantitatively?the observations that the stars in a said galaxy are at different distances from the discs' core.Perhaps my question was insufficiently clear (if so, please ask for clarification), but your reply is not an answer to my question.

Specifically, you did not provide anything quantitative. Would you please answer the question?

b) Which "redshifts" observations (or experimental results) does your idea match, quantitatively?Would you please clarify your answer?none. to my knowledge analyzing redshifts from different perspective has not been done.I am puzzled by this reply.

As you know, astronomers make observations of the spectra of objects in the sky at all times of the day, week, month, and year, and unless the north idea includes a stationary Earth (one that does not revolve around the Sun, nor rotate on an axis), that there are (redshift) observations "from different perspective(s)" is clearly true. And to the extent that redshift observations are analysed using models which include the motion of Earth - about its rotational axis, about the solar system barycentre - your claim seems to be at odds with reality.

Can you clarify please?

3) How, in principle, could your idea be shown to be wrong?look at Grav's "pi" thread and Peter Wilson's thread.

a) which threads (and which posts in those threads)?#161 on Peter Wilson's thread
b) please summarise the posts, in those threads, as they relate to how your idea could be shown to be wrong.they are explained on the #161 response.Here is the content of that post of yours:
I agree with gravitational systems being dualistic but I picture its(galaxies) physical dynamics differently.

that both the jets and discs of a galaxy are created at the same time. because the energy within galaxy has a need for balancing its self. the jets balance the core( pole to pole) the disc, the equatorial , rotational balance. so as not to explode.

your thoughts. before we go on.

by the way the proof of what I propose is that this galaxy would be less redshifted relative to its distance than would be expected of a galaxy at this said distance.I do not understand this reply.

Specifically: which galaxy are you referring to ("this galaxy")? What is "its distance"? How would such a distance be determined? What redshift "would be expected"?

Did I propose an ATM idea? Please tell me where I presented such an ATM idea.you didn't, but if you can ask me this question, about how my theory could be wrong, surely I can in turn ask the same of you.Thank you for the opportunity to clarify the objectives and operation of this ATM section of BAUT.

As you know, BAUT is an internet discussion forum, with astronomy, astrophysics, cosmology, and space science as its scope. It is avowedly scientific in its approach.

The scope of this ATM section is outlined in Rules For Posting To This Board (http://www.bautforum.com/showthread.php?t=32864):
13. Alternative Concepts

If you have some idea which goes against commonly-held astronomical theory, then you are welcome to argue it here. Before you do, though READ THIS THREAD FIRST. This is very important. Then, if you still want to post your idea, you will do so politely, you will not call people names, and you will defend your arguments. Direct questions must be answered in a timely manner.

People will attack your arguments with glee and fervor here; that's what science and scientists do. If you cannot handle that sort of attack, then maybe you need to rethink your theory, too. Remember: you came here. It's our job to attack new theories. Those that are strong will survive, and may become part of mainstream science.

Additionally, keep promotion of your theories and ideas to only those Against the Mainstream threads which discuss them. Hijacking other discussions to draw attention to your ideas will not be allowed.

If it appears that you are using circular reasoning, depending on long-debunked arguments, or breaking any of these other rules, you will receive one warning, and if that warning goes unheeded, you will be banned.In simpler language, this ATM section provide BAUT members with an opportunity to present their ATM ideas, and for other BAUT members to challenge them.

Ergo, it is not appropriate for this ATM section to be used for questions about mainstream astronomy, astrophysics, cosmology, and space science.

So, if Nereid had presented an ATM idea, then of course you could ask questions about it.

But perhaps you intended to ask something like: "how, in principle, could {insert modern astronomy, astrophysics, cosmology, or space science theory here} be shown to be wrong?" If so, then please start a thread, in either the Q&A or Astronomy section of BAUT.

I note that there are a number of direct, pertinent questions about your idea north, as you have presented them in this thread. When can we expect that you will address these questions?

north
2006-Jul-29, 11:42 PM
Originally Posted by north
[snip]
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nereid
b) how do "the physical dynamics that otherwise is taking place in our Universe", in the north idea, differ from the equivalent GR description/explanation?Would you please clarify your answer?

the physical dynamics include Cosmic Plasmas. GR does not.

In what ways - quantitatively - does the inclusion of "Cosmic Plasmas" in "the physical dynamics that otherwise is taking place in our Universe" differ from the equivalent GR description/explanation?

quantitatively don't know.( and you know I can't Nereid. so why not ask me a qualitative question instead?) but what I do know, qualitatively, is that any books on GR that I have read do not mention Cosmic Plasmas at all.

north
2006-Jul-30, 12:00 AM
Quote:
Specifically:

a) what are the three (say) key sets of observational or experimental results, relevant to the domain of the north idea*, that this idea of yours matches, quantitatively?

the observations that the stars in a said galaxy are at different distances from the discs' core.

Perhaps my question was insufficiently clear (if so, please ask for clarification), but your reply is not an answer to my question.

Specifically, you did not provide anything quantitative. Would you please answer the question?

no I didn't give a quantitative answer is it really necessary?( the question of yours, was to me, sufficiently clear).

observations( three galaxies if you'd like) as in photos, then combined with the way redshifts are calculated with observers at different positions around the circumference of the galaxy will lead to different results.

north
2006-Jul-30, 12:17 AM
Quote:
b) Which "redshifts" observations (or experimental results) does your idea match, quantitatively?Would you please clarify your answer?

none. to my knowledge analyzing redshifts from different perspective has not been done.

I am puzzled by this reply.

As you know, astronomers make observations of the spectra of objects in the sky at all times of the day, week, month, and year, and unless the north idea includes a stationary Earth (one that does not revolve around the Sun, nor rotate on an axis), that there are (redshift) observations "from different perspective(s)" is clearly true. And to the extent that redshift observations are analysed using models which include the motion of Earth - about its rotational axis, about the solar system barycentre - your claim seems to be at odds with reality.

Can you clarify please?

I was talking about galatic redshifts Nereid not solar system redshifts.

north
2006-Jul-30, 12:21 AM
Originally Posted by north
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nereid
3) How, in principle, could your idea be shown to be wrong?

look at Grav's "pi" thread and Peter Wilson's thread.

Quote:
Originally Posted by north
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nereid
a) which threads (and which posts in those threads)?

#161 on Peter Wilson's thread
Quote:
b) please summarise the posts, in those threads, as they relate to how your idea could be shown to be wrong.

they are explained on the #161 response.

Here is the content of that post of yours:
Quote:
I agree with gravitational systems being dualistic but I picture its(galaxies) physical dynamics differently.

that both the jets and discs of a galaxy are created at the same time. because the energy within galaxy has a need for balancing its self. the jets balance the core( pole to pole) the disc, the equatorial , rotational balance. so as not to explode.

your thoughts. before we go on.

by the way the proof of what I propose is that this galaxy would be less redshifted relative to its distance than would be expected of a galaxy at this said distance.

I do not understand this reply.

Specifically: which galaxy are you referring to ("this galaxy")? What is "its distance"? How would such a distance be determined? What redshift "would be expected"?

I'll try to find an example of what I mean.( but obviously it is not our own galaxy)

Nereid
2006-Jul-30, 03:09 AM
In what ways - quantitatively - does the inclusion of "Cosmic Plasmas" in "the physical dynamics that otherwise is taking place in our Universe" differ from the equivalent GR description/explanation?quantitatively don't know.( and you know I can't Nereid. so why not ask me a qualitative question instead?) but what I do know, qualitatively, is that any books on GR that I have read do not mention Cosmic Plasmas at all.It seems I made an unwarranted assumption - "physical dynamics" - to me - implies quantitative. If you did not intend this phrase to have a quantitative meaning, north, would you please define the term, in as precise a way as possible, as you had intended it?

Similarly, for the term "Cosmic Plasmas".


none. to my knowledge analyzing redshifts from different perspective has not been done.I am puzzled by this reply.

As you know, astronomers make observations of the spectra of objects in the sky at all times of the day, week, month, and year, and unless the north idea includes a stationary Earth (one that does not revolve around the Sun, nor rotate on an axis), that there are (redshift) observations "from different perspective(s)" is clearly true. And to the extent that redshift observations are analysed using models which include the motion of Earth - about its rotational axis, about the solar system barycentre - your claim seems to be at odds with reality.

Can you clarify please?I was talking about galatic redshifts Nereid not solar system redshifts.As it seems that your use of terms can cause misunderstanding (if only for me), would you please define the term "galactic redshifts", in as precise a way as possible, as you intend it to mean?



Specifically:

a) what are the three (say) key sets of observational or experimental results, relevant to the domain of the north idea*, that this idea of yours matches, quantitatively?the observations that the stars in a said galaxy are at different distances from the discs' core.Perhaps my question was insufficiently clear (if so, please ask for clarification), but your reply is not an answer to my question.

Specifically, you did not provide anything quantitative. Would you please answer the question?no I didn't give a quantitative answer is it really necessary?( the question of yours, was to me, sufficiently clear).

observations( three galaxies if you'd like) as in photos, then combined with the way redshifts are calculated with observers at different positions around the circumference of the galaxy will lead to different results.(third of three). Please clarify.

Specifically, please describe how these "observers at different positions around the circumference of the galaxy" calculate "redshifts" "in photos". If you do not intend "observations" to mean "in photos", then please describe, in some detail, what you do mean by "observations".

General comment: it seems that you are unable (or unwilling) to present your ATM ideas in a quantitative form, north. Further, it seems that you use key terms (in the presentation of your idea) that are ambiguous, or have meanings which differ from the standard meanings, as used by astronomers.

Without the efficiency and clarity of a quantitative approach to clearing up misunderstandings and ambiguities, the only approach I can see, that is fair to your presentations of your ATM idea, north, is a (fairly exhaustive) detailed examination of all the key terms you use, ideally with you providing a considerable amount of detail.

north
2006-Jul-30, 03:39 AM
Originally Posted by north
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nereid
In what ways - quantitatively - does the inclusion of "Cosmic Plasmas" in "the physical dynamics that otherwise is taking place in our Universe" differ from the equivalent GR description/explanation?

quantitatively don't know.( and you know I can't Nereid. so why not ask me a qualitative question instead?) but what I do know, qualitatively, is that any books on GR that I have read do not mention Cosmic Plasmas at all.


It seems I made an unwarranted assumption - "physical dynamics" - to me - implies quantitative. If you did not intend this phrase to have a quantitative meaning, north, would you please define the term, in as precise a way as possible, as you had intended it?

"physical dynamics" to me is precisely that. but I imagine the physical dynamics. whereas you and others need to "see physical dynamics in terms of numbers".

that is why I think we have a communication problem.



Similarly, for the term "Cosmic Plasmas".

north
2006-Jul-30, 03:55 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by north
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nereid
Quote:
Originally Posted by north
none. to my knowledge analyzing redshifts from different perspective has not been done.

I am puzzled by this reply.

As you know, astronomers make observations of the spectra of objects in the sky at all times of the day, week, month, and year, and unless the north idea includes a stationary Earth (one that does not revolve around the Sun, nor rotate on an axis), that there are (redshift) observations "from different perspective(s)" is clearly true. And to the extent that redshift observations are analysed using models which include the motion of Earth - about its rotational axis, about the solar system barycentre - your claim seems to be at odds with reality.

Can you clarify please?

I was talking about galatic redshifts Nereid not solar system redshifts.


As it seems that your use of terms can cause misunderstanding (if only for me), would you please define the term "galactic redshifts", in as precise a way as possible, as you intend it to mean?

as in the redshift between the proceeding disc of a galaxy(right side of the galatic disc) and the receding( left hand side of the galatic disc) both relative to our observation perspective. and the stars nearest to center of the galatic core redshift. then an average is taken.

the center galatic core redshift equals the average of both the left and right side redshifts of the galatic disc.

north
2006-Jul-30, 04:24 AM
(third of three). Please clarify.

Specifically, please describe how these "observers at different positions around the circumference of the galaxy" calculate "redshifts" "in photos". If you do not intend "observations" to mean "in photos", then please describe, in some detail, what you do mean by "observations".

inotherwords Nereid if we use the same method for calculations of the redshifts of galaxies from our perspective onto other perspectives or observations we simply get a different answer. Naturally



General comment: it seems that you are unable (or unwilling) to present your ATM ideas in a quantitative form, north. Further, it seems that you use key terms (in the presentation of your idea) that are ambiguous, or have meanings which differ from the standard meanings, as used by astronomers.

I'm unable Nereid to give quantitative form to my ideas. REALLY. if I could trust me I would.


Without the efficiency and clarity of a quantitative approach to clearing up misunderstandings and ambiguities, the only approach I can see, that is fair to your presentations of your ATM idea, north, is a (fairly exhaustive) detailed examination of all the key terms you use, ideally with you providing a considerable amount of detail.

actually I try to make up for my lack of quantitative clearity with the clearity of my physical dynamic clearity.

RussT
2006-Jul-30, 05:10 AM
Thanks Celestial;

I don't think we want the readers thinking that since free electrons 'could' be considered non-baryonic, that they could also be considered a candidate for Dark Matter! Yea, 26% of the universe is made up of free electrons and are the 'extra gravity' that explains the rotation curves of spiral galaxies and cluster dynamics. LOL.

In the 2nd part of the 3 part Elegant Universe (I had not seen the 3 part one)
2 Tuesdays ago, Brian Greene 'hammered home' that of the 4 forces, Strong, Weak, EM, and gravity, gravity and therfore Cold Dark Matter seemed totally seperated from the other three.

So, Since the Strong, Weak, and EM forces are all concerned with baryonic matter, and gravity and Dark Matter are sooo different, it seems to me that there is probably a Different way that they get here VS the baryonic matter.

Celestial Mechanic, just wondering if you had any thoughts or ideas on this. thought you may have missed it with all the long posts below it.

Nereid
2006-Jul-31, 01:08 PM
"physical dynamics" to me is precisely that. but I imagine the physical dynamics. whereas you and others need to "see physical dynamics in terms of numbers".

that is why I think we have a communication problem.Indeed.

What, in the north ATM idea, is "physical dynamics"?

What, in the north ATM idea, is "Cosmic Plasma"?

Nereid
2006-Jul-31, 01:18 PM
As it seems that your use of terms can cause misunderstanding (if only for me), would you please define the term "galactic redshifts", in as precise a way as possible, as you intend it to mean?as in the redshift between the proceeding disc of a galaxy(right side of the galatic disc) and the receding( left hand side of the galatic disc) both relative to our observation perspective. and the stars nearest to center of the galatic core redshift. then an average is taken.

the center galatic core redshift equals the average of both the left and right side redshifts of the galatic disc.Thanks.

What relationship, if any, is there between the redshift of "the galactic core" (i.e. excluding that from "the proceeding disc of a galaxy" and "the receding") and "the center galatic core redshift"?

Given your definition of "galactic redshifts" depends on a "proceeding disc" and a "receding" disc, does this mean that galaxies with no discs cannot have a "galactic redshift"?

It's not clear from your definition if there is but one observation of a "galactic redshift" (per galaxy) or whether the "galactic redshift" of a galaxy is a computed result, from many (up to thousands?) of (separate) individual observations (some of the redshift of the "proceeding disc", some of the redshift of the "receding" disc, some of the "the center galatic core". Could you clarify please?

Nereid
2006-Jul-31, 01:26 PM
(third of three). Please clarify.

Specifically, please describe how these "observers at different positions around the circumference of the galaxy" calculate "redshifts" "in photos". If you do not intend "observations" to mean "in photos", then please describe, in some detail, what you do mean by "observations".inotherwords Nereid if we use the same method for calculations of the redshifts of galaxies from our perspective onto other perspectives or observations we simply get a different answer. Naturally

[snip]I think we're getting closer to the heart of the north ATM idea.

Back in post #203 (http://www.bautforum.com/showpost.php?p=792421&postcount=203), I responded to your question, in post #199.

I think my post may be a good basis for clarifying this north ATM idea. Would you please comment on it?

north
2006-Aug-01, 10:29 PM
Originally Posted by north
"physical dynamics" to me is precisely that. but I imagine the physical dynamics. whereas you and others need to "see physical dynamics in terms of numbers".

that is why I think we have a communication problem.





Indeed.

What, in the north ATM idea, is "physical dynamics"?


rotation,electromagnetics,magnetic fields, particle physics and there interactions and light.


What, in the north ATM idea, is "Cosmic Plasma"?

high energy protons and electrons.

north
2006-Aug-01, 10:34 PM
Originally Posted by north
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nereid
As it seems that your use of terms can cause misunderstanding (if only for me), would you please define the term "galactic redshifts", in as precise a way as possible, as you intend it to mean?

as in the redshift between the proceeding disc of a galaxy(right side of the galatic disc) and the receding( left hand side of the galatic disc) both relative to our observation perspective. and the stars nearest to center of the galatic core redshift. then an average is taken.

the center galatic core redshift equals the average of both the left and right side redshifts of the galatic disc.


Thanks.

What relationship, if any, is there between the redshift of "the galactic core" (i.e. excluding that from "the proceeding disc of a galaxy" and "the receding") and "the center galatic core redshift"?

Given your definition of "galactic redshifts" depends on a "proceeding disc" and a "receding" disc, does this mean that galaxies with no discs cannot have a "galactic redshift"?

It's not clear from your definition if there is but one observation of a "galactic redshift" (per galaxy) or whether the "galactic redshift" of a galaxy is a computed result, from many (up to thousands?) of (separate) individual observations (some of the redshift of the "proceeding disc", some of the redshift of the "receding" disc, some of the "the center galatic core". Could you clarify please?


before I go on further, do you agree or disagree of my mainstream calculation of "redshift"?

a simple yes or no will suffice.

Nereid
2006-Aug-01, 11:09 PM
before I go on further, do you agree or disagree of my mainstream calculation of "redshift"?

a simple yes or no will suffice.I cannot answer; I do not understand what you wrote (so I have no basis for evaluating the extent to which it is, or is not, an accurate summary of the "mainstream calculation of "redshift""). :naughty:

For example, when you read papers reporting the "rotation curves" of (selected, spiral) galaxies, the data presented comes from many (hundreds, if not thousands) of individual pixels (which represent unique positions in wavelength-sky location space), and may have been taken in many (up to dozens?) of separate observing runs.

In other papers, the quoted redshift comes from a 1D analysis of a single spectrum.

And lots in between.

Your summary - to the extent that I understand it at all - seems to conflate this wide range into a qualitative mush.

Now, please answer my questions.

north
2006-Aug-01, 11:23 PM
I cannot answer; I do not understand what you wrote (so I have no basis for evaluating the extent to which it is, or is not, an accurate summary of the "mainstream calculation of "redshift""). :naughty:

For example, when you read papers reporting the "rotation curves" of (selected, spiral) galaxies, the data presented comes from many (hundreds, if not thousands) of individual pixels (which represent unique positions in wavelength-sky location space), and may have been taken in many (up to dozens?) of separate observing runs.

In other papers, the quoted redshift comes from a 1D analysis of a single spectrum.

And lots in between.

Your summary - to the extent that I understand it at all - seems to conflate this wide range into a qualitative mush.

Now, please answer my questions.


I'll answer your questions in due time ( especially response #203 which I was not aware of. if I was I can assure you I would have responed). once we have settled the redshift calculation situation.

I was in Toronto recently and I picked out an astronomy " Academic Outline"

and redshift of galaxies is discribed as a "mean"( average).

so do you agree or disagree.

Nereid
2006-Aug-02, 12:21 AM
I'll answer your questions in due time ( especially response #203 which I was not aware of. if I was I can assure you I would have responed). once we have settled the redshift calculation situation.

I was in Toronto recently and I picked out an astronomy " Academic Outline"

and redshift of galaxies is discribed as a "mean"( average).

so do you agree or disagree.May we - BAUT readers - have the chance to read about "redshift of galaxies is discribed as a "mean"( average)" in this "astronomy " Academic Outline""?

Or, perhaps, there is another source you could cite (that BAUT readers could check for themselves)?

north
2006-Aug-02, 12:49 AM
Originally Posted by north
I'll answer your questions in due time ( especially response #203 which I was not aware of. if I was I can assure you I would have responed). once we have settled the redshift calculation situation.

I was in Toronto recently and I picked out an astronomy " Academic Outline"

and redshift of galaxies is discribed as a "mean"( average).

so do you agree or disagree?


May we - BAUT readers - have the chance to read about "redshift of galaxies is discribed as a "mean"( average)" in this "astronomy " Academic Outline""?

Or, perhaps, there is another source you could cite (that BAUT readers could check for themselves)?



this not about BAUT readers at this point this is about "you" telling me that I'm wrong apparently for saying and I'll repeat how mainstream calculates the redshift of a galaxy;

redshifts are based on the average of the proceding and receding circumference disc of a galaxy when combined, and when compared to the redshift of the stars closest to the galatic core center, along the same plane as the disc, are equal.

is this right or not Nereid?

( I wish I had bought this "Academic Outline" but I did not, next time I will) their website is quickstudy.com

Nereid
2006-Aug-04, 09:53 PM
this not about BAUT readers at this point this is about "you" telling me that I'm wrong apparently for saying and I'll repeat how mainstream calculates the redshift of a galaxy;

redshifts are based on the average of the proceding and receding circumference disc of a galaxy when combined, and when compared to the redshift of the stars closest to the galatic core center, along the same plane as the disc, are equal.

is this right or not Nereid?

( I wish I had bought this "Academic Outline" but I did not, next time I will) their website is quickstudy.comActually, this ATM section of BAUT is for any BAUT member, who chooses to do so, to present their ATM ideas, and for any other BAUT member to question and challenge that presentation.

This is clearly stated in the Rules For Posting To This Forum (http://www.bautforum.com/showthread.php?t=32864).

I will provide you with links to material on how the redshifts of two very large, recent surveys of galaxies were obtained, from the observed spectra - SDSS (http://www.sdss.org/dr5/instruments/technicalPaper/index.html) (674,749 Galaxies (http://www.sdss.org/dr5/index.html)) and 2dF (http://lanl.arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0106498) (221,414 galaxies (http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0306581)).

And I will ask you to substantiate your statement ("redshifts are based on the average of the proceding and receding circumference disc of a galaxy when combined, and when compared to the redshift of the stars closest to the galatic core center, along the same plane as the disc, are equal"), for these two surveys.

[Edit to add: if you would like to understand better how the redshift of galaxies is determined, by astronomers, please start a thread in BAUT's Q&A or Astronomy section. Such questions are not appropriate here in the ATM section.]

north
2006-Aug-05, 12:48 AM
Actually, this ATM section of BAUT is for any BAUT member, who chooses to do so, to present their ATM ideas, and for any other BAUT member to question and challenge that presentation.

This is clearly stated in the Rules For Posting To This Forum (http://www.bautforum.com/showthread.php?t=32864).

I will provide you with links to material on how the redshifts of two very large, recent surveys of galaxies were obtained, from the observed spectra - SDSS (http://www.sdss.org/dr5/instruments/technicalPaper/index.html) (674,749 Galaxies (http://www.sdss.org/dr5/index.html)) and 2dF (http://lanl.arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0106498) (221,414 galaxies (http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0306581)).

And I will ask you to substantiate your statement ("redshifts are based on the average of the proceding and receding circumference disc of a galaxy when combined, and when compared to the redshift of the stars closest to the galatic core center, along the same plane as the disc, are equal"), for these two surveys.

the average is not applicable here as far as I can see.


[Edit to add: if you would like to understand better how the redshift of galaxies is determined, by astronomers, please start a thread in BAUT's Q&A or Astronomy section. Such questions are not appropriate here in the ATM section.]

done

Pobtin
2006-Aug-07, 05:42 PM
Where you get it???

north
2006-Aug-07, 08:29 PM
Where you get it???

explain.

north
2006-Aug-07, 11:09 PM
Here is #169 in this thread, in its entirety:I guess this is difficult to explain further (beyond what Grey wrote), without some diagram or three, but let me try.

[quote=Nereid]Let's imagine we have a nucleus, surrounded by two rings of 360 points (we'll call them 'stars'). The stars in each ring are the same distance from the nucleus; the stars in the second ring are further away from the nucleus than those in the first ring. As seen from the nucleus, the stars in each ring are 1o apart.

problem. how can both rings be the same distance from the nucleous? and then the second ring is is further away from the nucleous?

confusing.


Let us imagine that the stars are in circular motion around the nucleus, with those in the second ring taking 2.5 times as long to go round the nucleus as those in the first ring; the direction of motion is the same (i.e. either stars in both rings move clockwise, or in both move counter-clockwise) . (We are not concerned, for now, just how the stars maintain their orbits, nor what their masses are, or anything else; we are focussed on the motion, and how that motion is perceived by distant observers).

okay


Now, we position lots and lots of observers, a long way away from this 'galaxy' (say, 1,000 times as far away as the distance of the stars in the second ring from the nucleus). We will start with the nucleus motionless with respect to (wrt) all observers.

okay, (but I do not agree that the nucleous is motionless) but I get what your saying.


For observers who are along the 'rotation axis' of the galaxy (i.e. the distance from an observer to all stars in the first ring is exactly the same; the distance to all stars in the second ring is exactly the same,

okay. but there is a difference of distance between the first ring and second ring, obviously.




but different), there is no redshift or blueshift: none of the 720 stars shows any red- or blueshift.

you mean relative to the nucleous I persume? not to the galatic disc.




For an observer in the plane of the galaxy, the nucleus will have no redshift or blueshift; and if there is a star along the line from the observer to the nucleus, then that star will also have no redshift of blueshift.

why?



All the other stars will have either a redshift or a blueshift, with the maximum red/blueshift, in each ring, being for stars that are furthest from the nucleus, as seen by this observer. Further, all stars on one 'side' of the nucleus will be redshifted; all stars on the other side will be blueshifted. Whether the maximum redshift for stars in the first ring is greater than the maximum redshift for stars in the second ring depends upon the distance between the rings (more later).

Now here's the piece that I feel you may be tripping over: every observer in the plane of the galaxy sees the same pattern of redshifts and blueshifts! Further, if each of these observers is spaced exactly 1o apart (as seen from the nucleus), they will see exactly the same redshifts and blueshifts.

sure, if the rings you speak of are equal around the whole body of the nucleous. but this is not the case in reality. you have spiral galatic arms, which means that the stars in any position within the arm, with your 1 degree example will have a different shift of light.


OTOH, you may be tripping over what observers in a plane perpendicular to the plane of the galaxy would see? The details of the red- and blueshift patterns are a little more complicated, but the summary is the same: all observers with the same geometric perspective* will see the same pattern of red and blueshifts; the range of observed red/blueshifts decreases from a maximum for observers in the plane of the galaxy to zero, for observers on the axis of rotation.

exactly. so blue/redshifts are based on the discs physical motion NOT the galatic nucleous relative motion to another galatic nucleous motion.

north
2006-Aug-08, 12:17 AM
and just to clear when I say "galatic nucleous" I mean the galatic "globular" nucleous.

Tobin Dax
2006-Aug-08, 02:00 AM
and just to clear when I say "galatic nucleous" I mean the galatic "globular" nucleous.

north, "globular nucleus" is not a standard term in astronomy. What do you mean by that?

Nereid
2006-Aug-09, 01:45 AM
[QUOTE=Nereid]Here is #169 in this thread, in its entirety:I guess this is difficult to explain further (beyond what Grey wrote), without some diagram or three, but let me try.



problem. how can both rings be the same distance from the nucleous? and then the second ring is is further away from the nucleous?

confusing.



okay



okay, (but I do not agree that the nucleous is motionless) but I get what your saying.



okay. but there is a difference of distance between the first ring and second ring, obviously.





you mean relative to the nucleous I persume? not to the galatic disc.





why?




sure, if the rings you speak of are equal around the whole body of the nucleous. but this is not the case in reality. you have spiral galatic arms, which means that the stars in any position within the arm, with your 1 degree example will have a different shift of light.



exactly. so blue/redshifts are based on the discs physical motion NOT the galatic nucleous relative motion to another galatic nucleous motion.Would you like me to move the relevant posts, concerning the red- and blue-shifts expected, when one observes, from afar, a system like a galaxy, into a new thread in the Q&A section?

It seems to me that they are misplaced here in the ATM section.

north
2006-Aug-11, 01:22 AM
Originally Posted by north
and just to clear when I say "galatic nucleous" I mean the galatic "globular" nucleous.


north, "globular nucleus" is not a standard term in astronomy. What do you mean by that?


what I mean is the full three dimensional aspect of the galatic center.

above and below the plane of the disc. the sphere of energy and matter at the center of the galaxy.

north
2006-Aug-11, 01:27 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nereid
Here is #169 in this thread, in its entirety:I guess this is difficult to explain further (beyond what Grey wrote), without some diagram or three, but let me try.



problem. how can both rings be the same distance from the nucleous? and then the second ring is is further away from the nucleous?

confusing.



okay



okay, (but I do not agree that the nucleous is motionless) but I get what your saying.



okay. but there is a difference of distance between the first ring and second ring, obviously.





you mean relative to the nucleous I persume? not to the galatic disc.





why?




sure, if the rings you speak of are equal around the whole body of the nucleous. but this is not the case in reality. you have spiral galatic arms, which means that the stars in any position within the arm, with your 1 degree example will have a different shift of light.



exactly. so blue/redshifts are based on the discs physical motion NOT the galatic nucleous relative motion to another galatic nucleous motion.


[QUOTE=Nereid;801193][QUOTE=north]Would you like me to move the relevant posts, concerning the red- and blue-shifts expected, when one observes, from afar, a system like a galaxy, into a new thread in the Q&A section?

It seems to me that they are misplaced here in the ATM section.


you could if you would like.

but I myself have no problem with leaving the explaination of redshifts and blueshifts here. it is relevent and important to this thread.

north
2006-Aug-14, 12:28 AM
Originally Posted by north
but the thing is Russ, the stars, strickly speaking are not "falling into a well" so to speak are they. for this to happen it would mean that the stars are falling towards the south pole of the galaxy( rubber sheet with a ball put in the center which warps th rubber sheet), they are not. what the stars ARE doing is moving along the equatorial plane of the galatic disc. the center of the galaxy its self.


north, this was a way to show that space is not a vacuum. To warp or curve it must be made of something, it has a 'fabric'.

I disagree.

it is NOT space you are warping or curving it is still the MATTER IN SPACE THAT IS BEING DISTORTED. by the actions of galatic globular center rotation.




I already explained above how the curvature of the space, a galaxy is in, occurs and why the baryonic matter must follow that curvature.

above

north
2006-Aug-14, 12:50 AM
Originally Posted by north
can they or have they thought of looking at this DE/DM from a Cosmic Plasma point of view.


Plasma is baryonic matter only and has nothing to do with DE/Cold Non-Baryonic Dark Matter!!!


Just my two cents worth north, but awhile back you said that a few years ago you were considering a friction scenario (it is NOT ZPE) causing galaxies to form in the darkness of space, and this is much closer to what is happening,

why do you think that "a friction scenario" is much closer to what is happening?



so you might want to consider going back to that in your thinking, read up on DM/DE and think more on the gravity/GR line.

why? what is the relation, in your view, between "friction" and DM/DE and gravity/GR line?




Let the Plasma stuff go, it does have some validity in some galactic processes, but it does not work for the universe as a whole, IMHO.

as I see it though, "friction" is what gives , from a brane point of view , the essence of galaxies and the resulting consequence IS COSMIC PLASMAS.

inotherwords Cosmic Plasmas are the fundamental physical dynamics OF galaxies. deep inside the globular center of the galaxy itself.

north
2006-Aug-20, 02:40 AM
so the question remains

since redshifts and therefore expansion of the Universe are based on the behavior of the galatic discs. and since the discs behavior would imply that the galatic discs "carry" the globular nucleous with it. it then it follows that there should be a redshift between all galatic globular nuclear centers themselves.

so is there?