View Full Version : Mistakes in Astronomy

snowflakeuniverse

2003-Sep-12, 04:12 AM

Mistakes in Astronomy

www.uniformexpansion.com (Link added a couple of months after first posting, nothing else changed. )

Mistake #1.

Supposedly the expansion of space is slowed by the effect of gravity. Einstein thought so, so it must be true. Or is it?

Given that the distribution of galaxies are more or less uniformly distributed means that any specific galaxy will generally have an even distribution of galaxies all around them. This means that there will be an equal pull due to gravitational effects in every direction on the observed galaxy. This galaxy will not be pulled up, down left right or up or down since the gravitational pull is even all the way around.

Since any and every galaxy can be selected as the central galaxy that experiences an equal pull up, down left right and up and down, the resulting conclusion is that there will be no change in relative position between the surrounding galaxies.

In order for General Relativity to work, space has to be expanding and gravity has to slow down the expansion. But is general relativity, which is dependant on gravitational relationships, the proper model to describe the expansion of space and the effect of gravity?

No.

Snowflake

freddo

2003-Sep-12, 04:16 AM

Since any and every galaxy can be selected as the central galaxy that experiences an equal pull up, down left right and up and down, the resulting conclusion is that there will be no change in relative position between the surrounding galaxies.

This conclusion does not fit observations though.

We have evidence that suggests our universe is accelerating in its expansion. Enter dark matter and all that stuff I don't understand. Galaxies crash into each other - we are observing this now.

Does this change your opinion on GR? :-k

BTW... Welcome to the Board! =D>

snowflakeuniverse

2003-Sep-12, 04:20 AM

General Relativity does not predict "acceleeration".

Snowflake

snowflakeuniverse

2003-Sep-12, 04:40 AM

Hi Freddo

Thanks for reply and welcome.

I was so eager for a response that I forgot courtesy and even misspelled acceleration. Opps.

But your response leads me to astronomers mistake #2 which is about the "acceleration" of space.

Mistake #2

The expansion of space is accelerating. False

If I walk into a room at 3 miles an hour, and slow to 1 mile an hour I would describe myself as decelerating.

If you observed me walk into the room, you also would describe my motion as decelerating.

Conclusion, An object that moves faster in the past than the present is decelerating.

The further away a galaxy, the faster it is moving away, due to the expansion of space.

The further away the galaxy, the more in the past it is being observed.

A galaxy observed in the past is moving faster than a galaxy observed closer to the present.

An object that is moving faster in the past than the present is decelerating.

Conclusion, The expansion of space is decelerating

Note that distant galaxies observing our galaxies “motion” would also find that we are “moving” faster in the past than the present in that the further away the observer galaxy the “faster” we would appear to be moving. We are decelerating, not accelerating.

snowflake

Pi Man

2003-Sep-12, 04:48 AM

Hello, SnowFlakeUniverse! Welcome to the board! :D

The attraction does exert a force something like tension in the rubber of a balloon.

Think of it this way:

Pretend the universe is one dimensional (a line) and curved into a circle, and that there are galaxies in this one dimensional universe. Each galaxy is trying to shorten the distance between it and the next universe on the circle, and the only way to do that is to make the universe smaller (or, if it is expanding, slow it's expansion), so GR predicts that gravity should be slowing the rate of acceleration, but that's not what we observe. Actual measurements show that the universe's expansion is speeding up. It's actaually accelerating outward. We don't know what is doing that.

snowcelt

2003-Sep-12, 04:49 AM

General Relativity does not predict "acceleeration".

Snowflake

GR says. Anything else is a possibility. Sorry Snowflakeuniverse: any cause and affect demands a chronological template

snowflakeuniverse

2003-Sep-12, 04:52 AM

Mistake # 3

The universe has no center.

This is misleading since every galaxy in the universe perceives itself as the center of an EXPANDING universe.

While it could be argued that a point in every direction is no point at all, the point is for some reason science is so antagonistic against any kind of return to centralization as a fundamental property of the universe that a true description of the universe is being ignored. (The latest teaser adds for the TV show NOVA state that the “universe has no center”. Why not also state that every galaxy in the universe is at the center of an expanding universe?)

snowflake

Pi Man

2003-Sep-12, 04:52 AM

Several things:

First, acceleration in one frame of reference (from one point of view, or state of motion) is deceleration in another.

Second, the universe is accelerating outward. It actually is gaining speed in it's expansion.

http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/astronomy/universe_expansion_020320.html

There is a reference for you.

Pi Man

2003-Sep-12, 04:54 AM

Mistake # 3

The universe has no center.

This is misleading since every galaxy in the universe perceives itself as the center of an EXPANDING universe.

While it could be argued that a point in every direction is no point at all, the point is for some reason science is so antagonistic against any kind of return to centralization as a fundamental property of the universe that a true description of the universe is being ignored. (The latest teaser adds for the TV show NOVA state that the “universe has no center”. Why not also state that every galaxy in the universe is at the center of an expanding universe?)

snowflake

There is a center, it's just that nothing within the universe can get to it. It's as if we are plastered to the outside of a balloon. There is a center (somewhere within the balloon) but we can't get to it because we are on the surface of the balloon. The only difference is that there are more dimensions in the real universe.

snowflakeuniverse

2003-Sep-12, 04:59 AM

Hi Piman

Thanks for the welcome.

Curving a line into a circle would be valid if space on the large scale proved to be actually curved.

Latest observed measures of space indicate that it is flat at least out to the most distant galaxies.

General Relativity curves space which is ok, but theory has to match observation. Each galaxy can curve space but a curve in each direction from every galaxy results in a straight line.

snowflake

Hi Piman

snowflakeuniverse

2003-Sep-12, 05:05 AM

Hi Snowcelt

Wow, thanks for the welcome, I hope I can keep up.

One of the missed opportunities of Einstein was the prediction of the “acceleration” of space. It would have been one of the greatest achievements of his theory. While you are right that General Relativity allows any result simply by adding a “Cosmological Constant” this added complexity did not appeal to Einstein’s sense of order.

snowflake

Pi Man

2003-Sep-12, 05:08 AM

Hi Piman

Thanks for the welcome.

Curving a line into a circle would be valid if space on the large scale proved to be actually curved.

Cite your source. There are many people claiming to have conclusive proof that the universe is shperical (actually hyperspherical) and many others claiming to have conclusive proof that it is flat, and still others that claim to have conclusive proof that it is saddle shaped (negative curvature). The truth is that we have no idea yet.

Latest observed measures of space indicate that it is flat at least out to the most distant galaxies.

General Relativity curves space which is ok, but theory has to match observation. Each galaxy can curve space but a curve in each direction from every galaxy results in a straight line.

That's a different type of curvature (perhapse even into a seperate dimension than the curvature I'm refering to.) Gravitational wells (areas around heavy bodies) cause local curvature, into a cone or something. What I'm refering to is the cumulative effect of all of the gravity in the universe. If it is sufficient to draw the universe back into a big crunch (excluding whatever is making it accelerate now), then the universe is shperical, otherwise it is saddle shaped, ore flat.

Pi Man

2003-Sep-12, 05:09 AM

Hi Snowcelt

Wow, thanks for the welcome, I hope I can keep up.

One of the missed opportunities of Einstein was the prediction of the “acceleration” of space. It would have been one of the greatest achievements of his theory. While you are right that General Relativity allows any result simply by adding a “Cosmological Constant” this added complexity did not appeal to Einstein’s sense of order.

snowflake

Actually, it was Einstein who first proposed the Cosmological Constant. He added it to his theories to make the universe static (unchanging). He only later realized that that wouldn't work, and called it his "greatest blunder."

snowflakeuniverse

2003-Sep-12, 05:19 AM

Hi Pi man

You are right in a way that acceleration is dependant on the frame of reference, my point is that what the astronomers use is misleading and therefore incorrect.

Note that in my example the conclusion about an object moving faster in the past than the present is universal, so in any frame of reference it is valid.

The mistake that is allowed to persist is the frame of reference in relationship to time.

Astronomers use NOW as the point of reference and this is their mistake. Any description of reality must include some kind of temporal measure of WHEN events occur. If one demarcates time by starting the clock at the moment of creation, then there is no confusion or misleading description as to whether or not space is accelerating or decelerating.

This same problem compounds itself about the description of a universe that is accelerating. This discovery is based upon the intensity of Type 1a novas observed at the greatest red shifts. They are dimmer than a straight linear rate of expansion would have predicteded. But the observation of these distant novas are in the distant past. So in the very distant past the rate of expansion was even greater.

An object that is moving faster in the past than the present is decelerating.

snowflake

snowflakeuniverse

2003-Sep-12, 05:24 AM

Pi man

You are right, It was Einstein's desire to keep the universe "static" or perpetual that created the need for the cosmological constant. If he did not "blunder", his theory would have predicted the expansion of space. I was giving Einstein the benefit of recognizing his "blunder".

snowflake

Pi Man

2003-Sep-12, 05:34 AM

Hi Pi man

You are right in a way that acceleration is dependant on the frame of reference, my point is that what the astronomers use is misleading and therefore incorrect.

Note that in my example the conclusion about an object moving faster in the past than the present is universal, so in any frame of reference it is valid.

There is no such thing as "universal" when measuring velocity (and acceleration). If I was accelerating past you at more than the rate at which you were decelerating, you would appear to be accelerating. Also, you say "I would describe myself as decelerating." Actaully, you would describe yourself as at rest. You would see yourself as not accelerating or decelerating.

The mistake that is allowed to persist is the frame of reference in relationship to time.

Astronomers use NOW as the point of reference and this is their mistake. Any description of reality must include some kind of temporal measure of WHEN events occur. If one demarcates time by starting the clock at the moment of creation, then there is no confusion or misleading description as to whether or not space is accelerating or decelerating.

This same problem compounds itself about the description of a universe that is accelerating. This discovery is based upon the intensity of Type 1a novas observed at the greatest red shifts. They are dimmer than a straight linear rate of expansion would have predicteded. But the observation of these distant novas are in the distant past. So in the very distant past the rate of expansion was even greater.

An object that is moving faster in the past than the present is decelerating.

snowflake

Hmmm... I would think that the scientists would be just a little bit too smart to miss that. I really doubt that the whole scientific community would not notice something that big and obvious.

snowflakeuniverse

2003-Sep-12, 05:36 AM

Pi Man

Regarding the curvature of space, you are also right that there are a lot of references going every way, the latest confirmation was from looking at the thermal background radiation. This is a bit fuzzy to recall, think it was in my Science News about 3 months ago that asserted that space is flat. Space is presently flat. But if the expansion is decelerating there is a curvature but since it is uniform, straight lines stay straight. It is only in another dimension (something you alluded to earlier which means we may have a common ground) that this change can be properly described. x,y,z and t are not enough. (I use two dimensions of time.)

snowflake

freddo

2003-Sep-12, 05:41 AM

An object that is moving faster in the past than the present is decelerating.

Ah, but that's the point!!! Our observations suggest that the universe is expanding faster NOW than it did in the past....

Astronomers use NOW as the point of reference and this is their mistake. Any description of reality must include some kind of temporal measure of WHEN events occur. If one demarcates time by starting the clock at the moment of creation, then there is no confusion or misleading description as to whether or not space is accelerating or decelerating.

This is one of the cruxes of GR - it does allow for the funny effects you get with reconciling distance, speed and time. Galaxies are not moving at the speed of light - but the light they emit is... Ergo we can make observations adequate to give us an accurate picture of how it is behaving in the past, and the present. Sure we have to take into account the distance a galaxy is (how far into the past we're looking) and that the act of it moving further away means light takes longer to reach us, but GR gives us the math to do just that.

So in the very distant past the rate of expansion was even greater.

Well no, and I think this is the problem you're having coming to terms. We observe now the observation of these novas in the past. We are looking back in time. The trends we garner from our observation show that if we could see the light from those novae at the same time it was emitted (of course long gone by now but i think my point is clear) - acceleration is apparent.

Good discussion you have generated though - it's got me thinking!

Pi Man

2003-Sep-12, 05:51 AM

Ok, I get it. I read part of the article I posted a link to above and figured it out. They are comparing the brightness of distant (and therefore far in the past) novas (type 1a) to the brightness of closer (and therefore more recent) novas. That's how they got their answer. And they did compensate for the effects like distant galaxies receeding faster than closer ones.

snowflakeuniverse

2003-Sep-12, 05:52 AM

Pi Man

When you say that there is no such thing a universal reference and you cite the apparently relative measures of acceleration and velocity you are partially right.

You are familiar with the twin problem that has one travel at the speed of light and the other stays on earth. If the two twins observed each other as one passed by the other in a space ship, each could describe their motions relative to each other, but it is by knowing the acceleration history which establishes a universal perspective and which would indicate which twin has the slower clock.

Also I guess by your disbelief that astronomers would not make that kind of mistake in perspective, I guess you are indirectly agreeing with me but just can’t believe that some guy on the internet has a better grasp of what is happening than what is published by the experts.

snowflake

freddo

2003-Sep-12, 06:00 AM

Ok, I get it. I read part of the article I posted a link to above and figured it out. They are comparing the brightness of distant (and therefore far in the past) novas (type 1a) to the brightness of closer (and therefore more recent) novas. That's how they got their answer. And they did compensate for the effects like distant galaxies receeding faster than closer ones.

Ooh, that's changed my thinking a bit too... Thanks for pointing that out Pi Man...

Nothing to add, but it kind of means my earlier post misses the mark - the relevant one anyway.

Pi Man

2003-Sep-12, 06:07 AM

Pi Man

When you say that there is no such thing a universal reference and you cite the apparently relative measures of acceleration and velocity you are partially right.

You are familiar with the twin problem that has one travel at the speed of light and the other stays on earth. If the two twins observed each other as one passed by the other in a space ship, each could describe their motions relative to each other, but it is by knowing the acceleration history which establishes a universal perspective and which would indicate which twin has the slower clock.

Actually, no. It's who turns around and comes back to compare clocks. The one who stops and comes back is "admitting" that he is the one that's moving, and therefore is always the one with the slower clock when the two are compared.

Also I guess by your disbelief that astronomers would not make that kind of mistake in perspective, I guess you are indirectly agreeing with me but just can’t believe that some guy on the internet has a better grasp of what is happening than what is published by the experts.

Ok... I'll play along. Why are you the only one who really has a grasp on it?

However, you're wrong. You are assuming that they are not compensating for distance-acceleration.

snowflakeuniverse

2003-Sep-12, 06:12 AM

Freddo

If you look at plots of the Hubbell Constant you will notice that the rate of expansion of the local galaxies represents a basically flat line, which is a constant rate. It is only at the extreme red shifts, which is in the distant past that any departure from the linear nature is indicated.

If all we do is accept what other say with out questioning it, nothing will ever change. It is very tempting to just accept what “professionals” state. But remember, professionals once believed that offsets and epicycles were what was necessary to describe the motion of the planets in the universe (Copernicus even used them, in fact the Ptolemaic system used 40 circles and offsets while Copernicus used 41). I am certain that eventually you will decide for yourself that the universe is decelerating. You will simply look at the observations and make the most logical conclusion.

snowflake

Pi Man

2003-Sep-12, 06:25 AM

The most logical conclusion is not that several million scientists forgot to factor in something that obvious...

snowflakeuniverse

2003-Sep-12, 06:26 AM

Pi Man

Stopping is decelerating so this establishes a form of universal reference in that a comparative historical record has to be made to determine what is happening. Also rather than stopping, the same result would be found if the accelerating twin simply flew around and around the Earth.

Regarding you question as to why I have a handle and the professionals do not is because I figured out a very important relationship that describes the expansion of space.

snowflake

snowflakeuniverse

2003-Sep-12, 06:34 AM

Pi man

"The most logical conclusion is not that several million scientists forgot to factor in something that obvious..."

Go ahead ask a professonal, give them the "an object that moves faster in the past than the present is decellerating" problem. See if they convince you.

Don't listen to me, don't listen to "professionals", think for your self.

snowflake

freddo

2003-Sep-12, 06:35 AM

If all we do is accept what other say with out questioning it, nothing will ever change.

Correct. That's why we question you now.

You seem to have come to the conclusion that the findings confirming an expanding universe do not take into account the expansion of space and time dilation when reconciling the results.

By comparing the structure in the universe now, some 15 billion years after the Big Bang, with structure observed in the cosmic microwave background radiation, which preserved information about what the universe was like when it was only 300,000 years old

This implies that they did consider the implications and adjusted accordingly - the result does stand.

freddo

2003-Sep-12, 06:37 AM

"an object that moves faster in the past than the present is decellerating"

Perhaps it might be better if you could point us in the direction of some data that shows this is true for our expanding universe.

snowcelt

2003-Sep-12, 06:38 AM

Great. I had. Many points were I could. Is there a point?

freddo

2003-Sep-12, 06:44 AM

Great. I had. Many points were I could. Is there a point?

Geez you really are gettin obscure aren't ya! I'm gonna start calling you HUb' if you're not careful :wink:

I'm drawing towards seeing no point as well though - running out of substance for sure.

snowflakeuniverse

2003-Sep-12, 06:49 AM

If you want to look at the data yourself, use any search engine and Type in Dr. Adam Riess and High-z Supernova Search. You will see the curves yourself. The only thing is that you are going to have to transpose the coordinate system to reflect normal expressions of acceleration. Their Hubbell plot has distance as the y axis and velocity as the x axis. Most people are used to velocity (z red shift indicates recessional or cosmological velocity) being the y axis. To see it properly, tip you head to the side and you will discover that the slope is negative which means deceleration.

snowflake

snowflakeuniverse

2003-Sep-12, 06:58 AM

Freddo

Freddo you said that "You seem to have come to the conclusion that the findings confirming an expanding universe do not take into account the expansion of space and time dilation when reconciling the results. "

There are relativistic compensations as well as "dust" compensations that have to be made, which are ok. For example the length of time that the novas burn must be adjusted for relativistic effects. This is accounted for in the previously referred plots.

snowflake.

Freddo

snowflakeuniverse

2003-Sep-12, 07:08 AM

From the www.space link the article ends with

"An explanation of the dark energy may involve String Theory, extra dimensions or even what happened before the Big Bang. At present nobody knows. The ball is now firmly in the theorists court."

Here I am.

The “dark energy” they keep looking for is extracted from our own universe. As space expands it extracts energy from everything. Since balloons seem to be popular, a small tight skinned balloon has more energy than a balloon that has been stretched out.

snowflake

snowflakeuniverse

2003-Sep-12, 07:17 AM

Thanks guys

I will post more mistakes soon.

snowflake

Grey

2003-Sep-12, 09:26 AM

In order for General Relativity to work, space has to be expanding and gravity has to slow down the expansion. But is general relativity, which is dependant on gravitational relationships, the proper model to describe the expansion of space and the effect of gravity?

Yes. :D It's true that the results of general relativity are sometimes counterintuitive and the mathematics are difficult to understand. However, it's also true that it does an excellent job of explaining the things we see.

The further away a galaxy, the faster it is moving away, due to the expansion of space.

The further away the galaxy, the more in the past it is being observed.

A galaxy observed in the past is moving faster than a galaxy observed closer to the present.

An object that is moving faster in the past than the present is decelerating.

Conclusion, The expansion of space is decelerating

Unfortunately here, you're making the mistake of comparing the velocities of two different objects (a nearby object and a far away object), and then trying to make a claim about the acceleration of the objects. It should be clear that you cannot determine anything about the acceleration of an object by looking at how its velocity differs from that of an entirely different object. Instead, what you'd need to do is look at a galaxy, and measure it's recession speed. Now wait a few billion years and look at that galaxy again. It will be receding faster, hence, it's accelerating. Now, we can of course use data from the recession of more than one galaxy to determine that this will be the case without having to actually wait the few billion years.

You also seem to be confusing the difference between the recession velocity and the rate of expansion. If the universe is expanding at a constant rate, galaxies will still recede faster as they get further away, proportional to the distance. However, the whole point of the discovery of the universal expansion is that the rate of recession actually increases faster than proportional to the distance.

The universe has no center.

This is misleading since every galaxy in the universe perceives itself as the center of an EXPANDING universe.

You aren't stating anything new here. Most descriptions of the Big Bang discuss the fact that since it's space itself that's expanding, any point in the universe will seem to see everything receding directly away from it. Whether you consider this to mean that there's no center to the expansion, or that the center is wherever you happen to be is purely semantics, and astronomers will commonly use both phrases.

robin

2003-Sep-12, 10:39 AM

Their Hubbell plot has distance as the y axis and velocity as the x axis. Most people are used to velocity (z red shift indicates recessional or cosmological velocity) being the y axis. To see it properly, tip you head to the side and you will discover that the slope is negative which means deceleration.

To swap the x- and y-axes on a graph, you don't rotate it; you reflect it in the line y=x. Positive gradients remain positive and negative gradients remain negative.

frenat

2003-Sep-12, 12:37 PM

The further away a galaxy, the faster it is moving away, due to the expansion of space.

The further away the galaxy, the more in the past it is being observed.

A galaxy observed in the past is moving faster than a galaxy observed closer to the present.

An object that is moving faster in the past than the present is decelerating.

Conclusion, The expansion of space is decelerating

Unfortunately here, you're making the mistake of comparing the velocities of two different objects (a nearby object and a far away object), and then trying to make a claim about the acceleration of the objects. It should be clear that you cannot determine anything about the acceleration of an object by looking at how its velocity differs from that of an entirely different object. Instead, what you'd need to do is look at a galaxy, and measure it's recession speed. Now wait a few billion years and look at that galaxy again. It will be receding faster, hence, it's accelerating. Now, we can of course use data from the recession of more than one galaxy to determine that this will be the case without having to actually wait the few billion years.

This is exactly what I was going to say, I just didn't get here fast enough. You can't make any determination about the acceleration of an object based on the observation of another object. Closer objects may not be moving as fast but that doesn't say anything about the farther objects that are.

snowflakeuniverse

2003-Sep-12, 12:38 PM

Hi Gray

“ Unfortunately here, you're making the mistake of comparing the velocities of two different objects (a nearby object and a far away object), and then trying to make a claim about the acceleration of the objects.”

I am not making a mistake. The velocity of a near by object is observed near the present. A far away object is observed in the past. The fact that I generalize that relationship is just describing the nature of the “expansion” . Don’t for get that a distant galaxy observing our galaxy would say our galaxy is “moving” (receding) faster than a near by galaxy. By knowing how others perceived us (one object) we can say we (one object, the Milky Way Galaxy) is moving faster in the past than the present. This conclusion would be reached by every sentient being in every galaxy. The expansion of the universe is slowing down.

snowflake

snowflakeuniverse

2003-Sep-12, 12:51 PM

Hi Robin

If one sticks with the following convention, the graph of Hubbell’s “constant” will prove to describe deceleration.

If time is the x axis and “0” represents the beginning of time and is located at the origin, later dates are positive or moving to the right.

If velocity (z or recessional “speed”) is the y axis with 0 at the origin and increasing values move up,

Then the slope will be negative, indicating deceleration!

Again the reason for the “mistake” astronomers make is that they do not properly use time. They make measures of time assuming that “now” is at the origin.

snowflake

snowflakeuniverse

2003-Sep-12, 01:10 PM

Hi Grey

you said

“Yes. It's true that the results of general relativity are sometimes counterintuitive and the mathematics are difficult to understand. However, it's also true that it does an excellent job of explaining the things we see.”

General Relativity is a consistent description of reality but I am not so convinced it does an excellent job of explaining the things we see. A tremendous number of extremely smart people have tried to unify General Relativity with the other fundamental forces or description of nature, including Einstein himself. No one has been able to establish a viable relationship that unites Quantum Physics with General Relativity. The two theories have clashing descriptions of what happens at a singularity.

Also regarding the application of general relativity to describe the expansion of space I have an issue with. It is assumed that to determine what is happening, a sphere of spacetime is wrapped around “us” and with in that sphere the matter interacting with all the surrounding matter creates the curvature of space. Matter curves space and the curvature of space tells matter how to move. The thing is, once one establishes curvature around us, move over a few million light years over and establish another description of space. There is also a curvature but it is telling our galaxy to move towards it. Repeat the same process for the galaxy with a galaxy on the other side equally far away. The curvature of space is telling our galaxy to move towards it, The net effect is to cancel each other out.

If general relativity is correct, (which I believe) it is incomplete. And even Einstein believed that.

snowflake

snowflakeuniverse

2003-Sep-12, 01:36 PM

Pi man

"The most logical conclusion is not that several million scientists forgot to factor in something that obvious..."

It is not several million scientists, in reality it is only a handful, it is just that many just repeat each other. When it was discovered that type 1a galaxies with high red shifts were even further away than thought, it just looks like the universe is “accelerating” away. If we describe the past as a positive value then this perspective results. This then means that the future becomes negative and we are moving in a negative direction. This is an unconventional sign convention.

Also, there are a lot of others that describe the expansion of space as decelerating. They are just tolerant of the inconsistent description of space. If you want, check out NASA ADS search site by typing in declaration of space. I have included one of the “hits” below.

An introduction to mathematical cosmology

Authors: Islam, Jamal Nazrul

Journal: An introduction to mathematical cosmology. 2nd ed. / J. N. Islam, Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. ISBN 0-521-49973-9, 2002, XII + 248 p.

Publication Date: 00/2002

Origin: ARI

Keywords: COSMOLOGICAL MODELS, FRIEDMANN UNIVERSE, ROBERTSON-WALKER METRIC

Abstract Copyright: Cambridge University Press

Bibliographic Code: 2002aitm.book.....I

Abstract

This book provides a concise introduction to the mathematical aspects of the origin, structure and evolution of the universe. The book begins with a brief overview of observational and theoretical cosmology, along with a short introduction to general relativity. It then goes on to discuss Friedmann models, the Hubble constant and deceleration parameter, singularities, the early universe, inflation, quantum cosmology and the distant future of the universe. This new edition contains a rigorous derivation of the Robertson-Walker metric. It also discusses the limits to the parameter space through various theoretical and observational constraints, and presents a new inflationary solution for a sixth degree potential. This book is suitable as a textbook for advanced undergraduates and beginning graduate students. It will also be of interest to cosmologists, astrophysicists, applied mathematicians and mathematical physicists.

There are others that use deceleration to describe the expansion of space since they use a more standard sign convention.

snowflake

cyrek1

2003-Sep-12, 01:56 PM

cyreks comment:

About the expansion of space:

This idea is based on the 'casimir experiment'.

Two plates in close proximity being pushed together in a vacuum.

Thus, they attributed this to the space outside the plates which was greater than the very close space between the plates.

This can be explained in another way.

There is no such thing as a perfect vacuum in these experiments.

There is always some molecules left in these vacuums.

Therefore, the outer space having much more molecules and greater leeway for movement than the space between the plates will be colliding on the outside of these plates with their momentum to cause them to move towartd each other.

Therefore, the space is not the cause of this pressure but instead, it is molecular collisions and their pressure that is the cause.

Grey

2003-Sep-12, 08:22 PM

I am not making a mistake. The velocity of a near by object is observed near the present. A far away object is observed in the past. The fact that I generalize that relationship is just describing the nature of the “expansion” . Don’t for get that a distant galaxy observing our galaxy would say our galaxy is “moving” (receding) faster than a near by galaxy. By knowing how others perceived us (one object) we can say we (one object, the Milky Way Galaxy) is moving faster in the past than the present.

I'm afraid that you are. You simply can't judge the acceleration of an object by comparing the speeds of two different objects. In the second case, you're making a related, but slightly different mistake. In this case you're measuring the speed of the same object (the Milky Way), but you're doing it in two different reference frames, which are in motion relative to each other. Again, nothing can be said about the acceleration of an object under such circumstances; I could pick arbitrary reference frames and come up with any value for the acceleration I wanted using this method. The velocity and acceleration of an object are only meaningful if I'm being consistent about which object I'm referring to and which reference frame I'm measuring it from.

Perhaps a concrete example would help. Say we're running a race between a Porsche and a Yugo. We'll be using sonar to keep track of the positions and velocities of each vehicle as the race progresses (we're using sonar rather than radar so that we're sure to have a noticable propagation delay). The gun goes off, and both drivers push the accelerator to the floor. Unfortunately for the Yugo driver, the Porsche accelerates about twice as fast, and quickly leaves the Yugo behind. A short time into the race you check your sonar readings, and see that the Porsche is moving at 150 km/hr and the Yugo is moving at 75 km/hr. But wait, you reason, the Porsche is farther away, so there was actually a four second delay in receiving that reading and only a two second delay for the Yugo. So the speed was 150 km/hr four seconds ago and only 75 km/hr two seconds ago. Therefore, you surmise, the vehicles must actually be decelerating.

This conclusion would be reached by every sentient being in every galaxy. The expansion of the universe is slowing down.

Now, now, let's keep this polite. Suggesting that anyone who points out a flaw in your reasoning or who disagrees with you must not be sentient is, I would suggest, not proper etiquette for a discussion.

General Relativity is a consistent description of reality but I am not so convinced it does an excellent job of explaining the things we see.

This, I disagree with. Except in cases where quantum effects need to be taken into account, general relativity has passed all the tests thrown at it.

A tremendous number of extremely smart people have tried to unify General Relativity with the other fundamental forces or description of nature, including Einstein himself. No one has been able to establish a viable relationship that unites Quantum Physics with General Relativity.

This I agree with. However, even though we don't have a complete quantum theory of gravity, we do have some useful insight into some of the features such a theory would have to have.

Matter curves space and the curvature of space tells matter how to move. The thing is, once one establishes curvature around us, move over a few million light years over and establish another description of space. There is also a curvature but it is telling our galaxy to move towards it. Repeat the same process for the galaxy with a galaxy on the other side equally far away. The curvature of space is telling our galaxy to move towards it, The net effect is to cancel each other out.

This isn't quite accurate. Under general relativity, the individual effects of matter can be seen as local curvature, which we perceive as gravitational attraction. However, the overall structure of matter in the unvierse also contributes to a global curvature. If the net density is high enough, general relativity predicts that the expansion would slow down and eventually reverse, while if it's not above that critical density, it will slow down but not stop. Of course, the presence of a nonzero cosmological constant plays havoc with that, but the overall result is still the same.

To be precise, that result is that the rate of expansion may be affected by the matter in the universe. While your visualization seems to contradict this, remember that it's not your conception of a theory that determines what that theory would predict, it's the mathematics that does that, and the mathematics of general relativity clearly indicate that the rate of expansion can change based on gravitational attraction. Of course, as you say, relativity may be wrong, but remember that it is well tested.

If general relativity is correct, (which I believe) it is incomplete. And even Einstein believed that.

I'll agree with this, too. There's no question that we still have work to do to understand the universe!

robin

2003-Sep-12, 08:27 PM

Hi Robin

Hi, and welcome to the board.

While you could, of course, be right that there is a mistake in the High-z Supernova group's work that no-one has noticed yet - after all, no-one is infallible - I'm sure it's not as simple as that they drew the graph with time running downwards, then forgot that meant positive gradients indicate deceleration.

The expansion of the universe is not measured as a speed - that is, it is not measured in metres per second. It is measured by the Hubble constant, which has the SI unit s^-1, although it is usually expressed in km/(s Mpsc) (kilometres per second per megaparsec). Currently, the Hubble constant is held to be about 71 km/(s Mpsc). This means an object 1 Mpsc away is moving away from our galaxy at 71 km/s, an object 2 Mpsc away is moving at 142 km/s, and so on. Note that, even with a constant rate of expansion - constant Hubble constant - distant objects have a greater speed than near ones.

What Dr. Riess's team discovered, if I've understood correctly, is that very distant objects are moving slower than they should be. For large values of d, objects d Mpsc away are moving at less than 71d km/s. And, the further the object you view, the smaller the ratio of speed to distance becomes.

As you say, the more distant the object, the further in the past we are viewing it. Conclusion: the Hubble constant is increasing with time. That is what is meant by "the expansion of the universe is accelerating".[/i]

robin

2003-Sep-12, 08:32 PM

One correction - I shouldn't have called the group Dr. Riess's. Brian Schmidt was the team leader.

ToSeek

2003-Sep-12, 09:38 PM

Mistakes in Astronomy

Mistake #1.

Supposedly the expansion of space is slowed by the effect of gravity. Einstein thought so, so it must be true. Or is it?

Given that the distribution of galaxies are more or less uniformly distributed means that any specific galaxy will generally have an even distribution of galaxies all around them. This means that there will be an equal pull due to gravitational effects in every direction on the observed galaxy. This galaxy will not be pulled up, down left right or up or down since the gravitational pull is even all the way around.

Since any and every galaxy can be selected as the central galaxy that experiences an equal pull up, down left right and up and down, the resulting conclusion is that there will be no change in relative position between the surrounding galaxies.

In order for General Relativity to work, space has to be expanding and gravity has to slow down the expansion. But is general relativity, which is dependant on gravitational relationships, the proper model to describe the expansion of space and the effect of gravity?

No.

Snowflake

So if I have a rubber band and stretch it out in a perfect circle, it won't contract again because each point in the rubber band is being pulled equally in either direction.

Cougar

2003-Sep-12, 10:44 PM

Oh, sorry, didn't see your post, ToSeek. Oh, well, I was going to say....

Grey's doing an admirable job clearing up some misconceptions in this thread. I wanted to go back to one of the first things Snowflake claimed:

Mistake #1.... Supposedly the expansion of space is slowed by the effect of gravity.... any specific galaxy will generally have an even distribution of galaxies all around them. This means that there will be an equal pull due to gravitational effects in every direction on the observed galaxy. This galaxy will not be pulled up, down left right or up or down since the gravitational pull is even all the way around.

That's correct. BUT your chosen galaxy also exerts a gravitational effect on all those other galaxies around it, doesn't it? If they are all receding due to the expansion of space, your galaxy's mass will be slowing them down, if only a small amount. The same is true for every galaxy. If the galaxy configuration in the universe was static, gravity would have them all attracting one another, leading to a very big crunch.

snowflakeuniverse

2003-Sep-13, 01:26 AM

Gray

You said the following.

“I could pick arbitrary reference frames and come up with any value for the acceleration I wanted using this method. The velocity and acceleration of an object are only meaningful if I'm being consistent about which object I'm referring to and which reference frame I'm measuring it from.”

Remember that earlier I gave an example about me entering into a room at a certain speed and slowing down. I would describe my motion as deceleration. So would every one else observing me walk in the room. Since each person can establish their own “frame of reference” around themselves, and since each one of the people in the room would also describe my motion as “decelerating”, this would seem to negate the assertion that “arbitrary reference frames” yield any desired effect.

You are still right, but if one is looking for a UNIVERSAL description, then your approach of arbitrary reference frames does not lend itself to a UNIVERSALLY accepted description of reality. For example if you were in the room on the far side of the room with your coordinate system oriented so that positive directions were in the direction of the door I entered the room, the direction of the acceleration vector that you would describe my change in velocity would correspond to a POSITIVE value, just like you asserted, and which is opposite to my description of deceleration. So, if instead you decide to try and describe reality such that everyone describes reality the same way, then instead of your coordinate system, you would look for a universal coordinate system which allows everyone to describe the same events the same way, plus is plus and minus is minus. An object moving faster in the past than the present is decelerating. If all objects were moving faster in the past than the present, then all objects were decelerating. If all galaxies were moving faster in the past than the present, all galaxies are decelerating. This kind of universal frame of reference requires a measure of time that establishes when measurements are made.

The measure of time, which records “when”, corresponds to another independent dimension of time. But I drift.

snowflake

dgruss23

2003-Sep-13, 01:29 AM

robin wrote: While you could, of course, be right that there is a mistake in the High-z Supernova group's work that no-one has noticed yet - after all, no-one is infallible - I'm sure it's not as simple as that they drew the graph with time running downwards, then forgot that meant positive gradients indicate deceleration.

You're right. There is not a mistake from the plotting of the graph. However, that is not to say that the High-z supernova results might not be mistaken. Rowan-Robinson (http://xxx.lanl.gov/abs/astro-ph/0201034) has pointed to several problems with the high-z supernova results. Click on "pdf" to read the article.

Rowan-Robinson points to two major problems with the High-z supernova results. First, the teams did not properly account for extinction by the host galaxy. Second, many of the supernova were not observed before maximum. The evidence is much weaker if only supernova that were observed before maximum are used.

snowflakeuniverse

2003-Sep-13, 01:56 AM

Hi Cougar

Ok, so I am in my galaxy and I am pulling everything towards me: and all the other galaxies are pulling everything towards each other. If the galaxies are uniformly distributed and are distributed way beyond what we can ever possibly observe, then every galaxy is pulling each other in every way resulting in no “crunch”. Just as there is a galaxy pulling one way, there is another galaxy pulling in the opposite direction. Just as my galaxy is pulling another galaxy towards me, there is a corresponding galaxy pulling that galaxy away.

An infinite distribution of small particles does not collapse into mass. This is one of the problems that face theorists about the formation of galaxies. Galaxies can form if the matter in space can be “lumped” but if the distribution is uniform and “infinite” then things stay disbursed.

snowflake

snowflakeuniverse

2003-Sep-13, 01:59 AM

Mistake # 4

Recessional red shift

Given the fact that an object moving at the speed of light does not change ( Remember the Special Relativity “twin” problem; the twin that travels at the speed of light does not age, if the twin can not age, than he or she does not change) Then how does the wave length of light associated with distant galaxies increase with the expansion of space, as predicted by general relativity? The photons from galaxies are moving at the speed of light so they should not change.

(general relativity is right about this, it is just that the explanation is incomplete).

snowflake.

ToSeek

2003-Sep-13, 02:55 AM

An infinite distribution of small particles does not collapse into mass.

If you accept the Big Bang theory, then the universe cannot be infinite as there was a finite amount of matter at the outset. If there is a finite amount of matter, then either there's an edge to the universe or else the universe is like my rubber band or the surface of a balloon. Either way, gravity will have a retarding effect.

ToSeek

2003-Sep-13, 03:02 AM

Mistake #2

The expansion of space is accelerating. False

If I walk into a room at 3 miles an hour, and slow to 1 mile an hour I would describe myself as decelerating.

If you observed me walk into the room, you also would describe my motion as decelerating.

Conclusion, An object that moves faster in the past than the present is decelerating.

The further away a galaxy, the faster it is moving away, due to the expansion of space.

The further away the galaxy, the more in the past it is being observed.

A galaxy observed in the past is moving faster than a galaxy observed closer to the present.

An object that is moving faster in the past than the present is decelerating.

Conclusion, The expansion of space is decelerating

Note that distant galaxies observing our galaxies “motion” would also find that we are “moving” faster in the past than the present in that the further away the observer galaxy the “faster” we would appear to be moving. We are decelerating, not accelerating.

snowflake

But we are not observing the motion of the distant galaxies, we are observing the relative expansion of space between us and the distant galaxies. Ignoring all the issues of the accelerating universe for the time being, as well as delays generated by the speed of light, if space is expanding uniformly everywhere, then the more distant the galaxy the more expansion is going on between us and that galaxy. (Remember the usual analogy of the balloon blowing up or the raisin cake baking.) There's a linear correlation there, and that's what the Hubble constant measures. I haven't done an analysis, but my guess is that the delays generated by the speed of light would be a linear function as well and would just reduce the Hubble constant somewhat.

Pi Man

2003-Sep-13, 04:27 AM

Mistake # 4

Recessional red shift

Given the fact that an object moving at the speed of light does not change ( Remember the Special Relativity “twin” problem; the twin that travels at the speed of light does not age, if the twin can not age, than he or she does not change) Then how does the wave length of light associated with distant galaxies increase with the expansion of space, as predicted by general relativity? The photons from galaxies are moving at the speed of light so they should not change.

(general relativity is right about this, it is just that the explanation is incomplete).

snowflake.

The explanation is not incomplete at all! Our explanation conforms exactly to what we measure!

You can view the problem in one of two (that I know of) ways:

Think of an object emmiting light at 500 Mhz (or 500 million times a second), near the lower end of the spectrum. If the object that emitted the light is moving toward you, the the number of wave peaks of the light start coming at you faster:

( ( ( ( ( ( ( ( ( ( ->)))))))))) You

The result is that the light frequency will increase, and the light will shift toward the blue (which is higher frequency).

If the light source is moving away from you, the waves will be stretched, and the wave peaks will come less often:

((((((((((<- ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) You

The result is that the light frequency will decrease, and the light will shift toward the red (which is lower frequency).

An equivelent way of viewing it is this way:

As the light source is receading from you, the space is stretching, and therefore is stretching the light, and increasing the wavelength:

))))))))))

) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )

) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )

Now, you may say that these are not two different ways of looking at the same problem, but they are. The Hisenburgh Uncertainty principal makes it perfectly valid, and since it conforms to all observation, it is the best theory we have yet.

Grey

2003-Sep-13, 05:30 PM

If you accept the Big Bang theory, then the universe cannot be infinite as there was a finite amount of matter at the outset. If there is a finite amount of matter, then either there's an edge to the universe or else the universe is like my rubber band or the surface of a balloon. Either way, gravity will have a retarding effect.

I'd disagree with this. It's possible to have a Big Bang with an infinite amount of mass; that would correspond to either a flat or open curvature. I have a terrible time getting my head around it, but it works mathematically. :)

An infinite distribution of small particles does not collapse into mass. This is one of the problems that face theorists about the formation of galaxies. Galaxies can form if the matter in space can be “lumped” but if the distribution is uniform and “infinite” then things stay disbursed.

Nobody (well, at least no serious cosmologist that I'm aware of) ever claims that the distribution of matter was perfectly uniform, since that would indeed preclude formation of structure. Quite the reverse, one of the tests of cosmological models is to see just how much anisotropy they predict, and whether that correctly accounts for the structure we see in the universe today. Using computer models, it's possible to get an idea of which Big Bang models can't possibly be accurate, and which are at least possible.

However, although a perfectly isotropic distribution would prevent structure from forming, ToSeek is still correct that such a distribution of matter could collapse. In his rubber band analogy, even if the rubber band were an infinitely stretched line, it would still contract, even though each point on it is pulled in both directions. It's perhaps not completely intuitive, but when dealing with the infinite intuition often fails.

Remember that earlier I gave an example about me entering into a room at a certain speed and slowing down. I would describe my motion as deceleration. So would every one else observing me walk in the room. Since each person can establish their own “frame of reference” around themselves, and since each one of the people in the room would also describe my motion as “decelerating”, this would seem to negate the assertion that “arbitrary reference frames” yield any desired effect.

But your room analogy does not correspond to what you describing in the case of galaxies. In the first case, everyone in the room is pretty much standing still, so they share the same reference frame, and you really are decelerating. In the case of galaxies, the people are all moving at different speeds, and remember that they can only measure your relative velocity to them. This woould be like if you said that one person sees you moving at 5 mi/hr and another sees you moving at 3 mi/hr. So what's your acceleration given these two observations? We have no idea. To know, you'd need to know how the two people who did the measurements are moving relative to each other.

If you say that it was one person doing both measurements separated in time, that does not correspond to measuring the velocity of one galaxy nearby and another far away. Nor does it correspond to two different observers making measurements on our galaxy. Instead, it would correspond to making a measurement on a single galaxy, waiting a while (since the speed of galaxies doesn't change much, you'd have to wait a very long time here), and then measuring the speed of that same galaxy again. If you do that, you'll find that it's moving away from you faster.

snowflakeuniverse

2003-Sep-14, 01:59 AM

Hi Pi Man.

I am impressed with your creative ability to draw using just a keyboard. Unfortunately you are a victim of a previous “mistake” in astronomy regarding the “Doppler shift” of galaxies. When Hubbell published the first paper correlating the increased wavelength of the spectra from the light of galaxies to the distance of the galaxies, he stated that this effect was a Doppler effect. Similar to the Doppler effect we hear when a car drives by. The increased wavelength was due to relative motion.

Einstein and Minkowski changed the interpretation of the “Doppler shift” associated with distant galaxies with the application of General Relativity. Instead, the increased wavelength of the spectra from galaxies was due to the expansion of space itself. As a photon travels through an expanding space time field, the energy of the photon is diminished, or its wavelength is increased.

Hubbell never accepted this consequence of General Relativity. He believed that the effect was due to the actual motion of the galaxies. It was a Doppler effect just as you so elegantly illustrated in you email.

Since the “reddening” of light was first described as a Doppler effect, the use of the term “Doppler effect” has persisted for the last 80 years. Most “modern” astrophysicists are careful to not use the term “Doppler effect” in describing the increased wavelength of the spectra from distant galaxies. Now most use the term “Cosmological” shift or a “recessional” shift/effect. This is what is taught currently in most Colleges and Universities at this time.

Thank you for your carefully explained and crafted email. You could still be right, maybe it is both a Doppler shift, and a recessional shift that are influencing the observed spectra from galaxies. “Modern” or current theory asserts that the red shift is primarily due to the expansion of space.

But if it is a Doppler effect, we have to be moving in a dimension that we are not directly aware of, in a fourth dimension. I actually advocate this idea, but I still am also a believer in General Relativity. I believe both relationships are in effect. But it will take a bit of explaining to describe our motion in a fourth spatial dimension.

snowflake

snowflakeuniverse

2003-Sep-14, 02:01 AM

Hi ToSeek

You stated “If you accept the Big Bang theory, then the universe cannot be infinite as there was a finite amount of matter at the outset. If there is a finite amount of matter, then either there's an edge to the universe or else the universe is like my rubber band or the surface of a balloon. Either way, gravity will have a retarding effect.”

From our perspective, we have not observed the outermost galaxies. If we look out 10, 20 or 30 billion light years out, there is only so far we can see. When we look to this edge, we see lots and lots of galaxies. It is as if we are surrounded by a sphere of galaxies. Where is the edge? I too believe as you do that the Universe is limited, but it is extremely big. If we imagine being located at the center of our observable universe and pick the most distant galaxy we could see, I believe that on that most distant galaxy there is someone like me, thinking that that most distant galaxy he can see in one direction is our Milky Way galaxy. My imaginary counter part then turns his “Hubbell like” telescope half a circle away, (they don’t’ use degrees in this galaxy.) and observes a whole vast array of galaxies that we, on our Milky Way Galaxy, cant even see. The universe is ****** big. (Excuse my French).

If the observable universe were the size of a beach ball, with us in the center, then it is possible to imagine a large room full of beach balls, with each beach ball representing the observable universe for the galaxy residing in the center of each ball.

I believe it is extremely unlikely that we just happen to be in the center of the Universe, with 100 billion galaxies to be in the center is unlikely, but a possibility. I also believe that it is extremely unlikely that what we see of our universe represents the extent of our universe.

General Relativity limits the effect of gravity to a region of space that is observable; it ignores the effect of what is outside our observation. When one reviews the calculations on the collapse or expansion of the universe, the amount of matter found within the observable universe is included. (Some also make adjustments to this size due to the expansion of space). General Relativity totally ignores the galaxies beyond our observation. My counter part on the most distant observable section of the universe should be drawn towards our Milky Way Galaxy, But my counter part has an equal number of galaxies pulling him away from our galaxy. SO NOTHING SHOULD CHANGE. Yet observation tells us this is not so. So to avoid this, Astrophysicists simply ignore the possible effects of outside our observation, curve space-time and use this to explain how space is expanding.

(Another way to resolve this is to not curve space but to allow space to change by another dimension. A straight line is one dimensional, If I curve a straight line, it now has properties that are expressed by two dimensions. (Granted a curve line is usually described a one dimensional, but I hope you can see how I call it “two” dimensional. ) By allowing space to change in another dimension it is possible to “curve” space, just as a line is curved by inducing properties of another dimension. ) (General Relativity curves space by the use of the Metric, I curve space by allowing another dimensional measure that is structurally tied to the fabric of space-time.)

snowflake

snowflakeuniverse

2003-Sep-14, 02:04 AM

Grey

You stated “one of the tests of cosmological models is to see just how much anisotropy they predict, and whether that correctly accounts for the structure we see in the universe today. Using computer models, it's possible to get an idea of which Big Bang models can't possibly be accurate, and which are at least possible. “

I think it is important to note that there is NO MODEL that predicts the formation of galaxies. All simulations assume a “lumpiness” that is not found or explained. While fluctuations in the CBR indicates that some “lumpiness” was prevalent at the very early beginnings of the Universe, there is no explanation as to how these turn into galaxies. Everything is so hot and ripped apart, nothing appears to be able to have matter clump together. This is one of the reasons Paul Dirac believed that gravity was a function of cosmic time.

You also stated that “ In his (ToSeek’s) rubber band analogy, even if the rubber band were an infinitely stretched line, it would still contract, even though each point on it is pulled in both directions. It's perhaps not completely intuitive, but when dealing with the infinite intuition often fails.

Are you really content with accepting a theory that defies intuition? If something else were more intuitive and which also predicted the same kinds of physical effects would you consider it?

Also, General Relativity does not use an infinite size “ball” or rubber band to explain gravitational collapse. They use the extent of the observable universe. The assume a size and try to find the amount of matter in that sphere, establish the critical density and try to predict the expansion rate of the Universe.

If we are at the center of mass of the entire universe, then General Relativity is correct, If we are not, then General Relativity is certainly incomplete.

snowflake

Pi Man

2003-Sep-14, 06:53 AM

Hi Pi Man.

I am impressed with your creative ability to draw using just a keyboard. Unfortunately you are a victim of a previous “mistake” in astronomy regarding the “Doppler shift” of galaxies. When Hubbell published the first paper correlating the increased wavelength of the spectra from the light of galaxies to the distance of the galaxies, he stated that this effect was a Doppler effect. Similar to the Doppler effect we hear when a car drives by. The increased wavelength was due to relative motion.

Einstein and Minkowski changed the interpretation of the “Doppler shift” associated with distant galaxies with the application of General Relativity. Instead, the increased wavelength of the spectra from galaxies was due to the expansion of space itself. As a photon travels through an expanding space time field, the energy of the photon is diminished, or its wavelength is increased.

The two are equivelent. Two different ways of thinking of the same situation, just like wave/particle duality (if you've ever studied QM). There aren't two seperate processes at work, it's one and the same process viewed two different ways. It's not one or the other, they are both true because they are equivelent.

Hubbell never accepted this consequence of General Relativity. He believed that the effect was due to the actual motion of the galaxies. It was a Doppler effect just as you so elegantly illustrated in you email.

Since the “reddening” of light was first described as a Doppler effect, the use of the term “Doppler effect” has persisted for the last 80 years. Most “modern” astrophysicists are careful to not use the term “Doppler effect” in describing the increased wavelength of the spectra from distant galaxies. Now most use the term “Cosmological” shift or a “recessional” shift/effect. This is what is taught currently in most Colleges and Universities at this time.

Thank you for your carefully explained and crafted email. You could still be right, maybe it is both a Doppler shift, and a recessional shift that are influencing the observed spectra from galaxies. “Modern” or current theory asserts that the red shift is primarily due to the expansion of space.

But if it is a Doppler effect, we have to be moving in a dimension that we are not directly aware of, in a fourth dimension. I actually advocate this idea, but I still am also a believer in General Relativity. I believe both relationships are in effect. But it will take a bit of explaining to describe our motion in a fourth spatial dimension.

Huh? The fourth spacial dimension? Why would it require any motion in any direction not already seen? 8-[ The GR method of looking at it is that space is stretching (or the distance between us and the distant galaxy is stretching) and therefore is stretching the wave pattern of the light. Why is there a need for another spacial dimension in that?

Pi Man

2003-Sep-14, 06:58 AM

If we are at the center of mass of the entire universe, then General Relativity is correct, If we are not, then General Relativity is certainly incomplete.

Whether the universe is infinite in extent or finite in extent, there is no center of mass (at least not within this universe).

Cougar

2003-Sep-14, 04:26 PM

Einstein and Minkowski changed the interpretation of the “Doppler shift” associated with distant galaxies with the application of General Relativity. Instead, the increased wavelength of the spectra from galaxies was due to the expansion of space itself.

The two are equivelent. Two different ways of thinking of the same situation, just like wave/particle duality (if you've ever studied QM). There aren't two seperate processes at work, it's one and the same process viewed two different ways. It's not one or the other, they are both true because they are equivelent.

I would say that they are mathematically equivalent, that is, the "recessional velocity" figures work out the same, but conceptually they are definitely different. In reality, either the distant galaxies are all streaming through space away from us, the further the faster, OR it's the space between us and them that is expanding. It's one or the other. There is no sensical reason that the more distant galaxies would be traveling through space away from us at proportionately higher velocities. But if we consider that the space itself is expanding, then it makes perfect sense.

(I'm not sure if it was "Einstein and Minkowski" who personally called for this change of viewpoint. It seems the doppler interpretation was still held after Einstein's death, and only more recently did astronomers realize the "apparent doppler effect" was due directly to the effect of the expansion of space on the wavelength of the light that was traveling through the expanding space.)

russ_watters

2003-Sep-15, 04:07 AM

Regarding you question as to why I have a handle and the professionals do not is because I figured out a very important relationship that describes the expansion of space.

snowflakeDidn't anyone else see that? Thats the funniest thing I've seen all day - not to mention the most arrogant

I told this story in another thread: when I was in high school, there was something I learned in math that I thought was wrong and I argued with the teacher about it for quite a while. But then I realized that many people much smarter than me had come up with the equation or method I was arguing against, so I stopped arguing and began looking for the flaw in my own reasoning.

The standard model of physics is popular for a reason, snow - it works better than any other model yet concieved. Your arguements against it come mostly from a misunderstanding of what it says.

snowflakeuniverse

2003-Sep-15, 04:37 AM

Hi Russ watters

In response to my assertion I have figured out a very important relationship that describes the expansion of space you responded

“Didn't anyone else see that? Thats the funniest thing I've seen all day - not to mention the most arrogant”

First, I am impressed with how little it takes to make you laugh. You must be a very happy person.

Second, review your message to me and consider who is being arrogant. You do not know what I have done, nor do you know my background, or my education. You do not even know what my theory is and how well it is validated.

Regarding your belief the present model works I would have serious issues with. Quantum physics and general relativity are incompatible descriptions of the universe and they comprise the standard model. There is no viable theory that explains galaxy formation. I listed also several other issues that I think illustrate problems. You are invited to prove me wrong.

Oh yes. When I argued with my teachers. I usually convinced them I was right.

snowflake

wedgebert

2003-Sep-15, 04:51 AM

Hi Russ watters

Oh yes. When I argued with my teachers. I usually convinced them I was right.

snowflake

Did you actually convince them you were right, or did they just get sick of arguing with you, realize they can't win and just concede your point?

But you're right, we don't know you, your background or your education. That doesn't mean much though. Sure we can't assume that you're just making up a lot of **, but it also means we can't assume you hold a PhD in the relevant subject and thus give your discussions more weight.

You need to give the information about you that you deem relevant to the discussion. Otherwise some people are just going to assume you've got another crackpot theory, are misunderstanding some important concept or one of the other typical reactions we have when someone challenges widely accepted theories.

Yes, GR and QP are currently incompatible, but everyday we work torwards solving that. You can't just disregard either theory, because they both work. Both theories have passed every test thrown at them. One day we'll find a way to reconcile them into a Grand Unified Theory, but I doubt we'll just up and over turn either one.

Luckily we have our very own astronomer here, and if he knows what's good for him :evil: he'll jump in and set things straight.

j/k :o

Pi Man

2003-Sep-15, 05:02 AM

Hi Russ watters

In response to my assertion I have figured out a very important relationship that describes the expansion of space you responded

“Didn't anyone else see that? Thats the funniest thing I've seen all day - not to mention the most arrogant”

First, I am impressed with how little it takes to make you laugh. You must be a very happy person.

Second, review your message to me and consider who is being arrogant. You do not know what I have done, nor do you know my background, or my education. You do not even know what my theory is and how well it is validated.

Ok.... Enlighten us. Tell us of your background, education, theory, and how well it is validated.

It really bothers me when people post their own theories on the board and make statemenst like, "you don't know my education" instead of just giving reasons why they are qualified authorities on the subject, or not.

Regarding your belief the present model works I would have serious issues with. Quantum physics and general relativity are incompatible descriptions of the universe and they comprise the standard model.

String theory solves the problems between QM and GR. Brian Greene, a well known authority on string theory and author of The Elegant Universe, once said, "Not only does string theory make relativity and quantum mechanics compatible, it does so in a way that makes them need echother to work."

However, that's hardly the point. They are just theories that govern two seperate shperes of physics. Or, are you making the argument that one or the other or both are incorrect completely because they are not yet fully compatible(except for string theory)?

There is no viable theory that explains galaxy formation.

That's mostly limitations in today's technology. We don't yet have the supercomputerse required to perform the calculations necessary, but there really is no reason to believe that galaxies won't spring from already existent theories.

I listed also several other issues that I think illustrate problems. You are invited to prove me wrong.

You're not open to the evidence we are giving you. We are proving you wrong, you just don't want to hear it. And, I know that sounds harsh, and I would rephrase it if I knew of a better way to say it, but that's the only way I can say it.

Oh yes. When I argued with my teachers. I usually convinced them I was right.

Give us examples, and what people they have been teaching. i.e. High-school, College... etc.

Pi Man

2003-Sep-15, 05:07 AM

Luckily we have our very own astronomer here, and if he knows what's good for him :evil: he'll jump in and set things straight.

He's likely to jump in and lock the thread! :o Remember that he looks down on attacking the theorist and not the theory. Tell him why his thinking is wrong, because what you are arguing is a very common fallicy: his theories are wrong because I don't like the theorist. For instance, I disagree with Marxism, but I don't disagree with Marxism because I think Marx was an idiot (Although, I do think he was...).

wedgebert

2003-Sep-15, 05:31 AM

I wasn't really attacking him. I was just countering his argument that since we don't know anything about his background, we can't dismiss his theory.

My point was the counter, since we know nothing of his background, we also can't assign it MORE weight because of it.

For example, if the BA comes in and says something nonobvious about astronomy, knowing his education, current profession and whatnot, we're likely to believe, or put more weight on what he says.

However if *I* came in and said the same thing first, as a computer scientist, you would (justifiably) put less emphisis on what I said.

By quote about the BA jumping in was more along the lines of "jump in and tell us if he, as an astronomer, is doing what snowflake claims astronomers are doing". Not "jump in and prove me right".

Sorry if I didn't make my point clear. The part I said about "crackpot theories" was a crude attempt at both humor and how many of us look at people/theories that go against the mainstream. I was in no way, or at least not meaning to, call snowflake's theory (or him) crackpot. :oops:

Pi Man

2003-Sep-15, 05:35 AM

Sorry if I didn't make my point clear. The part I said about "crackpot theories" was a crude attempt at both humor and how many of us look at people/theories that go against the mainstream. I was in no way, or at least not meaning to, call snowflake's theory (or him) crackpot. :oops:

Sorry, that was my fault for misinterpreting too. :oops:

So, you're a computer scientist?????!!!!!! :o :D That's my major! This is my freshman semester, but I'm really enjoying it already (learning java).

Grey

2003-Sep-15, 01:21 PM

You stated “one of the tests of cosmological models is to see just how much anisotropy they predict, and whether that correctly accounts for the structure we see in the universe today. Using computer models, it's possible to get an idea of which Big Bang models can't possibly be accurate, and which are at least possible. “

I think it is important to note that there is NO MODEL that predicts the formation of galaxies. All simulations assume a “lumpiness” that is not found or explained. While fluctuations in the CBR indicates that some “lumpiness” was prevalent at the very early beginnings of the Universe, there is no explanation as to how these turn into galaxies. Everything is so hot and ripped apart, nothing appears to be able to have matter clump together. This is one of the reasons Paul Dirac believed that gravity was a function of cosmic time.

I disagree. Although we don't have sufficient observations to really constrain the possible models well, I have seen simulations that can show development of the filament structures that galaxies seem to form in, that match pretty well with observations. We indeed don't know enough about this, and a great deal of further study will be needed, but your statement implies that we just have no idea and it must be magic, and that's just not the case.

Are you really content with accepting a theory that defies intuition?

Yes! :D Quantum mechanics defies my intuition that the basic particles that we're composed of should behave like ordinary objects. And who would have thought before relativity theory that time and space aren't absolute, but need to be defined based on how you are moving? My intuition tells me that the tables in front of me is solid, but my understanding of atomic structure instead tells me that there would be plenty of space for the particles in my hand to pass right by the particles of the table, were it not for the electromagnetic repulsion of the electrons in the atoms making up my hand and the table. Science contradicts my intuition all the time. Of course, after working with a theory for a while, I develop a new intuition of how quantum objects behave, or of how relatvistic effects might change my perceptions of things.

If something else were more intuitive and which also predicted the same kinds of physical effects would you consider it?

If there were such a theory, I probably would consider it. However, the fact that the really weird predictions of quantum mechanics and relativity have been well confirmed by experiment means that any rival theory will have to make these same counterintuitive predictions, or it cannot possibly be true.

Our intuition is developed from our experiences in life with macroscopic objects moving at relatively slow speeds. It was probably also shaped by the evolution of our ancestors, who needed to be able to model the world in such a way that they could successfully find food, protect themselves from the environment, and avoid getting eaten by predators. It works quite well for these purposes, by why should we really expect it to still hold on scales far removed from the situations it was developed to cope with?

Also, General Relativity does not use an infinite size “ball” or rubber band to explain gravitational collapse. They use the extent of the observable universe. The assume a size and try to find the amount of matter in that sphere, establish the critical density and try to predict the expansion rate of the Universe.

We spent a bit of time discussing that here (http://www.badastronomy.com/phpBB/viewtopic.php?t=7690). Any matter that's far enough away so that the light from it hasn't reached us in the lifetime of the universe cannot have any effects on any of the matter that we can see. That is, it can have an effect on that distant galaxy, just at the edge, but we won't have seen that gravitational effect yet, because the effect still has to reach us at lightspeed. That's just breaking up the trip into two segments, and we already know that the signal can't get here in the lifetime of the universe.

Now, as the universe expands, it would be theoretically possible for the "sphere of influence" to move outward fast enough to overtake things that used to be beyond it so that eventually we would see those effects. However, since it seems that the expansion is accelerating (in spite of your contentions that it's not), I think it ends up the reverse, that the most distant objects actually pass beyond that boundary, and although they might have been able to affect us up until that point, once they cross the boundary, they can no longer have any causal effect that we will witness.

Now, you claim to have a theory that will explain things better than the existing models used by astronomers and cosmologists. Why don't you tell us what it is and how well it's validated? You can expect us to try to find flaws in it, of course :), but a robust theory should be able to withstand that.

wedgebert

2003-Sep-15, 08:48 PM

Sorry if I didn't make my point clear. The part I said about "crackpot theories" was a crude attempt at both humor and how many of us look at people/theories that go against the mainstream. I was in no way, or at least not meaning to, call snowflake's theory (or him) crackpot. :oops:

Sorry, that was my fault for misinterpreting too. :oops:

So, you're a computer scientist?????!!!!!! :o :D That's my major! This is my freshman semester, but I'm really enjoying it already (learning java).

Not to get too off-topic, but forget Java :) Learn C++ and Visual Basic.NET. Some DHTML and SQL will help as well and learning how to use XML is good too.

russ_watters

2003-Sep-15, 10:52 PM

Regarding your belief the present model works I would have serious issues with. Quantum physics and general relativity are incompatible descriptions of the universe and they comprise the standard model. Thats a well known limitation in relativity /the standard model which has very little to do with what you have presented here. And the limitation does not affect how successful it has been when used for what it is good at.

It really bothers me when people post their own theories on the board and make statemenst like, "you don't know my education" instead of just giving reasons why they are qualified authorities on the subject, or not. Pi, I'd settle for just a little explanation of his "theories." Though it helps, you don't need a resume to prove you know what you're talking about.

Pi Man

2003-Sep-16, 04:14 AM

Pi, I'd settle for just a little explanation of his "theories." Though it helps, you don't need a resume to prove you know what you're talking about.

From what I've heard so far, I don't know what would convince me that he is qualified to make such statements but an account of his education, and I'm not sure that that will do it.

wedgebert

2003-Sep-16, 05:17 AM

Again, this is a pretty easy thing to clear up. He theory is based on several mistakes astronomers make.

Well, this site happens to be owned and operated by an astronomer. So if we keep at this long enough, he's bound to do a quick read to make sure we're not getting out of control and maybe he'll even confirm/deny snowflakes list of mistakes that he's making.

oriel36

2003-Sep-16, 12:08 PM

Grey wrote ; "And who would have thought before relativity theory that time and space aren't absolute, but need to be defined based on how you are moving?"

This is what Newton wrote -

"Absolute and relative space, are the same in figure and magnitude; but they do not remain always numerically the same"

http://members.tripod.com/~gravitee/definitions.htm#time

Heliocentric modelling based on the Earth orbiting the Sun involves accurate intepretations of geocentric observations which make the Sun appear to rotate around the Earth.Newton did not wish to call the Sun's and planets motion across the sky an 'illusion' so he called it relative space instead.These relative motions of the Sun and the primary planets are valid up to a point insofar as they can be translated into true motion around the Sun rather than the relative motions which appear to make the planets rotate around the Earth from our point of view.

An intelligent person who has an interest in astronomy will get Newton's point not only with absolute/ relative space but also absolute/ relative motion,as all celestial motion of relative space (geoccentric observations) and absolute space (true heliocentric motion) are based on cyclical orbital motions it follows that trying to make sense of the structure and motions of the primary planets with only relative motions is idiotic,it is like trying to make sense of the traffic on the street.

Newton explained the Equation of Time as the difference between absolute time and relative time,basically the way we define a day

relative time = natural unequal day

absolute time = 24 hour equal day

Difference between absolute and relative time = Equation of Time

To tamper with Newton's definitions of time,space and motion is a fools game,anyone who bothers to read the original text may initially find it ambiguous and the archaic language does not help but it is well worth the effort to disentangle these poor relativistic intepretations that have no idea what he meant by absolute and relative nor the celestial cyclical qualities that all astronomers in Newton's era relied on and are part of the definitions.

"It is indeed a matter of great difficulty to discover, and effectually to distinguish, the true motion of particular bodies from the apparent; because the parts of that immovable space, in which those motions are performed, do by no means come under the observation of our senses. Yet the thing is not altogether desperate; for we have some arguments to guide us, partly from the apparent motions, which are the differences of the true motions; partly from the forces, which are the causes and effects of the true motion." Principia

Grey

2003-Sep-16, 12:28 PM

...it follows that trying to make sense of the structure and motions of the primary planets with only relative motions is idiotic...

Shall we keep the discussion civil?

To tamper with Newton's definitions of time,space and motion is a fools game,anyone who bothers to read the original text may initially find it ambiguous and the archaic language does not help but it is well worth the effort to disentangle these poor relativistic intepretations that have no idea what he meant by absolute and relative nor the celestial cyclical qualities that all astronomers in Newton's era relied on and are part of the definitions.

Newton was, indeed, a brilliant man, and the Principia is an impressive work. However, it's also clear that the predictions from his theories clash with observations, hence the development of relativity, which provides better agreement with reality.

I know you consider the Equation of Time to be very important, but it's really a tool of very limited utility. It allows calculation of the difference between solar time (which varies due to the movement of the Earth) and time as measured by clocks (which are now ultimately controlled by specific atomic transition frequencies rather than being tied to the motion of the Earth), but beyond that has no particular significance. Whether you were using solar time or "clock time", you would still observe relativistic effects in the passage of time.

Pi Man

2003-Sep-16, 03:13 PM

I hope we haven't scared off snowflakeuniverse. :(

snowflakeuniverse

2003-Sep-17, 01:51 PM

Hi Pi Man,

The cosmological or recessional red shift is different from a standard Doppler shift The best evidence of this is revealed when considering energy. General Relativity asserts that as the photon travels through an expanding space time field it’s wavelength is increased, and energy is lost. General Relativity violates the conservation of energy “laws” when it comes to the recessional red shift in that there is no thermal heating of something else. I know you will not believe me but it is true. (Since I believe in General Relativity I also agree that this energy is “lost”.) This is in contrast with the energy loss due to a Doppler shift since the energy loss is imparted or added as soon as the photon leaves the moving atom.

When I bring this fact about the lost of energy of a photon to an Astrophysicist, they ignore the conflict with special relativity and the “stopping of time” at speeds equal to the speed of light. They just allow the issue to remain or resolve it based on the application of General Relativity. Since the mathematics can get involved regarding this, it ends up being a discussion of assumptions. Whatever assumptions one assumes, allows each party to be right.

Where I usually try to take this line of topic when discussing the issue with a real physicist leads to Problem #5.

If a photon looses energy with the expansion of space, shouldn’t mass also loose energy?

If I converted a mass into light energy, energy is lost due to the expansion of space. Since E=mcc shouldn’t what happens on one side of the energy equation be valid for the other? Doesn’t that mean mass looses energy? If not then E does not equal mcc in all situations. I am accused of confusing two different situations, after all how could a rock in some cold dark region of space loose energy? In my model even matter itself looses energy with the expansion of space. I know it violates the conservation of energy principle, but since the rate of energy loss is so slow, it is only detectable over very long periods of time, millions or billions of years. This loss of energy with the expansion of space predicted by my theory is what is commonly called “dark energy”. The source of dark energy is not out side of our universe, it is from our universe.

(Note, this is a formula driven theory)

snowflake

snowflakeuniverse

2003-Sep-17, 01:54 PM

Background of Snowflake

I am 53 years old, and graduate with a degree with Honors from the University of Connecticut, also a member of Tau Beta Pi, the national honor society for Engineers. . My major was Structural Analysis but I have a fair background in Electrical and Mechanical Engineering. I also have taken some upper level course in tensor mathematics but never finished my Graduate Degree, life kind of got in the way.

When I was a sophomore at Uconn, a problem would haunt me regarding the dimensional “imbalance” between Gravitational and Inertial Forces. For the last 20 or so years I would try various dimensional configurations of space and time to resolve the issue. About 5 years ago I made a discovery about the nature of the expansion of space that resolved the dimensional problem and which also established very important relationships about the mathematical description of nature. Since then I have been dedicated to trying to have the theory seriously reviewed. I also have had to spend the last few expanding my knowledge of astrophysics. So far I have had a “professional grad student” with a PhD in physics review the theory, He concurs that the model is mathematically correct, but he still does not think it is right. I had a rejection from a physics journal, and the response was, “this theory is too simple to be true”. If it were so simple, it should be simple to prove where I am wrong. It is fairly easy for me to show how the current models are wrong or at least incomplete and inconsistent, which is what I tried to do with the previous examples.

Also, regarding the first time I convinced my teacher that I was right was in 6th grade. It was a mathematics problem regarding the invalidity of dividing a number by 0. I asserted that if infinity were allowed to exist, (as taught in class and represented in the math book) then division by 0 must exist. Divide 1 by 1 and get 1, divide 1 by .1 and get 10, as the divisor approaches 0 the result approaches infinity. It is only when the divisor equals 0 does the result equal infinity. Of course this eventually leads to other problems where 0 can equal 1 or to or anything, which seems impossible. I therefore thought that infinity is just an abstraction, just as 0 must be. (But then again, if the entire universe started from nothing, then even this would be ok.) The teacher and the class thought that my arguments were valid, and the association between infinity and 0 were important. If 0 exists, then infinity exists. Of course a mathematician would take issue with this, particularly one who bases proofs based upon rules and then makes conclusions upon those rules. Mathematicians have a lot of rules about infinities, which are interesting to consider, such as, not all infinities are equal, some are bigger than others, but I digress. To avoid a big conflict with a lot of people, let’s just leave this as“ You can not divide by 0,” I have got to try and choose my battles.

snowflake

snowflakeuniverse

2003-Sep-17, 02:04 PM

Thanks --- for your interest in my theory, or at least arguing for the right to present ideas in the forum.

I should also thank the staff of Bad Astronomy for the form. I also think it would be kind of neat if a major advance in physics came not from some academic but from an amateur whose voice would only be found on the internet.

Imagine what it is like for me.

Trying to have my theory seriously considered has been one of the most frustrating events to endure in my life. Imagine that one day you discover an important relationship that is on the scale of the relationships discovered by Kepler or Newton. Imagine that everyone you try to tell the theory to assumes you are a “crack pot” without even considering the theory. Imagine every person of an academic background “shuns” you. Professors will ignore you, (“I must get 40 of these (theories) a year, I just made up my mind not to look at them”) Emails and phone calls will be left with no response. (Although I must thank George E. Hrabovsky of the Society of Amateur Scientists for his conclusion that the theory was “mathematically consistent”. George writes a regular column called "From the Mind of a Theorist” in the Society’s electronic magazine .) Anyways, I am truly appreciative of the opportunity given here, and am especially thankful for the responses.

snowflake.

Grey

2003-Sep-17, 02:35 PM

Your credentials and history are interesting. However, I'd be interested in looking at your theory on its merits. So, what is it, exactly? :)

Pi Man

2003-Sep-18, 08:22 PM

The cosmological or recessional red shift is different from a standard Doppler shift The best evidence of this is revealed when considering energy. General Relativity asserts that as the photon travels through an expanding space time field it’s wavelength is increased, and energy is lost.General Relativity violates the conservation of energy “laws” when it comes to the recessional red shift in that there is no thermal heating of something else. I know you will not believe me but it is true.

No energy is lost! As space stretches, it causes the light to be spread out over more space (or time, depending on how you look at it). As you watch a receeding white light which is on for t seconds from it's own POV, and emits an amount of energy per second, e, e*t is the amount of energy it emits during the whole time. e'*t' is the amount of energy you recieve from it (let's say that the beam of light from it is parallel and you can collect and measure all of it). e decreases as space stretches the light beam, but t increases because the length of the beam increases, and thus the time it takes you to take in the whole beam increases. So, e decreases to e', and t increases t'. However, e*t=e'*t'. This explination is also applicable to the Doppler effect.

(Since I believe in General Relativity I also agree that this energy is “lost”.) This is in contrast with the energy loss due to a Doppler shift since the energy loss is imparted or added as soon as the photon leaves the moving atom.

There is no real "imparting" going on with the Doppler shift at all. If you happen to have the same velocity as the atom emitting the light, you don't see any shift at all, so the Doppler effect also depends on the reciever (observer). The Doppler effect is just due to looking at the same situation from two (or more) different perspectives, in different states of constant motion.

When I bring this fact about the lost of energy of a photon to an Astrophysicist, they ignore the conflict with special relativity and the “stopping of time” at speeds equal to the speed of light.

Why is the "stopping of time" at the speed of light a conflict? What says that that isn't possible?

They just allow the issue to remain or resolve it based on the application of General Relativity. Since the mathematics can get involved regarding this, it ends up being a discussion of assumptions. Whatever assumptions one assumes, allows each party to be right.

Where I usually try to take this line of topic when discussing the issue with a real physicist leads to Problem #5.

If a photon looses energy with the expansion of space, shouldn’t mass also loose energy?

If I converted a mass into light energy, energy is lost due to the expansion of space.

Energy is never lost unless converted into mass. The expansion of space does not cause the loss/gain of energy. That invalidates the rest of the question.

Since E=mcc shouldn’t what happens on one side of the energy equation be valid for the other? Doesn’t that mean mass looses energy? If not then E does not equal mcc in all situations. I am accused of confusing two different situations, after all how could a rock in some cold dark region of space loose energy? In my model even matter itself looses energy with the expansion of space. I know it violates the conservation of energy principle, but since the rate of energy loss is so slow, it is only detectable over very long periods of time, millions or billions of years. This loss of energy with the expansion of space predicted by my theory is what is commonly called “dark energy”.

That isn't a plausible explination for the dark energy. Dark energy is a positive amount (even source) of energy causing the expansion of the universe to speed up. If the expansion of space actually did cause energy to decrease (which it does not), and our space is expanding, we would be loosing energy, not gaining it. We are looking for a source of energy, not something to get rid of it.

The source of dark energy is not out side of our universe, it is from our universe.

(Note, this is a formula driven theory)

Ok, then. Hit us with some formulas! :D

Pi Man

2003-Sep-18, 08:34 PM

Background of Snowflake

I am 53 years old, and graduate with a degree with Honors from the University of Connecticut, also a member of Tau Beta Pi, the national honor society for Engineers. . My major was Structural Analysis but I have a fair background in Electrical and Mechanical Engineering. I also have taken some upper level course in tensor mathematics but never finished my Graduate Degree, life kind of got in the way.

That isn't enough to give you a good background in cosmology, astrophysics, GR/SR, etc... (although that is really impressive! :lol: )

When I was a sophomore at Uconn, a problem would haunt me regarding the dimensional “imbalance” between Gravitational and Inertial Forces. For the last 20 or so years I would try various dimensional configurations of space and time to resolve the issue. About 5 years ago I made a discovery about the nature of the expansion of space that resolved the dimensional problem and which also established very important relationships about the mathematical description of nature. Since then I have been dedicated to trying to have the theory seriously reviewed. I also have had to spend the last few expanding my knowledge of astrophysics. So far I have had a “professional grad student” with a PhD in physics review the theory, He concurs that the model is mathematically correct, but he still does not think it is right. I had a rejection from a physics journal, and the response was, “this theory is too simple to be true”. If it were so simple, it should be simple to prove where I am wrong. It is fairly easy for me to show how the current models are wrong or at least incomplete and inconsistent, which is what I tried to do with the previous examples.

Can you tell me more about the "dimensional 'imbalance' between Gravitational and Inertial Forces?" I probably know what you're talking about, I just haven't heard it by that name.

Also, regarding the first time I convinced my teacher that I was right was in 6th grade. It was a mathematics problem regarding the invalidity of dividing a number by 0. I asserted that if infinity were allowed to exist, (as taught in class and represented in the math book) then division by 0 must exist. Divide 1 by 1 and get 1, divide 1 by .1 and get 10, as the divisor approaches 0 the result approaches infinity. It is only when the divisor equals 0 does the result equal infinity. Of course this eventually leads to other problems where 0 can equal 1 or to or anything, which seems impossible. I therefore thought that infinity is just an abstraction, just as 0 must be. (But then again, if the entire universe started from nothing, then even this would be ok.) The teacher and the class thought that my arguments were valid, and the association between infinity and 0 were important. If 0 exists, then infinity exists. Of course a mathematician would take issue with this, particularly one who bases proofs based upon rules and then makes conclusions upon those rules. Mathematicians have a lot of rules about infinities, which are interesting to consider, such as, not all infinities are equal, some are bigger than others, but I digress. To avoid a big conflict with a lot of people, let’s just leave this as“ You can not divide by 0,” I have got to try and choose my battles.

Have you taken this up with a calculus teacher? One can define infinity as:

lim 1/x

x->0+

(the right handed limit of 1/x as x approaches 0)

One can define negative infinity as:

lim 1/x

x->0-

(the left handed limit of 1/x as x approaches 0)

So:

lim 1/x

x->0

Does not exist, because that would require that:

lim 1/x = lim 1/x

x->0+ x->0-

Since one equals infinity, and the other equals negative infinity, they don't equal eachother. There is not even a way to say that:

lim 1/x=infinity

x->0

Pi Man

2003-Sep-18, 08:41 PM

Thanks --- for your interest in my theory, or at least arguing for the right to present ideas in the forum.

I should also thank the staff of Bad Astronomy for the form. I also think it would be kind of neat if a major advance in physics came not from some academic but from an amateur whose voice would only be found on the internet.

Imagine what it is like for me.

Trying to have my theory seriously considered has been one of the most frustrating events to endure in my life. Imagine that one day you discover an important relationship that is on the scale of the relationships discovered by Kepler or Newton. Imagine that everyone you try to tell the theory to assumes you are a “crack pot” without even considering the theory. Imagine every person of an academic background “shuns” you. Professors will ignore you, (“I must get 40 of these (theories) a year, I just made up my mind not to look at them”) Emails and phone calls will be left with no response. (Although I must thank George E. Hrabovsky of the Society of Amateur Scientists for his conclusion that the theory was “mathematically consistent”. George writes a regular column called "From the Mind of a Theorist” in the Society’s electronic magazine .) Anyways, I am truly appreciative of the opportunity given here, and am especially thankful for the responses.

I know how you feel. I recently had a really sound, mathematical theory which explained a lot. GR and SR fell right out of it (and I've since found other reasons why they did). I contacted the author of a favorite book of mine, and he refered me to a graduate student at Columbia University. It turned out that he was on a Mac, so it was pretty hard to get the document that I had written about my theory to him, giving me time to question him a little bit first. This turned out to be really helpful later on, because a lot of my mistakes had already been taken care of before he even recieved the document.

I would suggest that you contact someone that is willing to give you some time, and ask a few questions, gain his/her respect, before you give him/her your whole theory.

informant

2003-Sep-18, 09:23 PM

[math hijack]

Ahem…

Oh yes. When I argued with my teachers. I usually convinced them I was right.

Which does not mean that you were…

Give us examples, and what people they have been teaching. i.e. High-school, College... etc.

Also, regarding the first time I convinced my teacher that I was right was in 6th grade. It was a mathematics problem regarding the invalidity of dividing a number by 0. I asserted that if infinity were allowed to exist, (as taught in class and represented in the math book) then division by 0 must exist.

Why is that?

Divide 1 by 1 and get 1, divide 1 by .1 and get 10, as the divisor approaches 0 the result approaches infinity. It is only when the divisor equals 0 does the result equal infinity.

The result of what?

I therefore thought that infinity is just an abstraction, just as 0 must be.

Certainly. All numbers are abstractions. :)

Of course a mathematician would take issue with this, particularly one who bases proofs based upon rules and then makes conclusions upon those rules.

Are there any mathematicians who don’t?

Mathematicians have a lot of rules about infinities, which are interesting to consider, such as, not all infinities are equal, some are bigger than others, but I digress.

It isn’t a rule that we “have”. We prove that it is so.

[/math hijack]

snowflakeuniverse

2003-Sep-20, 01:55 AM

Just a few notes about infinity and 0

If 1/x = y then as x approaches 0, y approaches infinity.

Note that this is different than

If 1/x = y then as x approaches 0, y = infinity.

I prefer the first equation; calculus uses the second, as illustrated by Pi Man.

Once the second equation is assumed, one must adopt the rule that you cannot divide by 0.

If one assumes the first equation, then 0 and infinity do not exist. (At least not in our reality, or at least until the end of time). This was proved by Pi Man when he showed that a negative infinity would equal a positive infinity, which is even stronger than the result I mentioned which is that 0 = 1, 2 or any number.

The reason I state that the first relationship is a more valid expression, is that it conforms to the physical reality of our universe. Granted one can set up any set of rules, but the best ones are the ones that actually correspond to our reality.

The reason I assert that there is no true 0 and no infinity in our reality is because of the quantum nature at the smallest intervals of observation. The smallest distance that it is possible to measure is the Planck distance, which is 1.61 x 10^(-35) meters. The smallest interval of time is 5.391 x 10^(-44) seconds. Since it is impossible to measure any intervals smaller than this, than this represents a true limit. For a relationship described by a/x = y , the smallest value x can take must be either a Planck distance or Planck time. Y will be very big, but never infinity. There is no 0 or no infinity that is possible to measure in our reality.

There is one caveat. If there is no possible way to discern one state from another, then there is no way to measure distance or time, so whatever the dimensional association with a relationship described by 1/x = y then x now takes on the value of 0. This, according to my unorthodox “definition”, is the only time that infinity is reached , y = infinity. This also results in the weird relationships pointed out by Pi Man (- infinity = + infinity or as I stated 0 = 1, 2 or any number. This makes no sensed in our reality, but it does make sense in terms of the recreation of the universe itself. Out of nothing everything is possible 0 = 1. )

It is with a fair amount if trepidation that I make this post on this topic since it is more philosophical than fact. I think it is also important to note that this is the kind of thinking I was doing in sixth grade. Rather than just accept the “rules” “you can not divide by 0”, I figured out an example which showed that in one math problem, when a number is divided by 0, infinity is reached. If the divisor is anything short of 0, the result will always be short of infinity. The next posts will be more on topic.

One quick thought about what I associate with the word “abstractions”. Abstractions do not have to physically exist, numbers can be abstractions or represent reality. I can have 1 apple, 2 apples or even 0 apples. Here the numbers have a “real” meaning, but by themselves 1, and 2 are abstractions. A mathematician is comfortable with abstractions; an amateur theoretical physicist is more comfortable with reality.

snowflake

snowflakeuniverse

2003-Sep-20, 02:01 AM

Hi Pi Man

I knew you would not believe me that General Relativity does not conform to the conservation of energy principle. If you check out the following link you will see postings about this topic written by those who you may feel are better sources than I am about general relativity.

http://sciastro.astronomy.net/ This will lead to frequently asked questions. I have pasted the following information from this site.

Subject: I.17 Since energy is conserved, where does the energy of

redshifted photons go?

Author: Peter Newman <p.r.newman@uclan.ac.uk>

The energy of a photon is given by E = hc/lambda, where h is Planck's

constant, c is the speed of light, and lambda is its wavelength. The

cosmological redshift indicates that the wavelength of a photon

increases as it travels over cosmological distances in the Universe.

Thus, its energy decreases.

One of the basic conservation laws is that energy is conserved. The

decrease in the energy of redshifted photons seems to violate that

law. However, this argument is flawed. Specifically, there is a flaw

in assuming Newtonian conservation laws in general relativistic

situations. To quote Peebles (_Principles of Physical Cosmology_,

1995, p. 139):

Where does the lost energy go? ... The resolution of this

apparent paradox is that while energy conservation is a good

local concept ... and can be defined more generally in the

special case of an isolated system in asymptotically flat space,

there is not a general global energy conservation law in general

relativity theory.

In other words, on small scales, say the size of a cluster of

galaxies, the notion of energy conservation is a good one. However,

on the size scales of the Universe, one can no longer define a

quantity E_total, much less a quantity that is conserved.

If you abandon for a moment the idea of a wave description of light, (which is another faulty or mistaken description physicists associate with light) and consider light as a particle, then it becomes clearer how the energy is lost. If 10 photons are traveling in an expanding space time field, there will always be 10 photons traveling through this space time field. As these 10 photons travel through an expanding spacetime field, their wavelengths will be increased. The energy of the 10 photons is greatest when they first start out, and the energy is diminished as the 10 photons travel through the expanding space. When the 10 photons are finally observed, the energy will be less than when they started. Where did the energy go?

(The answer as to where the energy went can be made by using a typical relativistic description. The universe is like a balloon, as the balloon stretches, the energy contained is diminished. A balloon with a specific amount of air has energy in it when the surface of the balloon is tight, or the air inside is compressed. If the rubber in the balloon is relaxed, the balloon increases in size and the energy contained within the balloon is diminished. So the energy is not actually gone, it becomes part of the expansion of space. )

Now I think the point about the mistakes of astronomy regarding the cosmlogial red shift is clearer. First, since a photon travels at the speed of light, then time “stands still” for the photon. (If the twin traveling at the speed of light does not age, how can the photon traveling at the speed of light change”?)

Those who know general relativity respond with arguments that are based upon a model of the universe that has space curved, which forces the photons to lose energy. I agree with this in principle, despite how incomplete general relativity is as a theory. The issue then becomes the inconsistency of a description of a universe that allows energy of photons to lose energy with the expansion of space-time, yet it exempts the loss of energy associated with matter. This was illustrated by the E = mcc argument. Re stating it another way. Start with two equal masses. Turn one to electromagnetic energy. Now, supposedly, only the electromagnetic energy is lost over time, the energy associated with the mass is not diminished. This is flawed, the loss of energy with the expansion of space is uniform. Even mass losses energy with the expansion of space. There is no differentiation between local and global, the effect is uniform. It is the only way that E= mcc can be valid for both situations, (energy as light and energy as a mass). otherwise provisions need to be placed on E=mcc.

I stated that this loss of energy is the supposed “dark energy”. Just as a car accelerates using the energy within its gas tank, so too does the expansion of space occur by using the energy found within its existing structure.

snowflake

Pi Man

2003-Sep-20, 04:29 AM

Hi Pi Man

I knew you would not believe me that General Relativity does not conform to the conservation of energy principle.

But it does conform to the conservation of mass/energy principal. Energy can be lost, but only if mass is generated. Mass can be lost, but only if energy is generated.

If you check out the following link you will see postings about this topic written by those who you may feel are better sources than I am about general relativity.

http://sciastro.astronomy.net/ This will lead to frequently asked questions. I have pasted the following information from this site.

I can't seem to make the link work. Can you re-check it, please? I'd like to see more of the conversation.

Subject: I.17 Since energy is conserved, where does the energy of

redshifted photons go?

Author: Peter Newman <p.r.newman@uclan.ac.uk>

The energy of a photon is given by E = hc/lambda, where h is Planck's

constant, c is the speed of light, and lambda is its wavelength. The

cosmological redshift indicates that the wavelength of a photon

increases as it travels over cosmological distances in the Universe.

Thus, its energy decreases.

One of the basic conservation laws is that energy is conserved. The

decrease in the energy of redshifted photons seems to violate that

law. However, this argument is flawed. Specifically, there is a flaw

in assuming Newtonian conservation laws in general relativistic

situations. To quote Peebles (_Principles of Physical Cosmology_,

1995, p. 139):

Where does the lost energy go? ... The resolution of this

apparent paradox is that while energy conservation is a good

local concept ... and can be defined more generally in the

special case of an isolated system in asymptotically flat space,

there is not a general global energy conservation law in general

relativity theory.

In other words, on small scales, say the size of a cluster of

galaxies, the notion of energy conservation is a good one. However,

on the size scales of the Universe, one can no longer define a

quantity E_total, much less a quantity that is conserved.

If you abandon for a moment the idea of a wave description of light, (which is another faulty or mistaken description physicists associate with light) and consider light as a particle, then it becomes clearer how the energy is lost.

A wave description of light is not a falicy. Light exibits every property that any other wave does. (ie. diffusion, interference, etc...) One can't even view it as a particle (photons) unless one is trying to measure the particle properties of it.

If 10 photons are traveling in an expanding space time field, there will always be 10 photons traveling through this space time field. As these 10 photons travel through an expanding spacetime field, their wavelengths will be increased. The energy of the 10 photons is greatest when they first start out, and the energy is diminished as the 10 photons travel through the expanding space. When the 10 photons are finally observed, the energy will be less than when they started. Where did the energy go?

There's no way to say that the 10 photons have been 10 photons since they left the source. QM 101 says that the light has no state at all, let alone a specific number of photons in the beam, until you measure it.

(The answer as to where the energy went can be made by using a typical relativistic description. The universe is like a balloon, as the balloon stretches, the energy contained is diminished. A balloon with a specific amount of air has energy in it when the surface of the balloon is tight, or the air inside is compressed. If the rubber in the balloon is relaxed, the balloon increases in size and the energy contained within the balloon is diminished. So the energy is not actually gone, it becomes part of the expansion of space. )

Well, light is known to exert a little bit of pressure. I doubt it would be enough to account for the amount by which the universe's expansion has increased.

You recently asserted that the expansion of the universe is not accelerating at all. The dark energy is the hypothetical source of energy that is causing the accelerating expansion. Are you now admitting that the expansion of the universe is accelerating? :-k

Now I think the point about the mistakes of astronomy regarding the cosmlogial red shift is clearer. First, since a photon travels at the speed of light, then time “stands still” for the photon. (If the twin traveling at the speed of light does not age, how can the photon traveling at the speed of light change”?)

As you watch a photon, what you percieve as it's direction of motion, it percieves as it's time dimension. It is traveling through time, but it's time dimension is one of your spacial dimensions.

Those who know general relativity respond with arguments that are based upon a model of the universe that has space curved, which forces the photons to lose energy. I agree with this in principle, despite how incomplete general relativity is as a theory. The issue then becomes the inconsistency of a description of a universe that allows energy of photons to lose energy with the expansion of space-time, yet it exempts the loss of energy associated with matter. This was illustrated by the E = mcc argument. Re stating it another way. Start with two equal masses. Turn one to electromagnetic energy. Now, supposedly, only the electromagnetic energy is lost over time, the energy associated with the mass is not diminished. This is flawed, the loss of energy with the expansion of space is uniform. Even mass losses energy with the expansion of space. There is no differentiation between local and global, the effect is uniform. It is the only way that E= mcc can be valid for both situations, (energy as light and energy as a mass). otherwise provisions need to be placed on E=mcc.

The expansion of space does not cause the loss of any energy. See above.

I stated that this loss of energy is the supposed “dark energy”. Just as a car accelerates using the energy within its gas tank, so too does the expansion of space occur by using the energy found within its existing structure.

Again, you earlier stated that the expansion was not accelerating. Are you recanting that?

informant

2003-Sep-20, 12:36 PM

I notice that you did not reply to my questions. I won’t push it, because this side conversation is indeed bordering on the off-topic, although it does serve to test your ability to theorize.

About your latest post:

Just a few notes about infinity and 0

If 1/x = y then as x approaches 0, y approaches infinity.

Note that this is different than

If 1/x = y then as x approaches 0, y = infinity.

It is indeed different. The first sentence is true; the second is false. But I’ve never seen or read a mathematician using the second sentence.

I prefer the first equation; calculus uses the second, as illustrated by Pi Man.

I think you misinterpreted Pi Man’s post. You had written before:

I asserted that if infinity were allowed to exist, (as taught in class and represented in the math book) then division by 0 must exist.

He was trying to show you why this is not true.

If one assumes the first equation, then 0 and infinity do not exist. (At least not in our reality, or at least until the end of time). This was proved by Pi Man when he showed that a negative infinity would equal a positive infinity, which is even stronger than the result I mentioned which is that 0 = 1, 2 or any number.

What Pi Man showed was that there is no consistent way to define 1 divided by zero in the usual framework of basic calculus. This means that a particular relation between two entities cannot be defined. It does not mean that those entities do not exist.

The reason I assert that there is no true 0 and no infinity in our reality is because of the quantum nature at the smallest intervals of observation. The smallest distance that it is possible to measure is the Planck distance, which is 1.61 x 10^(-35) meters. The smallest interval of time is 5.391 x 10^(-44) seconds. Since it is impossible to measure any intervals smaller than this, than this represents a true limit. For a relationship described by a/x = y , the smallest value x can take must be either a Planck distance or Planck time. Y will be very big, but never infinity. There is no 0 or no infinity that is possible to measure in our reality.

That would mean that a car can never stop moving, since it can’t have zero velocity…

Or that a box of chocolates can’t be empty, because it can never have zero chocolates…

Or that a company can never go bankrupt, because it can’t own zero dollars…

I think you’re forgetting that physics – quantum physics, specifically – is not the only science that uses math. No science uses the whole of mathematics, but just because a concept may not make sense in your field, it doesn’t mean that it can’t occur in another field of science.

I think it is also important to note that this is the kind of thinking I was doing in sixth grade. Rather than just accept the “rules” “you can not divide by 0”, I figured out an example which showed that in one math problem, when a number is divided by 0, infinity is reached.

I think it’s wonderful that you were able to think outside the box at that age. But your 6th grade impressions on infinity – and zero – should have been revised when you took calculus.

It is with a fair amount if trepidation that I make this post on this topic since it is more philosophical than fact.

The worse that can happen is the BA scolding us for getting off-topic. Then we’ll stop the conversation. But, since you wrote posts like this one (http://www.badastronomy.com/phpBB/viewtopic.php?p=140814#140814) earlier in this thread, I think it’s worth exploring your ability to spot mistakes in science a bit.

Pi Man

2003-Sep-20, 05:29 PM

The worse that can happen is the BA scolding us for getting off-topic. Then we’ll stop the conversation. But, since you wrote posts like this one (http://www.badastronomy.com/phpBB/viewtopic.php?p=140814#140814) earlier in this thread, I think it’s worth exploring your ability to spot mistakes in science a bit.

I agree that this should be discussed further, but this isn't the place.

BTW, I once reasoned out that if one obtained the speed of light, he would have an equal chance of going foreward and backward in time. How did I arrive at this conclusion? Beats me! I forgot a long time ago! :D

informant

2003-Sep-20, 06:15 PM

Perhaps you're right.

There is a wrong assumption in snowflakeuniverse's reasoning, which I have pointed out, but both he and you seem to prefer not to pursue the matter, and I agree that it is marginal.

I will just direct snowflakeuniverse to two websites, that I hope will give him a better perspective on the issue:

Does infinity exist? (http://www.math.toronto.edu/mathnet/answers/infinity.html)

Division by zero. (http://mathworld.wolfram.com/DivisionbyZero.html)

Pi Man

2003-Sep-20, 06:42 PM

Why don't you start a new thread on the BABBling forum on division by 0 and infinity. I would be happy to continue this conversation in a more apropriate forum!

informant

2003-Sep-20, 07:37 PM

Here it is:

infinity and division by zero (http://www.badastronomy.com/phpBB/viewtopic.php?p=143665#143665)

snowflakeuniverse

2003-Sep-21, 02:06 PM

Hi Pi Man

1. Link to Energy Lost with General Relativity.

I checked the link and it works but I can’t link from the BA page. Cut and past the link into your browser directly. Hopefully this will help convince you that at least others argue that GR “violates” the conservation of energy principle. The expansion of space causes photons to loose energy. (Actually it is an effect that my balloon example I mentioned earlier explains the situation better, ie the energy is not lost, it is the result of the “work extracted” as the universe expands. )

2. Fallacy of the wave properties of light.

You also responded to another mistake that I believe is made by physicists regarding the wave properties exhibited by light

“A wave description of light is not a falicy. Light exibits every property that any other wave does. (ie. diffusion, interference, etc...) One can't even view it as a particle (photons) unless one is trying to measure the particle properties of it.”

I will illustrate in the next posting how the effects of diffusion, interference, etc, can occur even if light is ONLY a particle.

3. Questions of my 10 Photon example.

You questioned my 10 photon example “There's no way to say that the 10 photons have been 10 photons since they left the source. QM 101 says that the light has no state at all, let alone a specific number of photons in the beam, until you measure it. “

This is true, but it is possible to statistically determine how many photons are being detected per unit of time. This is how we measure intensity. All calculations associated with distance to stellar objects and the observed brightness are essentially include determinations of the number of photons received per unit of time.

We can predict that with a certain type of star, at a given distance, with the given telescope, with the given atmospheric conditions, with the given amount of space dust. etc, a specific number of photons should be detected per unit of time. For those situations where it is possible to actually measure distance, the number of photons are not increased with the increase in red shift. This effect (more photons with increased red shift) would be required in your explanation of the “standard” Doppler shift in order to keep the energy received constant.

4 Reiterate concept. Energy is lost with the expansion of space.

Not only do photons loose energy as they travel through an expanding space-time field (a point accepted by most of those followers of general relativity) but I assert that even mass looses energy with the expansion of space time. Again, this is because of the equivalence indicated by E= mcc. What ever happens on one side of the equation (when E = electromagnet energy) must be valid for the other side of the equation (when Mass carries properties of energy)

Note this is not a new idea, some have predicted Proton decay, which is in accord with this relationship. (Once the energy is liberated from the proton decay as electromagnetic energy, energy will be lost due to the expansion of space. This can be argued to maintain the necessary balance implied by the E = mcc). Despite millions of dollars spent looking for proton decay, no decays of protons were found. The problem here is that matter was not lost, it is just that the energy of the proton is diminished, not destroyed. This is a much harder effect to detect and present research techniques will not find it the way they are looking.

5. Deceleration of Universe

Regarding the assertion that the universe is decelerating, I still assert that it is. Objects moving faster in the past than the present are decelerating. Nothing changes that logic. Granted one can select a reference frame that makes these measures relative, but I argued that it is best to use coordinate systems that all would agree on for the same description of the same physical phenomenon. The fact that I used the word “acceleration” for a car, I did not mean to imply the universe was accelerating, it was given to illustrate the energy associated with the expansion of space since it takes energy to accelerate.)

There is one very major point I should clarify, In my model the distance between points decreases with the passage of Cosmic Time. This is therefore deceleration. But on the other hand, the rate of deceleration between points is exactly at the rate that predicts that the VOLUME of space ACCELERATES with the expansion of space. This is a very specific relationship that allows the distance between two points to decelerate, but the volume of space that includes the two points to accelerate with time.

6. Problem. Decelerating distance, accelerating volume

Assume a balloon is expanding. The distance from the center of the balloon to the edge of the balloon is always increasing, and the rate of linear expansion is less and less but never equals 0. What expression describes this rate of expansion if the volume of the balloon is accelerating ie the volume is increasing at a faster and faster rate? (Initially this would appear to be impossible, but I bet Informant can figure out the rate, if he has time.)

snowflake

Donnie B.

2003-Sep-21, 02:59 PM

sfu, I have no idea what you mean when you say that "mass loses energy over time". A particular mass M embodies a particular amount of energy, specifically, M times the speed of light squared (when all quantities are given in the appropriate units).

There are only two ways this equivalent energy can decrease over time. Either that mass M must decrease, or the speed of light c must decrease. Which of these things do you think is happening? If M is decreasing, what's happening to it? Is it getting converted to something else? Is it just shrinking like a deflating balloon? Is every individual particle becoming less massive? What evidence is there for any such effect?

If c is decreasing, why can't we see the effects of that change when we observe distant galaxies (whose light was emitted when c was larger)?

Unless you have a reasonable answer for one of the above questions, the phrase "mass loses energy" is utterly meaningless. It's like saying "force loses acceleration".

Grey

2003-Sep-22, 03:47 AM

The expansion of space causes photons to loose energy.

You're correct that the issue of conservation of energy becomes a much more complex one under general relativity. For those of you who are interested, here (http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/Relativity/GR/energy_gr.html) is a pretty good discussion of the issues involved. I general, the derivative forms of conservation of energy still hold (energy is always conserved in any infinitesimal region of space), but we run into some problems with the integral forms (so energy conservation over a large region may be harder to pin down).

Regarding the assertion that the universe is decelerating, I still assert that it is. Objects moving faster in the past than the present are decelerating. Nothing changes that logic.

Your logic is correct, but distant galaxies are not examples of such objects. You still fail to see that in none of your examples were you comparing the velocity of one object to the velocity of that same object at a later time and in the same reference frame. You compared the velocities of different objects at different times, or compared the velocities of a single object in several different reference frames. If you do look at the recession velocity of a galaxy, wait a billion years, and then measure it again, you'll find that it's receding faster the second time. Moreover, you'll find that the recession velocity has increased more than linearly with the distance. The expansion of the universe is accelerating.

However, let's not spend too much time dwelling on that. Instead, you've said that you have a model, based on formulae. So, let's see the model and the equations that describe it! From there we can continue to talk about it meaningfully.

kilopi

2003-Sep-22, 04:18 AM

Just a few notes about infinity and 0

If 1/x = y then as x approaches 0, y approaches infinity.

Note that this is different than

If 1/x = y then as x approaches 0, y = infinity.

It is indeed different. The first sentence is true; the second is false. But I’ve never seen or read a mathematician using the second sentence.

I prefer the first equation; calculus uses the second, as illustrated by Pi Man.

I think you misinterpreted Pi Man’s post.

I agree with informant. You misinterpreted Pi Man, and you misrepresented the mathematics.

Pi Man

2003-Sep-22, 05:54 AM

Hi Pi Man

1. Link to Energy Lost with General Relativity.

I checked the link and it works but I can’t link from the BA page. Cut and past the link into your browser directly. Hopefully this will help convince you that at least others argue that GR “violates” the conservation of energy principle. The expansion of space causes photons to loose energy. (Actually it is an effect that my balloon example I mentioned earlier explains the situation better, ie the energy is not lost, it is the result of the “work extracted” as the universe expands. )

Ah, found it... and then found that you had already posted all of the relavent info...

2. Fallacy of the wave properties of light.

You also responded to another mistake that I believe is made by physicists regarding the wave properties exhibited by light

“A wave description of light is not a falicy. Light exibits every property that any other wave does. (ie. diffusion, interference, etc...) One can't even view it as a particle (photons) unless one is trying to measure the particle properties of it.”

I will illustrate in the next posting how the effects of diffusion, interference, etc, can occur even if light is ONLY a particle.

Okey smokey... I'll be looking forward to that.

3. Questions of my 10 Photon example.

You questioned my 10 photon example “There's no way to say that the 10 photons have been 10 photons since they left the source. QM 101 says that the light has no state at all, let alone a specific number of photons in the beam, until you measure it. “

This is true, but it is possible to statistically determine how many photons are being detected per unit of time. This is how we measure intensity. All calculations associated with distance to stellar objects and the observed brightness are essentially include determinations of the number of photons received per unit of time.

We can predict that with a certain type of star, at a given distance, with the given telescope, with the given atmospheric conditions, with the given amount of space dust. etc, a specific number of photons should be detected per unit of time. For those situations where it is possible to actually measure distance, the number of photons are not increased with the increase in red shift. This effect (more photons with increased red shift) would be required in your explanation of the “standard” Doppler shift in order to keep the energy received constant.

Yes, we can measure how many photons have struck our detector, but that doesn't say anything about how many photons they were when they left the source. And, by Hisenburg, there is no way to say, "the number of photons are not increased with the increase in red shift" and verify it with measurements.

4 Reiterate concept. Energy is lost with the expansion of space.

Not only do photons loose energy as they travel through an expanding space-time field (a point accepted by most of those followers of general relativity) but I assert that even mass looses energy with the expansion of space time. Again, this is because of the equivalence indicated by E= mcc. What ever happens on one side of the equation (when E = electromagnet energy) must be valid for the other side of the equation (when Mass carries properties of energy)

Okey smokey... if the expansion of space did cause light to lose energy, then yes, it would cause mass to loose energy.

Note this is not a new idea, some have predicted Proton decay, which is in accord with this relationship.

Ummm... Protons decay into neutron/electron pairs (and eject an electron neutrino)

(Once the energy is liberated from the proton decay as electromagnetic energy, energy will be lost due to the expansion of space. This can be argued to maintain the necessary balance implied by the E = mcc). Despite millions of dollars spent looking for proton decay, no decays of protons were found. The problem here is that matter was not lost, it is just that the energy of the proton is diminished, not destroyed. This is a much harder effect to detect and present research techniques will not find it the way they are looking.

The missing matter is released in a small burst of energy, released mostly as momentum.

5. Deceleration of Universe

Regarding the assertion that the universe is decelerating, I still assert that it is. Objects moving faster in the past than the present are decelerating. Nothing changes that logic. Granted one can select a reference frame that makes these measures relative, but I argued that it is best to use coordinate systems that all would agree on for the same description of the same physical phenomenon. The fact that I used the word “acceleration” for a car, I did not mean to imply the universe was accelerating, it was given to illustrate the energy associated with the expansion of space since it takes energy to accelerate.)

There is one very major point I should clarify, In my model the distance between points decreases with the passage of Cosmic Time. This is therefore deceleration. But on the other hand, the rate of deceleration between points is exactly at the rate that predicts that the VOLUME of space ACCELERATES with the expansion of space. This is a very specific relationship that allows the distance between two points to decelerate, but the volume of space that includes the two points to accelerate with time.

You keep refering to the "missing" energy from the expansion as "dark energy". The dark energy is what is causing the universe to accelerate. If the universe is not accelerating in it's expansion, then there is no need for dark energy.

6. Problem. Decelerating distance, accelerating volume

Assume a balloon is expanding. The distance from the center of the balloon to the edge of the balloon is always increasing, and the rate of linear expansion is less and less but never equals 0. What expression describes this rate of expansion if the volume of the balloon is accelerating ie the volume is increasing at a faster and faster rate? (Initially this would appear to be impossible, but I bet Informant can figure out the rate, if he has time.)

For the purpose of discussion, I will reduce the universe by one dimension and speak of it that way. If you wish, I will redo the calculations for a higher dimensional universe in a later post.

Our universe is a 3 dimensional space wrapped into the 4th dimension, so the analogy would be a 2 dimensional plane wrapped into a 3 dimensional sphere.

Since we live on the "surface" of the sphere, what we need to look at is the surface area of the sphere.

The surface area of a sphere of radius r is:

S(r)=4*pi*r^2

The distance between two points on the sphere is:

D(r)=2*pi*r*k (where k is a constant between 0 and 1, signifying the distance around the circle)

the first derivitive will give us the rate of change "velocity" functions.

S'(r)=8*pi*r

D'(r)=2*pi*k

The second derivitive will give us the acceleration

S''(r)=8*pi

D''(r)=0 (since k is a constant)

If you notice, the acceleration of the surface area (the volume of the universe) cannot ever be greater than the acceleration of the radius.

Pi Man

2003-Sep-24, 05:49 PM

Are you still there, Snowflake? 8-[

(I'd call you "Flakey" but you might take it the wrong way...) :D

Cougar

2003-Sep-24, 07:41 PM

1. Link to Energy Lost with General Relativity.

Ah, found it... and then found that you had already posted all of the relavent info...

So do you agree that energy is not conserved on the largest of cosmic scales?

Cougar

2003-Sep-24, 07:52 PM

If a photon looses energy with the expansion of space, shouldn’t mass also loose energy?

I follow your logic, but I don't know if this is valid. The photon loses energy because it is traveling through expanding space at c. Mass, however, is not traveling at c, so I see no mechanism for it to lose any energy. Still, I don't think E=mcc requires modification because it doesn't really speak to the scenario where the "E" is covering billions of lightyears.

Pi Man

2003-Sep-25, 05:15 AM

1. Link to Energy Lost with General Relativity.

Ah, found it... and then found that you had already posted all of the relavent info...

So do you agree that energy is not conserved on the largest of cosmic scales?

No! I do not!

Cosmic expansion just "spreads" the same amount of energy over a longer distance/time.

snowflakeuniverse

2003-Sep-26, 11:52 PM

Pi

Congratulations, You have a good mind. You are close, I think I should have more carefully defined what acceleration of a volume is. I think you will find the following relationships interesting. They are also important to my theory. I am finally beginning to write down formulas that pertain to my theoretical model that describes how the universe expands. The following example leads to important relationships of my theory.

If the radius of a balloon is described by the following expression

R = k T^(2/3) ( R = radius, k constant, T = measure of time)

The rate at which the distance changes with respect to T is

d/dT R = d/dT (k T^(2/3)) = (2/3 k) T^(-1/3)

If you use your plotting calculator with y = x^(-1/3) you will find that the slope is negative and is continuously approaching 0. The radius of our balloon is always increasing but at a slower and slower rate.

Now lets look at how the volume of this balloon increases when the radius expands at the above rate.

V = kk R^3 (kk = constant) and R = k T^(2/3)

V = kk (k T^(2/3))^3 = (kk x k ) T^2

The volume is increasing at the squared elapsed measure of time. Every time the elapsed time doubles, the volume of space is increased 4 times, yet the increase in distance is T^(2/3) or 2^(2/3) = 1.587… times bigger.

But this is not acceleration,. The rate that the volume is increasing is

dV/dT = d/dT ((kk x k )T^2) = K T (K is a constant) . The volume of space is increasing linearly with the passage of time.

The rate that the rate of the volume is increasing is acceleration, so taking the next derivative we get.

d/dT KT = K

The acceleration rate describing the growth of a volume of space is constant and positive, (like the acceleration of a ball in a uniform gravitational field is constant).

The balloon's radius is increasing at a slower and slower rate, yet the volume within the ballon is constantly accelerating, or increasing at a faster and faster rate.

dV/dT is increasing at a rate described by a linear measure of time. This is a very important relationship in my Theory since the relationships above forms the basis by which I propose the expansion of space is described.

If a volume of space is represented by S, then the above expansion is described by dS/dt = KT. If we state this expression as a “word sentence” it could be stated that a change in space per time equals time, or because space changes, time exists. (I know you are probably responding with “what a bunch of ****”). Irregardless of how you may respond to a formula that has some kind of metaphysical association, please do not give up on me yet. The above rate of expansion will be shown to allow a uniform expansion of space, yet maintain celestial and atomic stability. In fact, the above theoretical rate of expansion will be shown to predict Newton’s gravitational Laws a lot more simply than Einstein’s theory of General Relativity.

snowflake

snowflakeuniverse

2003-Sep-27, 12:12 AM

Gray

Thank you for the post that the current accepted description of the expansion of space states that local events are described differently from global events. One of my points is that in my proposed model there is no separation. The expansion of space is uniform so its effect is everywhere the same. Just as the expansion of space decreases the energy of a photon as it travels through a “global” field, so to do local events lose energy in an expanding spacetime field. This includes matter itself. (Matter in my theory is actually a relationship defined by three dimensions of space and two of time. Since Mass is part of an expanding space time field, it, just like the photon, matter looses energy with the expansion of space.)

Also, I prefer to use systems, instead of global or local events, with systems being defined as anything that can be contained in a volume of space.

I also appreciate your explicit example which differentiates our two interpretations of how the universe is expanding, Ie is it accelerating or decelerating?

IS SPACE ACCELERATING OR DECELERATING?

You stated that “Your logic is correct, but distant galaxies are not examples of such objects. You still fail to see that in none of your examples were you comparing the velocity of one object to the velocity of that same object at a later time and in the same reference frame. You compared the velocities of different objects at different times, or compared the velocities of a single object in several different reference frames. If you do look at the recession velocity of a galaxy, wait a billion years, and then measure it again, you'll find that it's receding faster the second time. Moreover, you'll find that the recession velocity has increased more than linearly with the distance. The expansion of the universe is accelerating.”

Thank you for the perspective, We have two fundamentally different ways of looking at the same events. We both would agree that type 1a supernovas appear to be further away than a linear rate of expansion, which is the reason astronomers are asserting that the expansion of space is accelerating. But this can still be decelerating, I will use your “waiting for a billion years” observation of galaxies to illustrate my point.

(QUICK CALCULATION IGNORE)

(9.5 x 10^15 meters/ light year T = D/v 1,000,000 ly x 9.5 x 10^15 metes/ly / 75,000 meter/sec = 1.26 10^17 seconds

= /365 24 3600 = 4 x 10^9 years )

Lets say that from our location we see three galaxies lined up in a row called A,B and C. The A galaxy is the closest and the C the furthest. Each galaxy is a million light years apart, so galaxy A is one million light years away from us. After waiting about 4 billion years, (based on current values of h, based on napkin calculation) the closest galaxy A appears to be located where the middle galaxy B was , and the middle galaxy is eventually located about where the furthest galaxy C was (after correcting for the extra time lag due to the expansion of space and the time required for the light to reach us, and leaving the issue of acceleration/deceleration of question) . It is my contention that when the closest galaxy A is located where the middle galaxy B is now, it’s red shift will not be as great as we presently observe of the middle galaxy. The middle galaxy B, when it is located where the furthest galaxy C was, will not have as great a red shift as the most distant galaxy presently has, this is due to deceleration of space-time.

I do agree with you that our observation of the red shift of the closest galaxy when it reaches the location of the middle galaxy will appear to be greater than it presently has, giving the appearance of each galaxy accelerating away. When the closest galaxy A reaches the apparent distance of the furthest galaxy C, it will have an even greater red shift. Eventually when the galaxies reach high red shifts, they will appear to be even further away than a linear rate of expansion would describe; therefore the universe appears to be accelerating.

Again the difference is the frame of reference. Mine is a kind of universal or Absolute Frame of Reference. If an outside frame of reference is used to describe the “absolute” motion of each galaxy over time, every galaxy would be measured as moving faster in the past than the present; therefore the universe is decelerating. Notice that in your frame of reference our galaxy is NEVER moving, yet from any other galaxy, it is determined that our galaxy has motion. Is it valid to assume that our galaxy is not moving when everyone else in the entire universe says we are? Is it better to use a frame of reference that provides a consistent description of events for everyone, or to use a frame of reference that is valid only locally, even if that local frame of reference is consistent for every global observer? Choices.

One last point, by assigning a real motion to galaxies over time from an independent frame of reference, it becomes more intuitive to apply special relativity to the duration of type 1a supernovas. Since the high red shift novas are observed at speeds which require adjustments due to special relativity, there is a “slowing” down of the duration of the nova. This adjustment of the light curve for special relativity is critical in establishing the distance of the supernova. This to me proves that there is a real motion to galaxies that is induced by the expansion of space. In the past, our galaxy was moving at relativistic speeds and now we are moving more slowly, we are decelerating. The question is, if we are moving, where are we moving? This requires another dimension since we are unable to locally observe it and it is only over the course of time that any evidence of this motion is realized. More on this later.

snowflake

P.S. your explanation of your perspective has been a tremendous help to me. Thank you.

“What we have here is a failure to communicate” from the movie “Cool Hand Luke”.

snowflakeuniverse

2003-Sep-27, 12:28 AM

Hi Donnie B.

What I mean that mass loosed energy over time is that as time progresses the amount of energy associated with a mass in our universe slowly diminishes. Just as the energy of a photon diminishes while it passes through an expanding space time field, so to does matter.

You are right that currently it is believed that there is only two ways that matter can lose energy, but if mass can be converted to energy (E= mcc) and as light travels through and expanding space time field it loses energy, why shouldn’t mass also lose energy. Some small speck of dust in some vast empty region of space that is expanding should also lose energy. If that same speck of dust could lose energy, why not include the dust particle floating in the air on earth? What prevents the loss of energy from the expansion of space being truly uniform? Why is the speed of light constant? What is the structural relationship between space and photons?

Everything has a beginning and everything has an end.

The wavelength of light will expand until its wave length is so long there is no way to measure it. The fabric of matter will also expand till there is nothing holding it together.

Soon I will be posting some of the relationships, Trying to get most of the pictures and stuff on a web site. One of the relationships will argue that space-time, and mass are defined by the same dimensional relationships.

snowflake.

wedgebert

2003-Sep-27, 03:09 AM

Why would the dust particle lose energy? Light loses energy as it travels, the dust particle just sits there. Space might be expanding, but the dust isn't.

The dust will lose energy until it reaches an equilbirium with the surrounding space and then remain at a pretty constant energy level, depending on the local conditions (falling into the shadow of a larger planet will cause a energy loss).

Pi Man

2003-Sep-27, 08:29 PM

You are thinking as if we are confined within a large sphere. One made of a 2D membrane wrapped into the 3rd dimension. This is not what is commonly accepted. (If space is finite in extent without edge or boundary) We are living in a 3D space wrapped into a hypersphere. So, you shouldn't be looking for the volume of a sphere, you should be looking for the "surface volume" (just as you would be looking for the surface area of a sphere with one less dimension) of a hypersphere (a sphere, but whith one more dimension). I don't know how to get that figure, though.

For the "hypervolume" of the hypersphere, you use this:

for a straight line:

2*r (because it's just a diameter)

for a 1 dimensional line wrapped into a circle:

pi*r^2

for a 2 dimensional membrane wrapped into a sphere:

(4/3)*pi*r^3

So, the hypervolume must contain an r^4 term

It also must contain a pi term.

Aside from that, I don't know, maybe you can figure it out.

Grey

2003-Sep-27, 09:27 PM

It is my contention that when the closest galaxy A is located where the middle galaxy B is now, it’s red shift will not be as great as we presently observe of the middle galaxy. The middle galaxy B, when it is located where the furthest galaxy C was, will not have as great a red shift as the most distant galaxy presently has, this is due to deceleration of space-time.

I do agree with you that our observation of the red shift of the closest galaxy when it reaches the location of the middle galaxy will appear to be greater than it presently has, giving the appearance of each galaxy accelerating away. When the closest galaxy A reaches the apparent distance of the furthest galaxy C, it will have an even greater red shift. Eventually when the galaxies reach high red shifts, they will appear to be even further away than a linear rate of expansion would describe; therefore the universe appears to be accelerating.

Sorry, I'm really perplexed by this. Your first statement says that the redshift will be smaller, but you second statement say that you agree with me that the redshift will be larger. Which is it that you believe?

Again the difference is the frame of reference. Mine is a kind of universal or Absolute Frame of Reference. If an outside frame of reference is used to describe the “absolute” motion of each galaxy over time, every galaxy would be measured as moving faster in the past than the present; therefore the universe is decelerating. Notice that in your frame of reference our galaxy is NEVER moving, yet from any other galaxy, it is determined that our galaxy has motion. Is it valid to assume that our galaxy is not moving when everyone else in the entire universe says we are? Is it better to use a frame of reference that provides a consistent description of events for everyone, or to use a frame of reference that is valid only locally, even if that local frame of reference is consistent for every global observer? Choices.

I don't actually think there's a universal reference frame. But any reference frame you choose is "universal" in the sense that you'd get the same results. You'll get a "consistent description of events", since even though the speeds you'll measure for any individual galaxy will be different, the overall pattern will be the same.

What would you be using as your choice of reference frame, and how are you deciding that it's the best one? Are you imagining a hypersphere, and centering your frame of reference on the center? If so, remember that it's not the volume or the surface area that we're talking about when discussing how distance changes with time. The distance between two fixed points on a sphere of how ever many dimensions scales directly with the radius. So when astronomers talk about the acceleration of the expansion, they mean the rate at which distance changes, not the rate at which volume changes. Yes, that means that even if the Hubble constant really is constant, the rate at which the volume of the universe is changing is increasing steadily. Measuring the position of galaxies from a center point of a hypersphere won't change whether the rate of expansion is accelerating or decelerating. You'd get the same results if you picked any specific point on the hypersphere; our galaxy for example.

...type 1a supernovas. Since the high red shift novas...

THis is pedantic, and shouldn't be taken as a real criticism. You shouldn't use the terms "nova" and "supernova" interchangeably. These are actually two completely distinct types of events involving very different objects, so it can be confusing if you use the one term to refer to the other.

P.S. your explanation of your perspective has been a tremendous help to me. Thank you.

No trouble at all. I'm enjoying the conversation. I'd be very happy if you'd provide further details of exactly how your theory works.

So, the hypervolume must contain an r^4 term

It also must contain a pi term.

Aside from that, I don't know, maybe you can figure it out.

I can answer this one. The "hypervolume" of a hypersphere is 1/2 pi^2 r^4. The "surface volume" (the analog to the surface area of a sphere) is 2 pi^2 r^3. But note that as I pointed out above, these formulae have no effect on the rate at which objects on the surface of a hypersphere move apart. That goes like the radius, regardless of the number of dimensions.

Pi Man

2003-Sep-28, 04:55 AM

I can answer this one. The "hypervolume" of a hypersphere is 1/2 pi^2 r^4. The "surface volume" (the analog to the surface area of a sphere) is 2 pi^2 r^3. But note that as I pointed out above, these formulae have no effect on the rate at which objects on the surface of a hypersphere move apart. That goes like the radius, regardless of the number of dimensions.

Cool! Thanks, grey! How did you find out? Did you just figure it out, or did you find it on a website? If it's a website, I'd love to have the address!

As for the rate at which objects on the surface of a hypersphere move apard, the rate would just be this:

The distance would be:

D=2*pi*r*k (where k is a constant between 0 and 1)

The rate of change of the distance would be:

dD/dr=2*pi*k

Grey

2003-Sep-28, 05:53 AM

Cool! Thanks, grey! How did you find out? Did you just figure it out, or did you find it on a website? If it's a website, I'd love to have the address!

No trouble. I'd actually worked this out once, so I knew the answer. But a quick check shows that entering "volume of a hypersphere" into Google gives all kinds of results. Here (http://www-staff.lboro.ac.uk/~coael/hypersphere.pdf)'s one that gives a derivation of the volume analog for an n-dimensional sphere. And of course the surface area analog is always just the derivative of the volume with respect to the radius.

As for the rate at which objects on the surface of a hypersphere move apard, the rate would just be this:

The distance would be:

D=2*pi*r*k (where k is a constant between 0 and 1)

The rate of change of the distance would be:

dD/dr=2*pi*k

Well you should probably restrict k to less than 1/2, or take out that factor of 2 in the front. Otherwise, you're taking the long way around! :D If k were 1 it would mean that your target is right behind you, so it would be easier to just turn around rather than circumnavigate the hypersphere. Note that you'd use this exact same formula for a circle or a sphere. Oh, and even if the universe turns out not to have positive curvature (so there is no "radius"), which is looking pretty likely these days, you can still define a value of r as a scale factor, which works more or less the same for these kinds of calculations.

Pi Man

2003-Sep-29, 05:34 PM

Well, technically it could be more than one, in which case it would just be the analog of going around the whole universe to get to it. If it was more than 2, then you'd have to go around twice to get to it... and so on... However, that's only a mathematical relationship. It has no real relavence.

Pi Man

2003-Oct-02, 06:45 PM

What do you think, Snowflake?

kilopi

2003-Oct-02, 07:18 PM

What do you think, Snowflake?

Math has no relavence? How can you say that? :)

Pi Man

2003-Oct-02, 08:17 PM

Math has no relavence? How can you say that? :)

All I'm saying is that that particular relationship is much easier if you start out by taking the modulus of k with 1, and you know it! :lol:

10/6

there was only a one week delay

opening the Math Lab

which acording to reliable roomers

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

WILL open today (BWUW)

Pi Man

2003-Oct-06, 04:58 PM

10/6

there was only a one week delay

opening the Math Lab

which acording to reliable roomers

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

WILL open today (BWUW)

?????????????????

snowflakeuniverse

2003-Nov-10, 02:55 AM

Hi Wedgebert

Sorry for the long delay in returning a reply, You had an issue with my statement that matter also is “lost” due to the expansion of space. “Why would the dust particle lose energy? Light loses energy as it travels, the dust particle just sits there. Space might be expanding, but the dust isn't.”

Lets say we have a matter energy conversion machine.

I have two grams of matter. One gram of matter I convert into energy and I beam it across space to be reflected back by a mirror. As the light travels, it looses energy. The light hits a mirror and is reflected back to the source machine, which converts it back to mass. Now compare the “traveled” mass to the “stationary” mass, do they weight the same, or are they different?

The present accepted models (Minkowski) of the expanding universe would have the traveled mass weigh less than the stationary mass. The

snowflakeuniverse

2003-Nov-10, 03:00 AM

Hi Wedgebert

Sorry for the long delay in returning a reply, You had an issue with my statement that matter also is “lost” due to the expansion of space. “Why would the dust particle lose energy? Light loses energy as it travels, the dust particle just sits there. Space might be expanding, but the dust isn't.”

Lets say we have a matter energy conversion machine.

I have two grams of matter. One gram of matter I convert into energy and I beam it across space to be reflected back by a mirror. As the light travels, it looses energy. The light hits a mirror and is reflected back to the source machine, which converts it back to mass. Now compare the “traveled” mass to the “stationary” mass, do they weight the same, or are they different?

The present accepted models (Minkowski) of the expanding universe would have the traveled mass weigh less than the stationary mass. The proposed theory will have the masses retain their proportional relationships. They will weigh the same, but both will weight less.

Which model provides a simpler more consistent description of reality?” Which one conforms to observation? ‘Which one really maintains “conservation” of mass principles? The E=mcc relationship becomes a much more powerful and unifying concept if the loss of energy in an expanding space time field results in no difference if the mass is a “solid” or as Photons.

snowflake

Pi Man

2003-Nov-10, 03:07 AM

Welcome back, SnowFlake! :D

You've stated that it would be more scientifically sound if any mass also lost energy, but what's the specific mechanism that makes solid (or fluid... whatever) matter lose energy?

snowflakeuniverse

2003-Nov-10, 03:12 AM

Hi Pi man and Grey and everybody.

I finally got my web site up www.uniformexpansion.com

You guys are amazing. You brought out the concept of hyper space apparently out of intuition. The proposed model does consist of extra dimensional measures.

If you have time I would appreciate a response.

Thanks

snowflake

snowflakeuniverse

2003-Nov-10, 03:55 AM

Hi Pi

You wrote “You've stated that it would be more scientifically sound if any mass also lost energy, but what's the specific mechanism that makes solid (or fluid... whatever) matter lose energy?”

This is a good question, But lets extend it a little, what is it that gives matter “intrinsic” energy in the first place? (“Intrinsic” is the word Einstein uses in his development of the E=mcc relationship). There is no theory I know of today that explains why matter has intrinsic energy, it is just there.

When you get a chance to read the theory, you will find that the intrinsic energy is the result of real kinematic motion via another dimension. As an object slows down in this extra dimension, it loses intrinsic energy.

This theory also adds another factor to the Cosmological red shift. While there is a recessional red shift due to the expansion of spacetime, there is now a real Doppler shift introduced. Since matter is moving in this unobserved dimension, the light emitted will be effected by the motion; As matter slows down in this “unobserved” extra dimension, the amount of Doppler effect will not be as much. This proposed red shift will be called the Cosmological Doppler effect. The recessional red shift will be a result of models proposed by Minkowski or General Relativistic models (which are necessary and valid in my model). The Cosmological Red shift will include both relationships.

Since the photon and the mass are both associated with motion in this unobserved dimension, they are both effected similarly, since they both slow down in this unobserved dimension, they both lose energy accordingly.

Thanks

snowflake

Pi Man

2003-Nov-10, 08:09 AM

Ummmm.... the "unobserved dimension" you are speaking of is time. The intrinsic energy you speak of is mass. The reason Einstein used the word "intrinsic" was to show that mass and energy were interchangeable.

Speeding up in our 3 spacial dimensions causes time dilation which is the slowing down in the unobserved (actually, time) dimension you speak of. It slows down in its motion through time just enough to account for it's motion through space.

As for the photon, we observe the photons time dimension as one of our spacial dimensions. As a photon is coming toward us, it percieves us as being in its future, not as "ahead" of it.

So, are you proposing that time dilation causes a loss of energy too, now?

ran out of color for my 14 day cycle code so 11/10 is default

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

http://www.pipingtech.com/products/

http://www.ideanrobotics.com/science.html

http://www.questia.com/Index.jsp?CRID=albert_einstein&OFFID=se1

http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/038039362X/immaculate-books/002-2581352-4932852

==========================================

there are 4 LINK BOXES at the bottom

i've not seen that feature befor except today

how is that accomplished?

:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::

actually i would prefer an explination

if you have time and patiants for such stuff

UP in the BAD BAD sector ? under new topic or LITTLE BOXES

Pi Man

2003-Nov-10, 06:00 PM

Hi, HUb'

The boxes at the bottom are advertizements provided by Google. Apparently the BA needs to start having a little positive cash flow coming in in order to keep the board running. More about it in this thread (http://www.badastronomy.com/phpBB/viewtopic.php?t=9261).

Pi Man

2003-Nov-10, 06:27 PM

Hey, Snowflake. You give this point at the beginning of your website:

dS/dT = T ( Space changes, therefore time exists)

S = T^2 (The volume of a region of space S varies to the square of the age of the Universe)

You defined:

S=Volume of the universe

T=Time since the BB or beginning of time

Where did you get dS/dT=T. The only explination you give is "( Space changes, therefore time exists)." That does not mean that the change in volume relative to the change in time equals the number of seconds since the big bang.

Then you say that S=T^2. This is incorrect. If dS/dT=T, then the indefinite integral of dS/dT with respect to T is (T^2)/2 because dS/dt(S=(T^2)/2)=T.

I'll have more later, right now, I have to get to class!

snowflakeuniverse

2003-Nov-11, 05:42 AM

Thanks pi

You are right, the constant term should not have been left out, or a notation should have been included explaining why it was left out. You will find out later in the development of the theory that the 1/2 factor is not needed. I was wondering if anyone would catch me on this, you did.

If the equation were dS/dT= 2T. then the S = T^2 would work. Then people would ask why the 2? The truth is I am not sure what the constant should be for any of the terms. (Although I am beginning to get a good idea for a few, as indicated by the e=mcc section of the paper). It is the dimensional relationships that are important, not the specific constant in front of the terms. When you read ahead you will see that relationships are established that eliminate the need for knowing what the specific constant should be.

Eventually the constant terms will become an important part of the theory in that there is a specific constant necessary to describe different regions of space. One k will describe the expansion of space-time, which establishes the basic pattern succeeding dynamic structures are built upon. Succeeding patterns are built with the same dimensional relationships but on a smaller scale. There is a k associated with the inverse square law for celestial systems, and there is another k associated with electrons around atoms, and there is another k associated within the nucleus.

The stacking of dimensional relationships is part of the reason I call the theory the Snowflake Universe. There is an overriding dynamic structure that successively smaller, and similarly “shaped” dimensional relationships are built upon. All conform to the dimensional relationships necessary for a uniform expansion of space, but at specific scales of observation.

I really appreciate your post. I will add a change to the theory to reflect an issue that in my mind was not important yet others would probably just stop there and say “ theres a mistake” the whole thing is wrong.

Thanks.

snowflake.

You also asked where I got the dS/dT =T relationship. I debated with myself about whether or not I should include the “logic” that went into it’s development. It is kind of metaphysical, so I tend to want to keep it out, but I see from your response, I probably should include this in the theory’s development.

The idea for the basic relationship came with the thought that if nothing changed, there would be no way to measure time. The next idea was that change is not a linear event, but a spatial event. I then stated the relationship in a positive sense, space must change for time to exist, which then translates into the formula dS/dT = T. Space changes, therefore time exists.

Change is a spatial event. If space itself did not allow change to occur within it as a volume, then change would not be uniform. For me to move my hand all around, there must be “room” for me to do so. This means that there must be some kind of expansion of reality to allow change.

Again, thanks

snowflake

Pi Man

2003-Nov-11, 06:29 PM

I disagree with your dS/dT=T equasion, still. dS/dT (basically, change) implies that time exists, and that the variable T (seconds since the big bang) changes. So, I would state it that dS/dT => T. ("=>" means "implies"). Or, even dS/dT => (upside down backwards capital "e") T. However, that line of reasoning does not imply that dS/dT=T.

Also, if you insist on keeping the same equasion, use dS/dT=kT, where k is some real constant. That way, S=2kT. That implies the fact that you don't actually know k.

Kebsis

2003-Nov-12, 02:19 AM

BTW, I once reasoned out that if one obtained the speed of light, he would have an equal chance of going foreward and backward in time. How did I arrive at this conclusion? Beats me! I forgot a long time ago!

Let me take a stab at figuring out what you were thinking.

Consider the polka-dot balloon analogy often used to describe the universe. Moving away from the center of the balloon would be going forward in time, moving toward the center would bring you back in time, assuming you could outrace light.

I know this doesn't make much sense apon deeper review but its the same logic I once used to reach the same conclusion.

Pi Man

2003-Nov-12, 03:50 AM

I remember that I went on the assumption that the speed of time was the speed of light (and, if you think about it, it's sortof correct, if considering a body at rest relative to your frame of reference.)

I think that the first thing I thought was that if you go faster than time, and go "ahead of the present" you end up being in the future. After that, I followed the logic of Einstein and proved to myself that if time slows until it gets to 0 at v=c, then it must be negative on the other side, but really, it would be imaginary. I~=I/Sqrt(1-v^2/c^2). If v>c, v^2/c^2>1 and 1/sqrt(1-v^2/c^2) is 1/(some imaginary number).

Gary Redmond

2003-Nov-13, 10:03 PM

snowflakeuniverse

It seems that you and I are perhaps not on the same chapter, but we certainly are in the same book. You labeled your chapter "Mistakes in Astronomy" I label mine "Errata ?".

Your argument seems to be more about cosmology than astronomy, and the first couple of pages seem to only give two views of the subject. There are those who say the universe is speeding up and those who say it is slowing down.

Of course there is always Newton's first law of motion, the same speed in circles. There is the possibility that all the galaxies in the universe are like a gigantic galaxy of galaxies. I'm not saying that space is curved, but perhaps the parts of it that we can see are moving along curved paths. If that were the case then some of those parts (galaxies) could be moving retrograde to other parts. Those counter rotations could indeed give the appearance of acceleration.

If we look out at a near-by galaxy edge wise, the majority of its stars are rotating in the same general direction so some are red shift and some are blue shift this tells us how fast it rotates thus we calculate its mass.

It is quite understandable to me that some of those stars due to gravitational interactions may be rotating retrograde to the majority. Thus a blue star on the red side or a red star on the blue side could result.

Why should distant galaxies or their supernova be exempt?

The present topic seems to be, if space is expanding does mass lose energy. It seems to me that since in excess of 90% of all mass is space and space is expanding, that if electrons must go farther to stay within their atoms new expanded space, then without an increase of speed there must be some loss of energy/mass.

If a water droplet loses energy it expands into a snowflake, if an atom expands does it lose energy?

Perhaps!

Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.3 Copyright © 2019 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.