Page 3 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast
Results 61 to 90 of 107

Thread: Universe Spheres made of Spheres to predict Gravitational Constant

  1. #61
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Wisconsin USA
    Posts
    2,973
    Quote Originally Posted by Reality Check View Post
    IF07: What is the mainstream size of the universe, Copernicus? Or what is your empirical evidence supporting this "about 13.75 (now 3) billion light years" size?

    Your "T = 13.745514 billion light years" gives your universe a radius of ~3 billion light years. You have just debunked your ATM idea as you will realize when you answer IF07.

    An error: Planck has nothing to do with your idea so "Planck Spheres" makes your idea wrong. A Planck sphere would have a Planck length as a radius. You have an imaginary sphere that you arbitrarily set to a "Compton Wavelength of the Neutron squared and multiplied by pi" "Cross Section". Compton wavelength of a neutron = 1.31959091E-15 m. Planck length = 1.616255(18)E−35 m. Thus 20 OOM difference.
    There is no size estimate to the universe in mainstream science. There is an age estimate since the big bang. If I call the object with Comptom wavelength of the neutron a Planck Sphere, a name is just a name.
    The moment an instant lasted forever, we were destined for the leading edge of eternity.

  2. #62
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Wisconsin USA
    Posts
    2,973
    [QUOTE=Reality Check;2497180]"I proposed" guesses in reply to my post.
    Olbers' Paradox is about stars. Every line of sight in an infinite, eternal static universe ends in a star thus the night sky will be bright. The night sky is not bright . A resolution to this is an expanding universe.uniform in all directions.

    The transverse Doppler effect exists for light sources orbiting a detector but your ATM idea is not every galaxy in the universe orbiting the Earth ! You must know that we detect cosmological redshift from millions of galaxies from local ones to ones billions of light years away. These galaxies are not in orbit around the Earth. Look up peculiar velocities of galaxies. There are blue shifted galaxies. The Andromeda galaxy will collide with the Milky Way.
    Correct! Regardless, there can still be motion relative to earth. Everything is relative.

    Gravitational Redshift: You should already have a derivation of cosmological redshift in your ATM idea so it should be a question of just quoting that derivation. That would not take long. A formal question in anticipation of your answer:
    IF09: Please quote your derivation of cosmological redshift (Hubble's law) from your ATM idea, Copernicus.
    You are right, it is very simple except, but I need a few days.
    The rest of the post is wrong. Relativistic effects always take effect. Relativistic Doppler effects happen even for v << c. Gravitational red and blue shifts happen even for low differences in gravitational potential. Measurement is the limit on the effects. In general SR effects are measurable for v close to c. Gravitational red and blue shifts are measurable here on Earth for relatively small differences in gravitational potential.
    You are correct that everything is relativistic, I just meant that at low velocities, it is not very significant.

    From memory, it is possible to fake cosmological redshift by arranging matter in the universe to give Hubble's law. The problem for your idea is that this is not your mass distribution (in fact you have o mass in your ATM idea!).

    "Hubble constant" is almost irrelevant. If you somehow come up with one of the values we have for Hubble's constant, that says nothing about whether your universe is expanding or not. You have to derive Hubble's law from your ATM idea to match our universe.
    My universe does have mass. What I was deriving doesn't require the units to be in mass. I also said I don't know how things get mass in the universe. That I is me. Don't you think that ultimately almost everything should be dimensionless?

    Hubble constant= (Speed of Light/Size of Universe)/Millionparsecs)
    =299792.458 Kilometers per second/(13.745 billion light years/3.2616 million parsecs)=71.14km/sec/megaparsec
    Last edited by Copernicus; 2019-Nov-19 at 10:56 AM.
    The moment an instant lasted forever, we were destined for the leading edge of eternity.

  3. #63
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Wisconsin USA
    Posts
    2,973
    This is a calculation for the gravitational redshift between two points in my spinning sphere universe. It is actually a blue shift.




    Lets say we have an object, called 1, a fraction of 0.1 from the center of the universe

    for a fraction 0.5 from the center of the universe it would be

    The gravitational redshift, if we are at site F_1 would be

    So the gravitational redshift depends on where one is in the universe.
    If F_2 had been 0.95 from the center the blue shift would have ended up to be z≈-0.188959
    now to calculate the total we would have to add that to the red shift from transverse motion. At 0.95 fraction to the edge of the universe from the center it would be 1+z=1/(1-.95^2)^.5 z + 1 = 3.20256 so we would multiply the two Z+1
    which would be (1-.188959)(3.20256). The combined z+1 would be 2.59740746496
    I don't know if there would be additional additions to the redshift from other phenomena.
    The moment an instant lasted forever, we were destined for the leading edge of eternity.

  4. #64
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    Wellington, New Zealand
    Posts
    4,340
    Quote Originally Posted by Copernicus View Post
    So you are referring to general relativity. I have no beef with general relativity. ...
    That is the point of IF01. You know what GR is. You at least use QM. GR is the only theory that includes the structure of the universe . For example you have a spherical universe. GR has spacetime with curvature. In GR the universe can be a sphere. But QM does not include the structure of the universe and is built on a flat spacetime. That is a main reason why we do not have a quantum gravity theory yet.

    IF01b: Do you understand that QM has nothing to do with the structure of the universe and explicitly cannot describe a spherical universe (spacetime is flat in QM), Copernicus?

    My question is clear. I have explained it a couple of times. One last explanation. Spin angular momentum is the spin of QM particles and you know this as in the answer to IF02. You apply spin angular momentum. You must apply it to QM particles because that is what it is defined for!
    The s in spin angular momentum starts with 1/2. You ignore this and thus ignore the fundamental particles of electrons, quarks, etc, i.e. a large part of the mass of the universe!
    The nest value of s is 1. You include that.
    The next value of s is 3/2. You ignore this and thus ignore all composite particles with spin 3/2.
    The nest value of s is 2. You include that.
    The next value of s is 5/2. You ignore this and thus ignore all composite particles with spin 5/2.
    etc. etc.
    IF03b: Why are you ignoring half of spin angular momentum (such as the spin of electrons) by starting with 1 and incrementing by 1, Copernicus?

    Answers pending:
    IF04: Please give a more complete, science based explanation of "which is our point there is no spin that can be associated with one point since there is no reference to a difference", Copernicus
    IF04 Alternate: What is the textbook definition of spin that you are using where a "reference to a difference" is required and where does it say spin can be associated with one (any?) point, Copernicus?

    I ask because this is spin in physics. Spin is a property of particles. Spin is a property of the wave function of a particle. A spin of 1/2 says that a particle's wave function has to be rotated twice to get the original wave function back. Thus the spinors in the Dirac equation means that it describes spin 1/2 particles.

    IF05: Please start with your "universe that is spherical that is made of spheres" and give a clear, step by step derivation of that equation, Copernicus. Otherwise I remain correct, it is an irrelevant integral that gives pi as do an infinite number of mathematical functions.

    IF06: Please state the physical quantities that you used to get your large numbers as in Eddington, Dirac and other published work, Copernicus.
    You wrote "I went through this already, I can't answer it to your satisfaction.". You did not show that you followed the work of Eddington, Dirac, etc. of constructing ratios of size to force scales (their large dimensionless numbers). Thus you are wrong - your work is not related to their work.
    Last edited by Reality Check; 2019-Nov-19 at 08:10 PM.

  5. #65
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    Wellington, New Zealand
    Posts
    4,340
    Quote Originally Posted by Copernicus View Post
    There is no size estimate to the universe in mainstream science.
    My post clearly stated what the mainstream has for the size of the universe. One least time: There is a mainstream size measurement for the observable universe. This gives a minimum size of the universe. There is a mainstream measurement of the curvature of the universe that is zero with small error limits. If the universe is flat, that gives a mainstream size estimate to the universe of infinite. If the universe has a small curvature , that gives a mainstream size estimate to the universe of much larger than the mainstream measured minimum size of the universe. All you have to do show that you know this textbook cosmology and state the numbers to show that your ATM idea matches the mainstream measurement. Or give your empirical evidence that supports your number.
    IF07: What is the mainstream size of the universe, Copernicus? Or what is your empirical evidence supporting this "about 13.75 (now 3) billion light years" size?

  6. #66
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    Wellington, New Zealand
    Posts
    4,340
    Quote Originally Posted by Copernicus View Post
    If I call the object with Comptom wavelength of the neutron a Planck Sphere, a name is just a name.
    Names have meaning in science, Copernicus. Something that has no association with Planck must not be called after Planck. Planck is not a co-author of your ATM idea ! Your arbitrary scale has almost nothing to do with Planck. The Planck constant appearing in the formula for Compton wavelength of any particle does not mean the Compton wavelength of a neutron is a Planck scale. There are textbook definitions of those scales. Which brnigs up another formal question:
    IF10: What is your justification for using the Compton wavelength of a composite massive particle (neutron) as the scale of an massless sphere?

  7. #67
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    Wellington, New Zealand
    Posts
    4,340
    Quote Originally Posted by Copernicus View Post
    My universe does have mass.
    ...
    Hubble constant= (Speed of Light/Size of Universe)/Millionparsecs)
    I await your answer to IF09: Please quote your derivation of cosmological redshift (Hubble's law) from your ATM idea, Copernicus.

    N.B. Hubble's law not the Hubble constant and not this "Hubble Constant". The mainstream Hubble constant is a consequence of an expanding universe. You state that your universe is not expanding. Thus your ATM idea by definition does not have a Hubble constant or it is zero. The empirical Hubble constant from Hubble's law is the slope from plotting galaxy redshift against measured distance to the galaxy. That is not this "Hubble Constant".

    IF11: Where the mass in your ATM idea included, Copernicus?
    An assertion that there is mass does not make mass appear. What I read have is massless spheres arranged in spheres. This sounds like an arbitrary injection of a mass of your universe. What have I missed?

    "What I was deriving doesn't require the units to be in mass" sounds like invalid science. If you have mass then its units must "be in mass". If you are doing calculations involving mass than the units must "be in mass".

  8. #68
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    Wellington, New Zealand
    Posts
    4,340
    Quote Originally Posted by Copernicus View Post
    This is a calculation for the gravitational redshift between two points in my spinning sphere universe. It is actually a blue shift.
    An extremely invalid calculation that gets close to debunking your ATM idea, Copernicus, as you know that it is cosmological redshift.

    The calculations are not gravitational redshift or the relativistic Doppler effect. There is a invalid "adding" a blue shift to a red shift (a blue shift is the opposite of a redshift)!
    Gravitational redshift does not exist in Newtonian gravitation and you have !
    You have (so far) massless spheres arranged in spheres. No mass = no gravitational redshift.
    If your ATM idea had mass, then you will have a unknown M(r) function. You cannot calculate gravitational redshift from an unknown M(r) function.
    Unit less numbers for an M(r) function appearing from nowhere is bad science.
    Some "center of the universe " nonsense when that concept has been abandoned for over a century starting with the realization that we cannot attribute special qualities to the Earth. We then saw that a universe treating somewhaere else as special, e.g. being its center, is equally invalid. Thus cosmology has a homogenous and isotropic universe with no center.
    We measure that this universe is homogenous so that M(r) will be constant and there is no gravitational redshift because that needs a change in gravitational potential.
    As soon as we do not read division by factors like c2 in a gravitational redshift calculation, we know it is dubious. Gravitational redshift is small because of those factors, unless the gravitational field is strong. The first astronomical measurement were for white dwarf stars. We can just measure it in analysis of galaxy clusters
    In 2011 the group of Radek Wojtak of the Niels Bohr Institute at the University of Copenhagen collected data from 8000 galaxy clusters and found that the light coming from the cluster centers tended to be red-shifted compared to the cluster edges, confirming the energy loss due to gravity.[7]
    A "red shift from transverse motion" is followed with an "1+z=1/(1-.95^2)^.5 z + 1 = 3.20256" calculation out of nowhere. A z is what a transverse Doppler effect will produce!
    Transverse Doppler effect

  9. #69
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Wisconsin USA
    Posts
    2,973
    Quote Originally Posted by Reality Check View Post
    I await your answer to IF09: Please quote your derivation of cosmological redshift (Hubble's law) from your ATM idea, Copernicus.

    N.B. Hubble's law not the Hubble constant and not this "Hubble Constant". The mainstream Hubble constant is a consequence of an expanding universe. You state that your universe is not expanding. Thus your ATM idea by definition does not have a Hubble constant or it is zero. The empirical Hubble constant from Hubble's law is the slope from plotting galaxy redshift against measured distance to the galaxy. That is not this "Hubble Constant".

    IF11: Where the mass in your ATM idea included, Copernicus?
    An assertion that there is mass does not make mass appear. What I read have is massless spheres arranged in spheres. This sounds like an arbitrary injection of a mass of your universe. What have I missed?

    "What I was deriving doesn't require the units to be in mass" sounds like invalid science. If you have mass then its units must "be in mass". If you are doing calculations involving mass than the units must "be in mass".
    The Hubble constant is a way to characterize the redshift, it is not a way to explain the expanding universe. My spinning universe fits just as well with having a Hubble constant.
    As far as mass, I just used a way to make mass dimensionless. That is not a far out trick. It is done all the time.
    The moment an instant lasted forever, we were destined for the leading edge of eternity.

  10. #70
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Wisconsin USA
    Posts
    2,973
    Quote Originally Posted by Reality Check View Post
    An extremely invalid calculation that gets close to debunking your ATM idea, Copernicus, as you know that it is cosmological redshift.

    The calculations are not gravitational redshift or the relativistic Doppler effect. There is a invalid "adding" a blue shift to a red shift (a blue shift is the opposite of a redshift)!
    Gravitational redshift does not exist in Newtonian gravitation and you have !
    You have (so far) massless spheres arranged in spheres. No mass = no gravitational redshift.
    If your ATM idea had mass, then you will have a unknown M(r) function. You cannot calculate gravitational redshift from an unknown M(r) function.
    Unit less numbers for an M(r) function appearing from nowhere is bad science.
    Some "center of the universe " nonsense when that concept has been abandoned for over a century starting with the realization that we cannot attribute special qualities to the Earth. We then saw that a universe treating somewhaere else as special, e.g. being its center, is equally invalid. Thus cosmology has a homogenous and isotropic universe with no center.
    We measure that this universe is homogenous so that M(r) will be constant and there is no gravitational redshift because that needs a change in gravitational potential.
    As soon as we do not read division by factors like c2 in a gravitational redshift calculation, we know it is dubious. Gravitational redshift is small because of those factors, unless the gravitational field is strong. The first astronomical measurement were for white dwarf stars. We can just measure it in analysis of galaxy clusters


    A "red shift from transverse motion" is followed with an "1+z=1/(1-.95^2)^.5 z + 1 = 3.20256" calculation out of nowhere. A z is what a transverse Doppler effect will produce!
    Transverse Doppler effect
    Like I said, my universe is not uniform. At a factor of 10 from the center it is 10 times denser than at 100 times from the center. You will notice that the gravitational red shift is one gravitational potential over another gravitational potential. That is why I did not carry all the factors that will cancel out. Notice that z has no units.
    As you will notice from my equation the velocity of the objects rotating, exactly cancel out the increased concentration of discontinuities, which I had always proposed are directly proportional to the mass in the universe. It is only the Lorentz factor, due to the increasing velocity of the spheres as one moves out to the center of the universe, that creates any redshifting or blueshifting depending if one is looking out or looking in.
    Last edited by Copernicus; 2019-Nov-19 at 10:25 PM.
    The moment an instant lasted forever, we were destined for the leading edge of eternity.

  11. #71
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Wisconsin USA
    Posts
    2,973
    Quote Originally Posted by Reality Check View Post
    Names have meaning in science, Copernicus. Something that has no association with Planck must not be called after Planck. Planck is not a co-author of your ATM idea ! Your arbitrary scale has almost nothing to do with Planck. The Planck constant appearing in the formula for Compton wavelength of any particle does not mean the Compton wavelength of a neutron is a Planck scale. There are textbook definitions of those scales. Which brnigs up another formal question:
    IF10: What is your justification for using the Compton wavelength of a composite massive particle (neutron) as the scale of an massless sphere?
    Of course I am presenting something new, so my names for objects have no meaning to most people. As far as the Compton wavelength. I use it for frequency and radius for an object that goes into a equation, that produces a number of objects, which looks like a number with no units. Do you really think mass and other measurements are fundamental. My theory is working on something where units aren't needed. It is basically all ratios. Supposedly the Higgs boson causes mass for some particles. I do not know those mechanisms at all.
    The moment an instant lasted forever, we were destined for the leading edge of eternity.

  12. #72
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Wisconsin USA
    Posts
    2,973
    Quote Originally Posted by Reality Check View Post
    My post clearly stated what the mainstream has for the size of the universe. One least time: There is a mainstream size measurement for the observable universe. This gives a minimum size of the universe. There is a mainstream measurement of the curvature of the universe that is zero with small error limits. If the universe is flat, that gives a mainstream size estimate to the universe of infinite. If the universe has a small curvature , that gives a mainstream size estimate to the universe of much larger than the mainstream measured minimum size of the universe. All you have to do show that you know this textbook cosmology and state the numbers to show that your ATM idea matches the mainstream measurement. Or give your empirical evidence that supports your number.
    IF07: What is the mainstream size of the universe, Copernicus? Or what is your empirical evidence supporting this "about 13.75 (now 3) billion light years" size?
    This article is from yesterday. I had no idea it was going to come out. It states the universe age is 12.8 to 13.8 billion years depending on the value of the Hubble constant being used. https://phys.org/news/2019-11-expans...erse-dont.html "The measurements of the expansion of the universe don't add up"
    The moment an instant lasted forever, we were destined for the leading edge of eternity.

  13. #73
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Wisconsin USA
    Posts
    2,973
    Quote Originally Posted by Reality Check View Post
    Some "center of the universe " nonsense when that concept has been abandoned for over a century starting with the realization that we cannot attribute special qualities to the Earth. We then saw that a universe treating somewhaere else as special, e.g. being its center, is equally invalid. Thus cosmology has a homogeneous and isotropic universe with no center.[/URL]
    The cosmological principle, where there is no center to the universe, where everything is the same in every direction, is a belief, it is faith. I use the word belief all the time, because I believe all of the things we base our worldview on are ultimately beliefs. If we start with the cosmological principle, perhaps that is why we are having trouble figuring out the truth of the universe.

    The following article suggests a closed universe, https://www.sciencealert.com/wild-ne...urved-not-flat ,
    If the universe is closed, to me it suggests that the cosmological principle could not be true. The title is Wild New Study Suggests The Universe Is a Closed Sphere, Not Flat, To label the title Wild New Study, suggests to me that the people writing the article, are afraid of looking like Kooks.
    Last edited by Copernicus; 2019-Nov-19 at 11:12 PM.
    The moment an instant lasted forever, we were destined for the leading edge of eternity.

  14. #74
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    Peters Creek, Alaska
    Posts
    12,888
    Quote Originally Posted by Copernicus View Post
    This article is from yesterday. I had no idea it was going to come out. It states the universe age is 12.8 to 13.8 billion years depending on the value of the Hubble constant being used. https://phys.org/news/2019-11-expans...erse-dont.html "The measurements of the expansion of the universe don't add up"
    I don't see direct answers to the quoted questions. Please provide them.
    Forum Rules►  ◄FAQ►  ◄ATM Forum Advice►  ◄Conspiracy Advice
    Click http://cosmoquest.org/forum/images/buttons/report-40b.png to report a post (even this one) to the moderation team.


    Man is a tool-using animal. Nowhere do you find him without tools; without tools he is nothing, with tools he is all. Thomas Carlyle (1795-1881)

  15. #75
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    Wellington, New Zealand
    Posts
    4,340
    Quote Originally Posted by Copernicus View Post
    Like I said, my universe is not uniform....
    Then it is not this universe and you do not have an ATM idea. You have a speculation about a different universe.
    You missed the main content of my post: The calculations are not gravitational redshift or the relativistic Doppler effect.
    If you want to calculate gravitational redshift, then you must use gravitational redshift from GR.
    If you want to calculate the relativistic Doppler effect, then you must use the relativistic Doppler effect from SR.

  16. #76
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    Wellington, New Zealand
    Posts
    4,340
    Quote Originally Posted by Copernicus View Post
    The Hubble constant is a way to characterize the redshift, it is not a way to explain the expanding universe.
    That is not what my posts says.
    1. An expanding universe gives Hubble's law. Hubble's law has a constant we call Hubble's constant.
      Your universe is not expanding. By definition, your ATM idea states there is no Hubble's law related to an expanding universe and no Hubble's constant.
    2. We can measure an empirical Hubble's law from galaxies that happens to match what we predict from a expanding universe. The Hubble constant there is a measured quantity that is the slope of the ggalaxt redshift versus distance graph.
      Your ATM idea must predict and match the empirical Hubble's law using your static universe.
    3. There is also the Hubble's constant derived from applying mainstream cosmology to the CMBR.
      Whether your ATM idea even has a CMBR remains to be shown!

    "I just used a way to make mass dimensionless." still suggests invalid science. Mass is not dimensionless except maybe in some obscure system of units but then time, lengths, etc. would be really strange.

  17. #77
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    Wellington, New Zealand
    Posts
    4,340
    Quote Originally Posted by Copernicus View Post
    This article is from yesterday. I had no idea it was going to come out. It states the universe age is 12.8 to 13.8 billion years depending on the value of the Hubble constant being used. https://phys.org/news/2019-11-expans...erse-dont.html "The measurements of the expansion of the universe don't add up"
    The question was IF07: What is the mainstream size of the universe, Copernicus? Or what is your empirical evidence supporting this "about 13.75 (now 3) billion light years" size?

    You have cited a comment in the article about the ages of the universe that gives a size of 12.8 to 13.8 billion light years for a static universe - that debunks your ATM idea (13.745514 billion light years/4.554032147688 = 3.0183173 billion light years)! You are wrong by a factor of 4. But is your ATM idea even more wrong? Thus the first part of IF07 (this expanding universe has a bigger size than its age).
    On the other hand, this is an ATM idea and thus should not use mainstream calculations as support. Thus the second part of IF07.

    ETA: An answer could be "The mainstream size of the universe is X billion light years". If X > 3, you would have to explain why your ATM idea is not wrong, e.g. "What the mainstream calculates is irrelevant to my ATM idea because ...". That will leave your ATM idea with a number with no empirical evidence to support it.
    Last edited by Reality Check; 2019-Nov-20 at 01:13 AM.

  18. #78
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    Wellington, New Zealand
    Posts
    4,340
    Quote Originally Posted by Copernicus View Post
    The cosmological principle, where there is no center to the universe, where everything is the same in every direction, is a belief, it is faith.
    It is not 1 principle and you are wrong about "faith" - they are scientific principles with tests.
    Cosmological principle
    In modern physical cosmology, the cosmological principle is the notion that the spatial distribution of matter in the universe is homogeneous and isotropic when viewed on a large enough scale, since the forces are expected to act uniformly throughout the universe, and should, therefore, produce no observable irregularities in the large-scale structuring over the course of evolution of the matter field that was initially laid down by the Big Bang.
    Copernican principle
    In physical cosmology, the Copernican principle states that humans, on the Earth or in the Solar System, are not privileged observers of the universe.[1].
    ...
    Modern tests
    • Recent and planned tests relevant to the cosmological and Copernican principles include:
    • time drift of cosmological redshifts;[10]
    • modelling the local gravitational potential using reflection of cosmic microwave background (CMB) photons;[11]
    • the redshift dependence of the luminosity of supernovae;[12]
    • the kinetic Sunyaev–Zel’dovich effect in relation to dark energy;[13]
    • cosmic neutrino background;[14]
    • the integrated Sachs–Wolfe effect[15]
    • testing the isotropy and homogeneity of the CMB;[16][17][18][19][20]

  19. #79
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    Wellington, New Zealand
    Posts
    4,340
    Quote Originally Posted by Copernicus View Post
    The following article suggests a closed universe, https://www.sciencealert.com/wild-ne...urved-not-flat ,
    If the universe is closed, to me it suggests that the cosmological principle could not be true.
    That is wrong, Copernicus. A closed universe can still be homogenous and isotropic (the cosmological principle). As I said before, in cosmology closed means that a traveling in a straight line ends up at the starting point. Also wrong because the mainstream paper is researchers using a homogenous and isotropic universe to calculate that the universe is closed.

    Also said before: It is editors that usually write the titles of news articles. Editors write titles to sell the article. Thus the single word "Wild" in the entire article!
    A closed universe has always been part of mainstream cosmology. WMAP and Planck gave good evidence that the curvature of the universe was zero within small bounds. Thus an open universe was preferred. This recent paper shows that some features in the latest Planck data can be explained by a closed universe. It needs to withstand the test of time. The next paper may show that it is wrong or may support it. The "wildness" of the paper is that a curved universe is not what comes out of inflation.
    Last edited by Reality Check; 2019-Nov-20 at 01:08 AM.

  20. #80
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Wisconsin USA
    Posts
    2,973
    Quote Originally Posted by Reality Check View Post
    That is wrong, Copernicus. A closed universe can still be homogenous and isotropic (the cosmological principle). As I said before, in cosmology closed means that a traveling in a straight line ends up at the starting point. Also wrong because the mainstream paper is researchers using a homogenous and isotropic universe to calculate that the universe is closed.

    Also said before: It is editors that usually write the titles of news articles. Editors write titles to sell the article. Thus the single word "Wild" in the entire article!
    A closed universe has always been part of mainstream cosmology. WMAP and Planck gave good evidence that the curvature of the universe was zero within small bounds. Thus an open universe was preferred. This recent paper shows that some features in the latest Planck data can be explained by a closed universe. It needs to withstand the test of time. The next paper may show that it is wrong or may support it. The "wildness" of the paper is that a curved universe is not what comes out of inflation.
    I had a reference that a universe wouldn't be homogeneous or isotropic, I can't remember which one, if it was closed, but I can't find the quote anymore.
    The moment an instant lasted forever, we were destined for the leading edge of eternity.

  21. #81
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Wisconsin USA
    Posts
    2,973
    Quote Originally Posted by Reality Check View Post
    The question was IF07: What is the mainstream size of the universe, Copernicus? Or what is your empirical evidence supporting this "about 13.75 (now 3) billion light years" size?

    You have cited a comment in the article about the ages of the universe that gives a size of 12.8 to 13.8 billion light years for a static universe - that debunks your ATM idea (13.745514 billion light years/4.554032147688 = 3.0183173 billion light years)! You are wrong by a factor of 4. But is your ATM idea even more wrong? Thus the first part of IF07 (this expanding universe has a bigger size than its age).
    On the other hand, this is an ATM idea and thus should not use mainstream calculations as support. Thus the second part of IF07.

    ETA: An answer could be "The mainstream size of the universe is X billion light years". If X > 3, you would have to explain why your ATM idea is not wrong, e.g. "What the mainstream calculates is irrelevant to my ATM idea because ...". That will leave your ATM idea with a number with no empirical evidence to support it.
    Hi Reality check, I don't know if I made it clear, but in my universe, the universe would be infinitely old. I do think it has a limit on size. My calculations would show the universe to be 3.018 billion light-years in radius, but it proposes that light curves as it travels through the universe. So light would actually travel the 13.75 billion light years to the edge of the universe. I know my theory is against the mainstream. My main prediction is that the gravitational constant will move towards 6.674379*10^-11, and that would be the confirmation of the theory. You have given me different ideas to work on with the Hubble constant. I will have to study it more. I will have to work on it over the next year to see if it can predict the discrepancy in the Hubble constant measurements. I am thinking of working on determining main factors for redshift, that might include transverse redshift, radial redshift, and gravitational redshift.
    Although this idea has been explored before, I am thinking that mass may actually move toward the edge of the universe, where it would actually be destroyed in a way, and it would cause new discontinuities to form in the center of the universe, which would create more mass, because it would be the discontinuities that result in what we call matter. I don't know if I accept this idea. But thanks for at least reviewing my theories. As you can tell, I don't agree with some of your arguments. I don't really understand your argument style or if there is some cultural, philosophical, or language barriers. I don't take too much offense because you seem to treat everyone that way.
    The moment an instant lasted forever, we were destined for the leading edge of eternity.

  22. #82
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Wisconsin USA
    Posts
    2,973
    Quote Originally Posted by Reality Check View Post
    That is not what my posts says.
    1. An expanding universe gives Hubble's law. Hubble's law has a constant we call Hubble's constant.
      Your universe is not expanding. By definition, your ATM idea states there is no Hubble's law related to an expanding universe and no Hubble's constant.
    2. We can measure an empirical Hubble's law from galaxies that happens to match what we predict from a expanding universe. The Hubble constant there is a measured quantity that is the slope of the ggalaxt redshift versus distance graph.
      Your ATM idea must predict and match the empirical Hubble's law using your static universe.
    3. There is also the Hubble's constant derived from applying mainstream cosmology to the CMBR.
      Whether your ATM idea even has a CMBR remains to be shown!

    "I just used a way to make mass dimensionless." still suggests invalid science. Mass is not dimensionless except maybe in some obscure system of units but then time, lengths, etc. would be really strange.
    Basically in my theory, it is discontinuities of packing that create mass. The number of discontinuities are directly proportional to mass. I just think the number of discontinuities is more fundamental. A length would just be the number of the Planck spheres traveled through. Time has to do with the rotation of the Planck Spheres, or the Universe, I don't really think time is really real, and sometimes I just wonder if it is a ratio of slopes of some sort that we perceive as time, but I can't picture this yet.

    I don't think the Hubble constant has to be boxed into just being for an expanding universe, perhaps it is, but I think there might be other mechanisms that account for the redshift of light, and I think these would be equally valid for using a Hubble constant.
    The moment an instant lasted forever, we were destined for the leading edge of eternity.

  23. #83
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Wisconsin USA
    Posts
    2,973
    Quote Originally Posted by Reality Check View Post
    That is not what my posts says.
    1. An expanding universe gives Hubble's law. Hubble's law has a constant we call Hubble's constant.
      Your universe is not expanding. By definition, your ATM idea states there is no Hubble's law related to an expanding universe and no Hubble's constant.
    2. We can measure an empirical Hubble's law from galaxies that happens to match what we predict from a expanding universe. The Hubble constant there is a measured quantity that is the slope of the ggalaxt redshift versus distance graph.
      Your ATM idea must predict and match the empirical Hubble's law using your static universe.
    3. There is also the Hubble's constant derived from applying mainstream cosmology to the CMBR.
      Whether your ATM idea even has a CMBR remains to be shown!

    "I just used a way to make mass dimensionless." still suggests invalid science. Mass is not dimensionless except maybe in some obscure system of units but then time, lengths, etc. would be really strange.
    I don't see why my universe would not have a CMB. I think the velocities at the edge of the universe are so high, that it would mimic a big bang, but in my universe, the big bang conditions are always present at the edge of the universe. By edge, I mean close to the edge, where the velocities are high enough where it is a continuous particle collider.
    The moment an instant lasted forever, we were destined for the leading edge of eternity.

  24. #84
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    Wellington, New Zealand
    Posts
    4,340
    Quote Originally Posted by Copernicus View Post
    I had a reference that a universe wouldn't be homogeneous or isotropic, I can't remember which one, if it was closed, but I can't find the quote anymore.
    That is wrong, Copernicus. A closed universe can still be homogenous and isotropic (the cosmological principle). remains correct for the simple reason that you cited a paper deriving that a homogeneous and isotropic universe may be closed. We also measure that this universe is homogeneous and isotropic.

  25. #85
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    Wellington, New Zealand
    Posts
    4,340
    Quote Originally Posted by Copernicus View Post
    ...
    A post about what you think the age of the universe to be. My question remains IF07: What is the mainstream size of the universe, Copernicus? Or what is your empirical evidence supporting this "about 13.75 (now 3) billion light years" size?

  26. #86
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    Wellington, New Zealand
    Posts
    4,340
    Quote Originally Posted by Copernicus View Post
    ...
    A mass story that is irrelevant to my post followed not really reading what I wrote by going on about the Hubble constant. One last time:
    Hubble's law is a theoretical derivation from an expanding universe and an empirical observation from empirical data. Any cosmology such as your ATM idea that states the universe is not expanding predicts that that Hubble's law from an expanding universe does not exist. But the empirical Hubble's law must exist and your ATM idea has to derive that Hubble's law from some other mechanism. You have to show that in your ATM idea there is a Hubble's law.

  27. #87
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    Wellington, New Zealand
    Posts
    4,340
    Quote Originally Posted by Copernicus View Post
    I don't see why my universe would not have a CMB. ...
    Because the CMB is evidence that the universe was once in a hot dense state and expanded. The CMB debunks your ATM idea. If you cannot get a CMB out of your ATM idea, it is physically wrong.

  28. #88
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Wisconsin USA
    Posts
    2,973
    Quote Originally Posted by Reality Check View Post
    Because the CMB is evidence that the universe was once in a hot dense state and expanded. The CMB debunks your ATM idea. If you cannot get a CMB out of your ATM idea, it is physically wrong.
    I'm pretty sure I just said my universe would have a CMB.
    The moment an instant lasted forever, we were destined for the leading edge of eternity.

  29. #89
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Wisconsin USA
    Posts
    2,973
    Quote Originally Posted by Reality Check View Post
    A mass story that is irrelevant to my post followed not really reading what I wrote by going on about the Hubble constant. One last time:
    Hubble's law is a theoretical derivation from an expanding universe and an empirical observation from empirical data. Any cosmology such as your ATM idea that states the universe is not expanding predicts that that Hubble's law from an expanding universe does not exist. But the empirical Hubble's law must exist and your ATM idea has to derive that Hubble's law from some other mechanism. You have to show that in your ATM idea there is a Hubble's law.
    I'm sorry, I don't know how to answer your question. I have been predicting a Hubble constant of 71 for some time. Long before they said there was a crisis in cosmology. I may have even started the idea that there may be a crisis in cosmology. This is the reference from February of 2016. "The Sphere theory yields a Hubble constant of 71.03 Km/s/Mparsec. It is difficult to
    speculate which one of these values for the Hubble constant is most accurate. If we
    take the Hubble value obtained in 2016 of 73 1.75 and compare it to the 67.8
    0.77 value from the 2013 Planck Mission we see an imprecise prediction that may
    mean an adjustment to the models. The Sphere Theory model is somewhere
    between these two models and has been that way for a while."
    The moment an instant lasted forever, we were destined for the leading edge of eternity.

  30. #90
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Wisconsin USA
    Posts
    2,973
    Quote Originally Posted by Reality Check View Post
    There is no mainstream size of the universe. My empirical evidence is the Gravitational constant. It won't be more than empirical, until a more accurate Gravitational constant is known, or someone is able to go further with my ideas to prove something else.
    The moment an instant lasted forever, we were destined for the leading edge of eternity.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •