The Naked Scientists

The Naked Scientists Forum

Author Topic: What other evidence do we have of the expanding universe?  (Read 22567 times)

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • Posts: 11999
  • Thanked: 4 times
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
What other evidence do we have of the expanding universe?
« Reply #25 on: 29/06/2011 19:11:46 »
Ah, I stand corrected :)

So let us assume that we have a different opinion then, shall we?
 

Offline Mr. Data

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 275
    • View Profile
What other evidence do we have of the expanding universe?
« Reply #26 on: 29/06/2011 19:14:15 »
Ah, I stand corrected :)

So let us assume that we have a different opinion then, shall we?

It is only worthy to understand there are different points, if the one who holds the most knowledge on the subject can admirally stand and make their points in the name of science. I can honestly, nit and pick at many things people have said. But it has no consequence unless I show quantitative evidence.
 

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • Posts: 11999
  • Thanked: 4 times
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
What other evidence do we have of the expanding universe?
« Reply #27 on: 29/06/2011 19:16:00 »
:)
 

Offline Mr. Data

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 275
    • View Profile
What other evidence do we have of the expanding universe?
« Reply #28 on: 29/06/2011 19:23:48 »
I can show evidence though... can you?
 

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • Posts: 11999
  • Thanked: 4 times
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
What other evidence do we have of the expanding universe?
« Reply #29 on: 29/06/2011 19:24:29 »
For what?
 

Offline Mr. Data

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 275
    • View Profile
What other evidence do we have of the expanding universe?
« Reply #30 on: 29/06/2011 19:37:19 »
For what?

What do you think for?
 

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • Posts: 11999
  • Thanked: 4 times
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
What other evidence do we have of the expanding universe?
« Reply #31 on: 29/06/2011 19:39:52 »
Are you questioning lights speed in a vacuum? Or that your lifespan is of one measure, no matter where you are? Both of those will, measured locally, be 'invariant' as far as I know?

That's where I see a equivalence between 'times arrow' and lights 'beat'.

When it comes to Lorentz transformations and 'time dilations' the best example I know of is those atomic clocks that starts synchronized on a table, then you lift one to the floor, watching them becoming desynchronized. There are your 'frames of reference', as well as 'time dilations'. It's always a relation between frames of reference, and both clocks locally measure the same invariant speed 'c', just as you watching them.

Or, can you prove it otherwise?
 

Offline Mr. Data

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 275
    • View Profile
What other evidence do we have of the expanding universe?
« Reply #32 on: 29/06/2011 19:47:14 »
What?
 

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • Posts: 11999
  • Thanked: 4 times
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
What other evidence do we have of the expanding universe?
« Reply #33 on: 29/06/2011 19:55:30 »
Well Mr. Data, I think that was my question?
What exactly are you disputing?
 

Offline Mr. Data

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 275
    • View Profile
What other evidence do we have of the expanding universe?
« Reply #34 on: 29/06/2011 20:02:18 »
Well Mr. Data, I think that was my question?
What exactly are you disputing?

If you introduce a cascade of new things, perhaps you could elaborate on this tenebrous situation.
 

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • Posts: 11999
  • Thanked: 4 times
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
What other evidence do we have of the expanding universe?
« Reply #35 on: 29/06/2011 20:13:58 »
Sorry Mr. Data I just gave you some few definitions. They are actually quite simple, extrapolating from them you find all sort of 'twisted' things becoming true. But as I said, it's about where your definitions lay. Mine is about what I define as 'locality' meaning measurements you do from, and in, your own 'frame of reference' (loosely speaking here). Also I use what Einstein referred to as 'black room scenarios' to define what I consider 'reality'.

It's more of a presumption naturally. None of us can say that one way of defining anything will lead us to the way SpaceTime might use. I assume that 'simplifying it' will lead me in the right direction, and so I use 'locality' as from where I look at things. And from there I draw my conclusions. On the other hand :) I do not state it as a theory, to me it's just a first hypothesis, meaning that I'm willing to listen to any understandable disputation about my 'basics'. That's also why I wondered where you found my conclusions lacking.
 

Offline Mr. Data

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 275
    • View Profile
What other evidence do we have of the expanding universe?
« Reply #36 on: 29/06/2011 20:16:36 »
Sorry Mr. Data I just gave you some few definitions. They are actually quite simple, extrapolating from them you find all sort of 'twisted' things becoming true. But as I said, it's about where your definitions lay. Mine is about what I define as 'locality' meaning measurements you do from, and in, your own 'frame of reference' (loosely speaking here). Also I use what Einstein referred to as 'black room scenarios' to define what I consider 'reality'.

It's more of a presumption naturally. None of us can say that one way of defining anything will lead us to the way SpaceTime might use. I assume that 'simplifying it' will lead me in the right direction, and so I use 'locality' as from where I look at things. And from there I draw my conclusions. On the other hand :) I do not state it as a theory, to me it's just a first hypothesis, meaning that I'm willing to listen to any understandable disputation about my 'basics'. That's also why I wondered where you found my conclusions lacking.

Let us just say, I would not say what you say. The conclusions lacked with the site which was given (please let this be the same page) - I remember reading a link which contained a fabrication in the first sentance.

 

Offline Mr. Data

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 275
    • View Profile
What other evidence do we have of the expanding universe?
« Reply #37 on: 29/06/2011 20:18:08 »
In fact, if there is no link in this page, I just need to have a quick look at your physics as well:

''I see a arrow macroscopically, and it has a beat, which I presume to be lights.''

And know it's bogus.
 

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • Posts: 11999
  • Thanked: 4 times
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
What other evidence do we have of the expanding universe?
« Reply #38 on: 29/06/2011 20:21:15 »
Good, then you don't agree on that light locally always is of the same invariant speed?
Or is that you define a lifespan from conceptuality, comparing it to (other) frames of reference?
 

Offline Mr. Data

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 275
    • View Profile
What other evidence do we have of the expanding universe?
« Reply #39 on: 29/06/2011 20:22:49 »
Good, then you don't agree on that light locally always is of the same invariant speed?
Or is that you define a lifespan from conceptuality, comparing it to (other) frames of reference?

No. There is no absolute time reference.




End of.
 

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • Posts: 11999
  • Thanked: 4 times
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
What other evidence do we have of the expanding universe?
« Reply #40 on: 29/06/2011 20:23:54 »
The last simply means that you define 'age' not from your own frame of reference, but from what you see the universe show you (time dilations). That's also what I used the atomic clocks to show.
 

Offline Mr. Data

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 275
    • View Profile
What other evidence do we have of the expanding universe?
« Reply #41 on: 29/06/2011 20:25:19 »
There does exist an asymptotic time frame. That is the present moment, but that requires observer-physics. How attuned are you to decoherence physics, or even weak measurements?
 

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • Posts: 11999
  • Thanked: 4 times
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
What other evidence do we have of the expanding universe?
« Reply #42 on: 29/06/2011 20:25:29 »
Well, that's your definition then. And that's one you will have to prove, preferably simple enough, that we all can see how you mean.
 

Offline Mr. Data

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 275
    • View Profile
What other evidence do we have of the expanding universe?
« Reply #43 on: 29/06/2011 20:27:57 »
The last simply means that you define 'age' not from your own frame of reference, but from what you see the universe show you (time dilations). That's also what I used the atomic clocks to show.

Age can only be defined in a universe where matter and energy acts as clocks. If there are contraints on the subject at hand, our cananonical equations are basically solutions to timeless physics. General Relativity predicts unfortunately the same thing under tranformations called diffeomorphism contraints.
 

Offline Mr. Data

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 275
    • View Profile
What other evidence do we have of the expanding universe?
« Reply #44 on: 29/06/2011 20:29:35 »
Well, that's your definition then. And that's one you will have to prove, preferably simple enough, that we all can see how you mean.

I'll explain my topics if you want to learn?
 

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • Posts: 11999
  • Thanked: 4 times
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
What other evidence do we have of the expanding universe?
« Reply #45 on: 29/06/2011 20:41:00 »
There are some restrictions. If it's a mainstream topic we can discuss it here, if it deviates into a theory without, or very little, mainstream support we're expected to use 'New theories' for it. Think it over and decide where you want to start your topic, I'm always willing to listen :)
 

Offline Mr. Data

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 275
    • View Profile
What other evidence do we have of the expanding universe?
« Reply #46 on: 29/06/2011 20:51:35 »
There are some restrictions. If it's a mainstream topic we can discuss it here, if it deviates into a theory without, or very little, mainstream support we're expected to use 'New theories' for it. Think it over and decide where you want to start your topic, I'm always willing to listen :)

There is plenty validation as I have paper support of several prominent scientists. So this now a matter of references:

http://www.fqxi.org/data/essay-contest-files/Ellis_Fqxi_essay_contest__E.pdf

http://www.fqxi.org/community/forum/topic/360
 

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • Posts: 11999
  • Thanked: 4 times
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
What other evidence do we have of the expanding universe?
« Reply #47 on: 29/06/2011 20:59:46 »
There are all kinds of hypothesis's out in cyberspace Mr. Data. To make it a fact you will have to prove it experimentally. But I'm a little disappointed here. I expected you to be fluent enough to create and define what you thought correct yourself?

As you seemed so sure on your idea(s)?
 

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • Posts: 11999
  • Thanked: 4 times
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
What other evidence do we have of the expanding universe?
« Reply #48 on: 29/06/2011 21:14:08 »
As for "where matter and energy acts as clocks."?

How?

As I think of it you have light as the clock, locally defining a beat. Put those 'locality's' together, then introduce 'relative motion' and mass (relative 'gravity') and you will find time dilations and Lorentz contractions. But I track it to lights 'invariant beat' myself. That it never change 'speed' locally.

Are you thinking 'matter waves' there?
==

To my understanding, 'energy' is a result/definition we use relative transformations. It is a 'product' of transformations, but not anything I can see or touch. Simply expressed, there is no way of lifting forward a 'ounce of energy' that I know of at least? When it comes to its 'carrier' though, we have light (radiation) as our foremost example, in that we define it (mainstream) as massless and intrinsically 'timeless', defined as of a constant energy as well as speed, changing energy foremost as a result of a relation relative a observer. And that's what made the expansion so remarkable to me, in that it assumes 'gravity' (as I define that as the metric of space for this) to be able to change it over a whole SpaceTime. But maybe I could see 'gravity' as just another 'frame of reference'? The same as you could define the universe as presenting you with one 'joined frame', relative your own?
==

In fact, I would prefer to define 'gravity' as just another 'frame of reference'. That makes photons 'energy' invariant, which keeps it a little simpler to me. But that doesn't change the 'fact' that if you, as me, define 'space' from 'gravity's metric', you now have introduced a seamless frame that, in contrast to radiation, does not break down into 'quanta'.

But then again, this is a preference of mine, that on some plane it will all be 'seamless'. And that has to do with the assumption of a graininess creating a SpaceTime. To me a graininess does not answer what the graininess 'exist in'. It assumes a background to me, and so it can be no final answer. One of the things I like Smolin for is because he tries to create a background independent definition of SpaceTime, from strings and loops. In it those loops create the 'roomtime', as well as the 'background', all as I understands it. It's them 'joining' that creates what we see, all of it. It's all a question of your preferences of course, but it makes it simpler to understand for me.
==

Although there is a possibility of questioning loops and strings too it depends on how you see them. Imagine a one dimensional 'string' for this. 'Reality' is defined by three dimensions, and then the arrow that 'ticks' for us naturally, or our 'linear causality' if you like. A one dimensional string may have a length, but as it has no width and no height, it becomes very alike a boson to me? I've seen some imagining it able to 'cut' matter, but how would it ever be able to do that? What would 'cut'? It's imaginary width, height? I don't know, do you?

All of this assume a linearity though, a procession of logical building blocks, ending with our SpaceTime, or continuing into something even more 'dimensional'? 1, 2, 4, 8 (SpaceTimes 'corners') 16, 32, 64 ~ (I don't know where to stop here:)
« Last Edit: 29/06/2011 22:38:43 by yor_on »
 

Offline Mr. Data

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 275
    • View Profile
What other evidence do we have of the expanding universe?
« Reply #49 on: 29/06/2011 21:40:10 »
There are all kinds of hypothesis's out in cyberspace Mr. Data. To make it a fact you will have to prove it experimentally. But I'm a little disappointed here. I expected you to be fluent enough to create and define what you thought correct yourself?

As you seemed so sure on your idea(s)?
There are all kinds of hypothesis's out in cyberspace Mr. Data. To make it a fact you will have to prove it experimentally. But I'm a little disappointed here. I expected you to be fluent enough to create and define what you thought correct yourself?

As you seemed so sure on your idea(s)?

I am with the idea that reality is not the true perception (and these general conclusions where made from the soil of General Relativity), that the world we observe is a secondary phase, with a horizon of sentient information; but of course that would be speculatory.

 

The Naked Scientists Forum

What other evidence do we have of the expanding universe?
« Reply #49 on: 29/06/2011 21:40:10 »

 

SMF 2.0.10 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines
SMFAds for Free Forums