The Naked Scientists

The Naked Scientists Forum

Author Topic: What other evidence do we have of the expanding universe?  (Read 22520 times)

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • Posts: 11993
  • 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 #50 on: 29/06/2011 21:49:27 »
Well, I agree with you actually :) But to me it also depend on where one stand. "Reality is not the true perception" Sure, if you as I define it from locality, but we don't, do we? We define 'reality' conceptually, never noticing it. Everything we do assume that we 'share' the same reality, at the same time that 'frames of reference' elegantly prove (as the atomic clocks) that there are no two points in SpaceTime that we can expect to be the exact same, time/gravity and possibly also 'energy' seen.

But we define reality as we grow up, and we don't find each other 'untouchable' as far as I know, so from the perspective of us living and dying together, we definitely exist together. In some way it becomes a question of semantics, but also of your logic.
 

Offline MikeS

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1044
  • The Devils Advocate
    • View Profile
What other evidence do we have of the expanding universe?
« Reply #51 on: 18/08/2011 09:32:01 »
As I see it both gravity and entropy are the main arrows of time.  The passage of time is set by the speed of light.  Time is a fundamental artefact of the universe.

Going back to the original question
What other evidence do we have of the expanding universe?
The expanding universe theory seems to be little more than a hypothesis based almost wholly on the interpretation of the red-shift.  Both the red-shift and the CBR can be equally well explained by time being dilated in the past.  Type 1a supernova provide evidence that time actually was dilated in the past.  All other distance markers that I know of are short or relatively short range.
I am not suggesting that the universe is not expanding, it's just that there does not seem to be much hard evidence that it is.
 

Offline PhysBang

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 588
  • Thanked: 14 times
    • View Profile
What other evidence do we have of the expanding universe?
« Reply #52 on: 18/08/2011 14:17:43 »
The expanding universe theory seems to be little more than a hypothesis based almost wholly on the interpretation of the red-shift. 
It does seem like this if one doesn't read anything in cosmology or astronomy.
Quote
Both the red-shift and the CBR can be equally well explained by time being dilated in the past. 
They most certainly cannot. If anyone was able to do this, it would be a very impressive scientific coup.

In order to explain what we see of redshift, we would need to explain why time dilation occurred at all in the past and why the degree of time dilation changed first in one direction and then in another direction over cosmological time. Time dilation alone does not explain why there is a background radiation and it certainly doesn't explain why the background radiation has the detailed features that it does.
Quote
Type 1a supernova provide evidence that time actually was dilated in the past.  All other distance markers that I know of are short or relatively short range.
Type Ia supernovae results show that there is time dilation that is what one expects to see from an expanding universe. If one does away with expansion and simply introduces some kind of time dilation field, then one must also explain the observed distribution of galaxies in the past.
 

Offline MikeS

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1044
  • The Devils Advocate
    • View Profile
What other evidence do we have of the expanding universe?
« Reply #53 on: 19/08/2011 08:30:14 »
The expanding universe theory seems to be little more than a hypothesis based almost wholly on the interpretation of the red-shift. 
It does seem like this if one doesn't read anything in cosmology or astronomy[/i].
Quote
Both the red-shift and the CBR can be equally well explained by time being dilated in the past. 
They most certainly cannot. If anyone was able to do this, it would be a very impressive scientific coup.

In order to explain what we see of redshift, we would need to explain why time dilation occurred at all in the past and why the degree of time dilation changed first in one direction and then in another direction over cosmological time. Time dilation alone does not explain why there is a background radiation and it certainly doesn't explain why the background radiation has the detailed features that it does.
Quote
Type 1a supernova provide evidence that time actually was dilated in the past.  All other distance markers that I know of are short or relatively short range.
Type Ia supernovae results show that there is time dilation that is what one expects to see from an expanding universe. If one does away with expansion and simply introduces some kind of time dilation field, then one must also explain the observed distribution of galaxies in the past.

I have read all I can find on the internet, that is why I came to this conclusion.  If I have missed anything, perhaps you would be good enough to quote references.

Photons arriving on Earth from the distant past are considerably red-shifted.  That is there are less of them arriving per second than would normally be expected and their wavelength is stretched.  To the best of my knowledge there are two explanation for this.  The universe is expanding or time is contracting.  From our perspective both effects look exactly the same.  There is no way of differentiating between them.

To answer this in this thread would put me in trouble with the moderators.
Please see this link for answer
http://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/index.php?topic=40685.msg365375#msg365375


The background radiation may well be as explained by the big-bang model but again the red shift of the CBR would look the same through expansion or time dilation in the past.  There is no reason why time dilation in the past would cause the CBR to look any different than it does.  A given amount of expansion or a given amount of time dilation in the past would look exactly the same.

This is not what one expects to see 'just' from an expanding universe as it contains evidence that clocks ran slower in the past.
http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn13792-cosmic-time-warp-revealed-in-slowmotion-supernovae.html

Quite obviously the universe must have expanded at some point or it would be one large blob.  This explains the distribution of galaxies.  The question is whether it is still expanding and the rate of expansion.  I believe the observed cosmological red-shift is a mixture of expansion and time dilation/contraction.  When we ask how old is the Universe?  Is this a meaningful question if the passage of time is variable?  It's like measuring length with a piece of elastic.
« Last Edit: 19/08/2011 10:58:07 by MikeS »
 

Offline PhysBang

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 588
  • Thanked: 14 times
    • View Profile
What other evidence do we have of the expanding universe?
« Reply #54 on: 19/08/2011 12:58:31 »
I have read all I can find on the internet, that is why I came to this conclusion.  If I have missed anything, perhaps you would be good enough to quote references.
You could start here: http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/cosmolog.htm

However, I'd recommend going to a library and reading a general book on astronomy from the last 10 years.
Quote
Photons arriving on Earth from the distant past are considerably red-shifted.  That is there are less of them arriving per second than would normally be expected and their wavelength is stretched.  To the best of my knowledge there are two explanation for this.  The universe is expanding or time is contracting.  From our perspective both effects look exactly the same.  There is no way of differentiating between them.
I don't know what "time contracting" is. I know that the expansion of the universe causes time dilation which we see marked effects of in distant objects. If one is just going to say that time dilation just happens, then one might as well say that unicorns are causing redshift.
Quote
The background radiation may well be as explained by the big-bang model but again the red shift of the CBR would look the same through expansion or time dilation in the past.  There is no reason why time dilation in the past would cause the CBR to look any different than it does.  A given amount of expansion or a given amount of time dilation in the past would look exactly the same.
If there is just some magical time dilation, there is no reason for their to be a background radiation. There is no reason for this background radiation to carry information about large scale structure. So many things fall apart if we simply assume magical time dilation.
Quote
This is not what one expects to see 'just' from an expanding universe as it contains evidence that clocks ran slower in the past.
http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn13792-cosmic-time-warp-revealed-in-slowmotion-supernovae.html
Expansion causes time dilation. We can measure features of expansion in many different ways. We cannot measure features of your magical time dilation in other ways. Also, we need a magical reason to have the background radiation.
 

Offline MikeS

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1044
  • The Devils Advocate
    • View Profile
What other evidence do we have of the expanding universe?
« Reply #55 on: 20/08/2011 08:59:15 »
I have read all I can find on the internet, that is why I came to this conclusion.  If I have missed anything, perhaps you would be good enough to quote references.
You could start here: http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/cosmolog.htm

However, I'd recommend going to a library and reading a general book on astronomy from the last 10 years.
Quote
Photons arriving on Earth from the distant past are considerably red-shifted.  That is there are less of them arriving per second than would normally be expected and their wavelength is stretched.  To the best of my knowledge there are two explanation for this.  The universe is expanding or time is contracting.  From our perspective both effects look exactly the same.  There is no way of differentiating between them.


I don't know what "time contracting" is. I know that the expansion of the universe causes time dilation which we see marked effects of in distant objects. If one is just going to say that time dilation just happens, then one might as well say that unicorns are causing redshift.
Quote
The background radiation may well be as explained by the big-bang model but again the red shift of the CBR would look the same through expansion or time dilation in the past.  There is no reason why time dilation in the past would cause the CBR to look any different than it does.  A given amount of expansion or a given amount of time dilation in the past would look exactly the same.
If there is just some magical time dilation, there is no reason for their to be a background radiation. There is no reason for this background radiation to carry information about large scale structure. So many things fall apart if we simply assume magical time dilation.
Quote
This is not what one expects to see 'just' from an expanding universe as it contains evidence that clocks ran slower in the past.
http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn13792-cosmic-time-warp-revealed-in-slowmotion-supernovae.html
Expansion causes time dilation. We can measure features of expansion in many different ways. We cannot measure features of your magical time dilation in other ways. Also, we need a magical reason to have the background radiation.

All of your points above were covered in my last post.

I don't know what "time contracting" is.
Time contraction is the opposite of time dilation.  Mainstream sometimes uses the term time dilation for both dilation and contraction which is really confusing.

I know that the expansion of the universe causes time dilation
That's interesting, how does that work?  Something to do with your unicorns and magic perhaps?

which we see marked effects of in distant objects.
What marked effects?

If one is just going to say that time dilation just happens, then one might as well say that unicorns are causing redshift.
I answered that in my last post
http://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/index.php?topic=40685.msg365375#msg365375
[/i][/color]

If there is just some magical time dilation, there is no reason for their to be a background radiation. There is no reason for this background radiation to carry information about large scale structure. So many things fall apart if we simply assume magical time dilation.
This was covered in my last post

Expansion causes time dilation.
No, it does not.  The 'effects' of expansion and or time dilation merely look the same from our reference frame.
Type 1a supernova show that time is contracted now, dilated in the past.  Clocks are now ticking faster not slower.

We can measure features of expansion in many different ways.
What ways, other than those I have already mentioned and explained, namely:-
red-shift, type 1a supernova, CBR, Olbers paradox and short to mid range cosmological markers?

Also, we need a magical reason to have the background radiation.
No, we don't as I have explained in my last post.
« Last Edit: 20/08/2011 09:09:51 by MikeS »
 

Offline MikeS

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1044
  • The Devils Advocate
    • View Profile
What other evidence do we have of the expanding universe?
« Reply #56 on: 20/08/2011 09:16:52 »
quote PhyzBang

Expansion causes time dilation.

You might have a point there would you care to elaborate on it?
 

Offline CPT ArkAngel

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 583
  • Thanked: 3 times
    • View Profile
What other evidence do we have of the expanding universe?
« Reply #57 on: 20/08/2011 10:42:33 »
Mike, time on average is probably constant. Just before the Bigbang, gravity was at its maximum but kinetic energy was zero. Now, a part of gravitational energy is in kinetic energy. Before the Bigbang, it was all GR time dilation and now it is part GR and part SR... Relativity has almost been entirely proven.

Expansion of space, which is not kinetic energy, is causing an increase in time dilation, but i suspect it is redundant to Relativity. Relativity is relative... :o) Expansion of space could be the dark energy???

If there is dark energy and the universe expansion is truly accelerating, it would probably mean that time is dilating over time... Which, from an entire universe point of view, is improbable but not impossible; meaning there is probably an unknown part of the universe causing dark energy to our visible universe (if it is not space expansion)...
« Last Edit: 20/08/2011 11:08:27 by CPT ArkAngel »
 

Offline PhysBang

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 588
  • Thanked: 14 times
    • View Profile
What other evidence do we have of the expanding universe?
« Reply #58 on: 20/08/2011 18:08:03 »
quote PhyzBang

Expansion causes time dilation.

You might have a point there would you care to elaborate on it?
The redshift of cosmological expansion results from time dilation between the source of light and our observation of that light. Cosmological expansion cannot help but introduce a significant difference between the rest frames of distant objects. Many people erroneously attribute cosmological redshift to the Doppler effect but the Doppler effect is not the origin of cosmological redshift.

When we look at events of known length, we can see this time dilation at work. It's the same amount as that which would cause redshift from cosmological expansion.

One of the great pieces of evidence for expansion is the background radiation. This is not simply because it is extremely redshifted; it is because it is evidence that the universe was incredibly dense in the far past. A global field of time dilation with no source and no expansion could have no connection with a dense past of the universe.
« Last Edit: 20/08/2011 18:09:50 by PhysBang »
 

Offline Joe L. Ogan

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 476
    • View Profile
What other evidence do we have of the expanding universe?
« Reply #59 on: 20/08/2011 18:38:28 »
Hasn't the Red Shift system of measuring speed been proven to be wrong?  Thanks for comments.  Joe L. Ogan
 

Offline PhysBang

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 588
  • Thanked: 14 times
    • View Profile
What other evidence do we have of the expanding universe?
« Reply #60 on: 20/08/2011 19:21:09 »
That depends on what you mean by "Red Shift system of measuring speed". A shift in the spectrum of light or sound is regularly and reliably used to detect motion and calculate speed in many different circumstances. All techniques have potential systematic errors (and statistical errors akin to simple bad luck) that can be controlled to a greater or lesser extent.
 

Offline mattyh

  • First timers
  • *
  • Posts: 9
    • View Profile
What other evidence do we have of the expanding universe?
« Reply #61 on: 20/08/2011 19:38:04 »
Why is the universe expanding?

To me this a simple answer. All stars in the universe are expelling energy.  This energy acts like a rocket firing in all directions.  The reactive mass(?) of all the stars are propelling each and everyone away from each other.

Think of a rocket with an almost infinite supply of energy (well if we humans were building one).  This rocket in theory will accelerate and accelerate eventually maxing out at a predefined speed.

THIS CONSTANT (for now) NUCLEAR FORCE IS ACCELERATING THE EXPANSION OF THE UNIVERSE!!!

Sorry about the caps, i wanted to emphisize that.  Now, im no physics expert but basic GSCE (and Discovery channel) knowledge seems to point me in this rather basic explanation of why the universe is expanding.

Feel free to comment on why i may be mistaken, but take a minute to think about the research being done on 'Solar Sails'.

Looking forward to hear what you guys have to say? i do hope this hasnt been covered numerous times!!!
 

Offline MikeS

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1044
  • The Devils Advocate
    • View Profile
What other evidence do we have of the expanding universe?
« Reply #62 on: 21/08/2011 07:55:17 »
quote PhyzBang

Expansion causes time dilation.

You might have a point there would you care to elaborate on it?
The redshift of cosmological expansion results from time dilation between the source of light and our observation of that light. Cosmological expansion cannot help but introduce a significant difference between the rest frames of distant objects. Many people erroneously attribute cosmological redshift to the Doppler effect but the Doppler effect is not the origin of cosmological redshift.

When we look at events of known length, we can see this time dilation at work. It's the same amount as that which would cause redshift from cosmological expansion.


One of the great pieces of evidence for expansion is the background radiation. This is not simply because it is extremely redshifted; it is because it is evidence that the universe was incredibly dense in the far past. A global field of time dilation with no source and no expansion could have no connection with a dense past of the universe.

All this says is that the effects of cosmological expansion and time dilation look the same which is what I have been arguing all along.

Expansion does not cause time dilation.  They just look the same.

But a dense past implies a high gravitational field which would be accompanied by time dilation so there is a connection.  I have explained the mechanism in part (3) of Is cosmological time a constant? in new theories below
"As the universe cooled further much of the energy was converted into simple atoms.  The universe went from energy dominated to matter dominated.  The passage of time went from near infinite to slow."
http://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/index.php?topic=40685.msg365375#msg365375
 

Offline MikeS

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1044
  • The Devils Advocate
    • View Profile
What other evidence do we have of the expanding universe?
« Reply #63 on: 21/08/2011 08:03:35 »
Why is the universe expanding?

To me this a simple answer. All stars in the universe are expelling energy.  This energy acts like a rocket firing in all directions.  The reactive mass(?) of all the stars are propelling each and everyone away from each other.

Think of a rocket with an almost infinite supply of energy (well if we humans were building one).  This rocket in theory will accelerate and accelerate eventually maxing out at a predefined speed.

THIS CONSTANT (for now) NUCLEAR FORCE IS ACCELERATING THE EXPANSION OF THE UNIVERSE!!!

Sorry about the caps, i wanted to emphisize that.  Now, im no physics expert but basic GSCE (and Discovery channel) knowledge seems to point me in this rather basic explanation of why the universe is expanding.

Feel free to comment on why i may be mistaken, but take a minute to think about the research being done on 'Solar Sails'.

Looking forward to hear what you guys have to say? i do hope this hasnt been covered numerous times!!!

This is essentially what I proposed in this post in new theories
Is this the cause of cosmological expansion.
http://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/index.php?topic=40531.msg364500#msg364500
 

Offline MikeS

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1044
  • The Devils Advocate
    • View Profile
What other evidence do we have of the expanding universe?
« Reply #64 on: 21/08/2011 08:16:23 »
Mike, time on average is probably constant. Just before the Bigbang, gravity was at its maximum but kinetic energy was zero. Now, a part of gravitational energy is in kinetic energy. Before the Bigbang, it was all GR time dilation and now it is part GR and part SR... Relativity has almost been entirely proven.

Expansion of space, which is not kinetic energy, is causing an increase in time dilation, but i suspect it is redundant to Relativity. Relativity is relative... :o) Expansion of space could be the dark energy???

If there is dark energy and the universe expansion is truly accelerating, it would probably mean that time is dilating over time... Which, from an entire universe point of view, is improbable but not impossible; meaning there is probably an unknown part of the universe causing dark energy to our visible universe (if it is not space expansion)...

Now I would have thought that as there was no mass, there would be no gravity.  Likewise, after the big-bang there would still be no gravity until the universe had cooled sufficiently for plasma (mass) to form.

I just can't see that.  From our perspective they look the same.  That doesn't mean one is the cause of the other.  Is there any evidence for this?

Why would we assume that?  Universal time varies locally why assume it is any different on a cosmological time scale.  This would seem to imply that whatever causes the universes master clock to tick at a given rate is constant and unchanging.  The Universe is dynamic and constantly changing but on a cosmological time scale.  Also, as I have mentioned previously, the discrepancy in relative brightness to red-shift in type 1a supernova would seem to imply that clocks actually did tick slower in the past.
« Last Edit: 21/08/2011 08:31:06 by MikeS »
 

Offline MikeS

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1044
  • The Devils Advocate
    • View Profile
What other evidence do we have of the expanding universe?
« Reply #65 on: 21/08/2011 08:46:19 »
Quote
Expansion causes time dilation.

The Universe is supposedly expanding and that expansions is accelerating.  Supposedly, the universe is expanding at the speed of light.

As there are no preferential frames of reference, we must be travelling at the speed of light.

This would account for extreme time dilation.  Why aren't we frozen in time?  ;)
 

Offline Bored chemist

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 8655
  • Thanked: 42 times
    • View Profile
What other evidence do we have of the expanding universe?
« Reply #66 on: 21/08/2011 09:55:20 »
3 pages in, and nobody has pointed out that one reason for assuming that the universe is expanding is that we know it can't be constant.
 

Offline MikeS

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1044
  • The Devils Advocate
    • View Profile
What other evidence do we have of the expanding universe?
« Reply #67 on: 21/08/2011 10:17:03 »
3 pages in, and nobody has pointed out that one reason for assuming that the universe is expanding is that we know it can't be constant.

Very good point but it could be contracting. ;)
 

Offline MikeS

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1044
  • The Devils Advocate
    • View Profile
What other evidence do we have of the expanding universe?
« Reply #68 on: 21/08/2011 10:20:41 »
Quote
Expansion causes time dilation.

The Universe is supposedly expanding and that expansions is accelerating.  Supposedly, the universe is expanding at the speed of light.

As there are no preferential frames of reference, we must be travelling at the speed of light.

This would account for extreme time dilation.  Why aren't we frozen in time?  ;)

Dare I say it, this could be interpreted as evidence against cosmological expansion and evidence if favour of time dilation. :o
 

Offline CPT ArkAngel

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 583
  • Thanked: 3 times
    • View Profile
What other evidence do we have of the expanding universe?
« Reply #69 on: 21/08/2011 11:22:45 »
First, you have to accept that there is no singularities, which is more mainstream than the BigBang Theory... What i call gravity at the bigbang is the binding energy: the Unified Force.

Second, you have to accept the high probability that it was a black hole that suffer a breaking in its symmetry, not negative energy  causing the expansion, simply because there was a time before time, meaning that the black hole of origin is a condensed of a past universe (no negative energy needed, just a breaking of symmetry, instability:too much matter, or a collision). This has convert a great amount of the binding energy into kinetic energy, i think half of it (see my theory).

The expansion of space is the kind of pseudo-force that makes the universe expand allegedly faster than light.

I said time on average, not time everywhere in the universe. Time dilation is due to two things, relative velocity (SR) and gravity (GR). The average timerate is proportional to the energy of the universe. The unified force of the black hole contains the entire energy of the universe. Energy is conserved, thus time on average is constant...

So the expansion of space, if there is one, is like an excess of kinetic energy or a negative energy...

The objects velocities observed are higher the farther away the objects are from us. This leads to the Dark Energy theories. But it could be simply a matter of non uniformed distribution of kinetic energy. The farther away objects are, the more kinetic energy they got from the bigbang...
« Last Edit: 21/08/2011 11:35:24 by CPT ArkAngel »
 

Offline PhysBang

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 588
  • Thanked: 14 times
    • View Profile
What other evidence do we have of the expanding universe?
« Reply #70 on: 21/08/2011 17:19:20 »
All this says is that the effects of cosmological expansion and time dilation look the same which is what I have been arguing all along.
ONLY FOR COSMOLOGICAL REDSHIFT. There is also the change in average density and the development of large scale structure over time. A change in time dilation does not make things less dense.
Quote
But a dense past implies a high gravitational field which would be accompanied by time dilation so there is a connection.  I have explained the mechanism in part (3) of Is cosmological time a constant? in new theories below
"As the universe cooled further much of the energy was converted into simple atoms.  The universe went from energy dominated to matter dominated.  The passage of time went from near infinite to slow."
http://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/index.php?topic=40685.msg365375#msg365375
Where did this density go? Did it magically disappear?
 

Offline MikeS

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1044
  • The Devils Advocate
    • View Profile
What other evidence do we have of the expanding universe?
« Reply #71 on: 22/08/2011 07:13:10 »
All this says is that the effects of cosmological expansion and time dilation look the same which is what I have been arguing all along.
ONLY FOR COSMOLOGICAL REDSHIFT. There is also the change in average density and the development of large scale structure over time. A change in time dilation does not make things less dense.
Quote
But a dense past implies a high gravitational field which would be accompanied by time dilation so there is a connection.  I have explained the mechanism in part (3) of Is cosmological time a constant? in new theories below
"As the universe cooled further much of the energy was converted into simple atoms.  The universe went from energy dominated to matter dominated.  The passage of time went from near infinite to slow."
http://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/index.php?topic=40685.msg365375#msg365375
Where did this density go? Did it magically disappear?

I agree, a change in time dilation does not make things less dense, I never said it did.  I addressed this point in
http://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/index.php?topic=40685.msg365375#msg365375
I believe inflation took place in the early universe and that inflation rolled off to become a much slower expansion. 
My point being, you can't tell the difference between cosmological expansion and time dilation in which case our estimates of cosmological distance and how old the universe is may be considerably off.  Also as mentioned in the above link
"When we ask how old is the Universe?  Is this a meaningful question if the passage of time is variable?  It's like measuring length with a piece of elastic."

"Where did this density go? Did it magically disappear?"
I have already addressed this in the above link.
"3a)   Inflation rolls off turning into a more sedate expansion."
« Last Edit: 22/08/2011 07:30:51 by MikeS »
 

Offline MikeS

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1044
  • The Devils Advocate
    • View Profile
What other evidence do we have of the expanding universe?
« Reply #72 on: 22/08/2011 07:36:23 »
CPT
Assuming there may be more than one theory, which one? Link please.
 

Offline PhysBang

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 588
  • Thanked: 14 times
    • View Profile
What other evidence do we have of the expanding universe?
« Reply #73 on: 22/08/2011 16:11:44 »
I addressed this point in
http://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/index.php?topic=40685.msg365375#msg365375
So, essentially you want to throw away all the evidence we have for expansion, except where it's convenient for your own pet theory. Gotcha.
 

Offline MikeS

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1044
  • The Devils Advocate
    • View Profile
What other evidence do we have of the expanding universe?
« Reply #74 on: 22/08/2011 16:53:30 »
I addressed this point in
http://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/index.php?topic=40685.msg365375#msg365375
So, essentially you want to throw away all the evidence we have for expansion, except where it's convenient for your own pet theory. Gotcha.

As you are well aware I only wrote that post as I could not mention its contents in this thread.  It was written in response to your query as to why the passage of time could vary.  It was written as a courtesy to you but is essentially irrelevant to the arguments in this thread.

Not at all.  I have never maintained that the universe is not expanding.  What I have maintained all along is there is precious little (if any) evidence for expansion that can not also be explained by time dilation.  I have asked you to point out any evidence that I might have missed. 
quote PhysBang
"We can measure features of expansion in many different ways."
My answer "What ways, other than those I have already mentioned and explained, namely:-
red-shift, type 1a supernova, CBR, Olbers paradox and short to mid range cosmological markers?

This you have failed to do (other than in extremely general terms).  I have answered all of your points politely despite that fact that I have to keep repeating myself whilst ignoring your condescending attitude and sarcasm.  Now, it would seem, you have run out of arguments, pity but I understand.

As I said in my last post
"My point being, you can't tell the difference between cosmological expansion and time dilation in which case our estimates of cosmological distance and how old the universe is may be considerably off."
« Last Edit: 22/08/2011 17:25:06 by MikeS »
 

The Naked Scientists Forum

What other evidence do we have of the expanding universe?
« Reply #74 on: 22/08/2011 16:53:30 »

 

SMF 2.0.10 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines
SMFAds for Free Forums
 
Login
Login with username, password and session length