Naked Science Forum

Non Life Sciences => Physics, Astronomy & Cosmology => Topic started by: yor_on on 13/03/2009 16:10:36

Title: Can we measure 'expansion'
Post by: yor_on on 13/03/2009 16:10:36
If space is expanding, shouldn't that be measurable inside our solarsystem?
Title: Can we measure 'expansion'
Post by: Vern on 13/03/2009 16:26:42
I would be more inclined to accept the notion of expansion if there was even a measure of it within our own galaxy.
Title: Can we measure 'expansion'
Post by: lyner on 13/03/2009 17:06:53
Do you not accept Hubble's data? Remember, the attractive forces within a galaxy could mean that the mean expansion could be less than the effect between galaxies. Using the Hubble constant, you could work out how much you'd expect over galactic distances.
Title: Can we measure 'expansion'
Post by: yor_on on 13/03/2009 18:40:44
Take a look here. http://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/index.php?topic=20927.msg236644#msg236644
If that is correct, shouldn't the same phenomena happen here? Even if gravity 'won' I still think we should notice it as it seems to state that the gravitational effects should be weaker inside any 'mass' distribution, or am I thinking wrong here. Would it be as lights 'redshift' with the exception of us not noticing anything at all?
Title: Can we measure 'expansion'
Post by: Burt Brinn on 13/03/2009 19:16:00
From what little I understand of expansion, I heard that it is the space in between molecules that is expanding.  So I would expect that your ruler would be experiencing expansion also.  But that is just me going out on a very fragile limb.
Title: Can we measure 'expansion'
Post by: Vern on 13/03/2009 19:36:02
Do you not accept Hubble's data? Remember, the attractive forces within a galaxy could mean that the mean expansion could be less than the effect between galaxies. Using the Hubble constant, you could work out how much you'd expect over galactic distances.

I accept Hubble's data and the gigantic amount of data accumulated since. But I don't like the idea of space expanding. I keep looking for someone to come up with a better explanation that will fit the observations. I know that we do not presently have such a better explanation.
Title: Can we measure 'expansion'
Post by: lyner on 13/03/2009 20:09:11
Better? I think it's really quite satisfying. It's a lot less bollocks than many other ideas I've read on these pages!
But I'm increasingly convinced that there's no 'right' answer. The best answer is the one which ties most things together.
Why should there be an ultimate truth, in any case?
Time to turn off the switch when that happens.
Title: Can we measure 'expansion'
Post by: Vern on 13/03/2009 22:22:47
We have to accept the notion that empty space is not simply empty space. That is the part that don't sit well with me. Not only is space something; but it is something that can expand and an accelerating rate and take gigantibillions of galaxies worth of mass with it. Such space must generate unimaginable power to do that.

We don't know of anything in our physical experience that can do that, nor do we have any physical laws of nature that can predict that kind of expansion.
Title: Can we measure 'expansion'
Post by: lyner on 13/03/2009 22:52:46
I think you are looking for a solution which involves very familiar concepts. That is too much to ask for. After all, if you lived in 1909, you wouldn't be able to understand what has happened in the subsequent 100 years using the familiar ideas of the day.
Title: Can we measure 'expansion'
Post by: yor_on on 13/03/2009 23:36:50
We have to accept the notion that empty space is not simply empty space. That is the part that don't sit well with me. Not only is space something; but it is something that can expand and an accelerating rate and take gigantibillions of galaxies worth of mass with it. Such space must generate unimaginable power to do that.

We don't know of anything in our physical experience that can do that, nor do we have any physical laws of nature that can predict that kind of expansion.

I think you have a good point there Vern.  I wonder if anyone have counted on how much energy it would take to move the milky way :) But then again I'm not sure what energy  would be seen as before it's in our 'neighborhood'. I don't write 'spacetime' as I suspect that this vacuum may have a different view on it than we do? Even though it all should belong together, possibly :)
Title: Can we measure 'expansion'
Post by: Vern on 13/03/2009 23:53:41
Quote from: sophiecentaur
I think you are looking for a solution which involves very familiar concepts. That is too much to ask for. After all, if you lived in 1909, you wouldn't be able to understand what has happened in the subsequent 100 years using the familiar ideas of the day.
I think that one idea that was popular around the year 1900, if we had incubated it, would have provided a much better view of nature than the current developments provide. That idea was: the final irreducible constituent of all physical reality is the electromagnetic field. (http://photontheory.com/TheEvidence.html)

That idea is not incompatible with any experimental evidence that we can find. However that idea is incompatible with just about every modern theory.

I felt kinda blind sided when I woke up one morning and all of a sudden it was okay to consider the universe as expanding at an accelerating rate; I didn't see that coming. I didn't see any great study that defined the properties of space that would demand that expansion. The only properties of empty space that I know about are magnetic permeability and electric permittivity.
Title: Can we measure 'expansion'
Post by: Vern on 14/03/2009 00:07:56
Quote from: yor_on
I think you have a good point there Vern.  I wonder if anyone have counted on how much energy it would take to move the milky way :) But then again I'm not sure what energy  would be seen as before it's in our 'neighborhood'. I don't write 'sapcetime' as I suspect that this vacuum may have a different view on it than we do? Even though it all should belong together, possibly :)
I get the feeling when reading about new concepts that are accepted within the scientific community that some entity somewhere imagines themselves capable of describing nature such that nature gleefully becomes as they describe it. I suspect that we can only hope to discover what nature is like. We can not dictate that it must be this way or that way.
Title: Can we measure 'expansion'
Post by: DoctorBeaver on 14/03/2009 10:42:55
We have to accept the notion that empty space is not simply empty space. That is the part that don't sit well with me. Not only is space something; but it is something that can expand and an accelerating rate and take gigantibillions of galaxies worth of mass with it. Such space must generate unimaginable power to do that.

We don't know of anything in our physical experience that can do that, nor do we have any physical laws of nature that can predict that kind of expansion.

I think you have a good point there Vern.  I wonder if anyone have counted on how much energy it would take to move the milky way :) But then again I'm not sure what energy  would be seen as before it's in our 'neighborhood'. I don't write 'sapcetime' as I suspect that this vacuum may have a different view on it than we do? Even though it all should belong together, possibly :)

But the Milky Way and other galaxies are not moving due to expansion. Nothing is pushing them apart. Space is expanding but the galaxies are stationary within space.

In any case, whole superclusters of galaxies are moving due to gravity and that is a very weak force compared to EM, and the weak & strong forces.
Title: Can we measure 'expansion'
Post by: yor_on on 14/03/2009 11:28:07
DB you are correct in that it's space that is expanding, but that must 'push' on those galaxies too. So either it is a 'force' acting upon space. In that case the energy inherent in that force seems to be enormous, or else it's something totally different and 'force'  shouldn't be used for describing it, assuming that there is a expanding universe and that the culprit is vacuum.
Title: Can we measure 'expansion'
Post by: DoctorBeaver on 14/03/2009 11:43:13
DB you are correct in that it's space that is expanding, but that must 'push' on those galaxies too.

But that implies the galaxies are moving due to the expansion and they aren't. Within their bit of space they are stationary apart from their movement due to gravity.
Title: Can we measure 'expansion'
Post by: Vern on 14/03/2009 13:45:33
I don't think I have ever seen an in-detail description of just exactly how this expansion of space is taking place. Space is expanding, but galaxies are not? The concept seems to still be evolving. The scenario is a little different each time I get a description of it.
Title: Can we measure 'expansion'
Post by: DoctorBeaver on 14/03/2009 14:14:40
The expansion is happening inside galaxies but the force of gravity is stronger and is holding it in check. At least, that is what the theory says.

Just a thought:

Could that explain why gravity is so weak compared to the other forces? That it is being acted against by (is in opposition to) expansion? If there is this other force trying to push everything apart while gravity is trying to pull it all together, that would surely have the effect of making gravity appear weaker than it really is.
Title: Can we measure 'expansion'
Post by: Vern on 14/03/2009 14:21:33
Okay, that makes sense; I had heard that before. I didn't know if we had settled on that concept. If we know that much, we must also know how great is this force, and it must then be a fifth force of nature. Maybe it is mediated by an expansiton, or maybe even a Chronaton. Unification theorists should love that [:)]
Title: Can we measure 'expansion'
Post by: DoctorBeaver on 14/03/2009 14:24:14
Okay, that makes sense;

I made sense? Me? Made sense?  [:0]
Title: Can we measure 'expansion'
Post by: Vern on 14/03/2009 14:39:16
I keep going back to the question; why are we forced into this weird concept of expanding space? It is because we see that starlight is Doppler shifted toward the red and that the amount of this red shift is consistently greater the farther the light source. But now, we're saying it is not Doppler shifted at all. Light is being stretched out by expanding space.

I keep thinking that surely there will soon be some reasonable explanation that will forgo all this weirdness.
Title: Can we measure 'expansion'
Post by: yor_on on 14/03/2009 15:08:07
DB you are correct in that it's space that is expanding, but that must 'push' on those galaxies too.

But that implies the galaxies are moving due to the expansion and they aren't. Within their bit of space they are stationary apart from their movement due to gravity.


I don't agree DB, the galaxies are moving due to the expansion, relative any frame of reference. It may well be so (in fact, it must be so:) that they don't experience any expansion themselves, but just like floating islands in the ocean are moving so are those galaxies moving in spacetime.
Movement, is after all, when all is said and done, the distance between two frames of reference growing as seen in time, at least in our spacetime. Inflation was outside what we call spacetime today as I see it, expansion takes place inside it. ::))
Title: Can we measure 'expansion'
Post by: DoctorBeaver on 14/03/2009 15:49:58
Quote
but just like floating islands in the ocean are moving so are those galaxies moving in spacetime.

No, it's very different. The ocean isn't expanding. It is currents (water & wind) that push floating objects around. These are no such ccurrents in space.
Title: Can we measure 'expansion'
Post by: yor_on on 14/03/2009 16:09:28
Yes, it was only a analogue:) and you could say that there are forces of 'density' acting on the island but not on the galaxies, that is if we presume space to be a 'perfect vacuum'. But I still say that the galaxies are moving (accelerating in fact) relative us and that this should, in our spacetime at least, imply some 'force' being involved. What this idea say is that space is suddenly 'isolated' into islands of galaxies with all the 'normal' physics working. But outside those you have 'space' that somehow 'grows/expands', similar to how a underwater spring can 'push' objects aside as it sprouts under water. Either space has distance as a quality, and then the distance between objects are growing in space, or if distance is a outdated description I think I will leave it to you to define what a 'space' between two points represent, if not a distance.
Title: Can we measure 'expansion'
Post by: yor_on on 14/03/2009 17:12:03
It's a strange 'force' if so, strong enough to push whole galaxies, but so weak that it can't do anything inside our solarsystem.
Title: Can we measure 'expansion'
Post by: DoctorBeaver on 14/03/2009 18:38:46
Quote
But outside those you have 'space' that somehow 'grows/expands', similar to how a underwater spring can 'push' objects aside as it sprouts under water

The space inside galaxies would expand if gravity were not holding it in check. The force is acting everywhere but in some places is more noticeable as there is less gravity.
Title: Can we measure 'expansion'
Post by: lyner on 14/03/2009 20:04:42
Is the Hubble constant big enough to get a measurable amount of expansion within a galaxy? Someone do the sums for us please - I'm off up to have a bath 'cos I stink of fibreglass resin.
Title: Can we measure 'expansion'
Post by: Vern on 14/03/2009 22:46:28
I found this calculator (http://www.star.uclan.ac.uk/~cph/redshift.html) Now if we can get a good translation of the units they use into the units we know about, we might just be able to get a number.
Title: Can we measure 'expansion'
Post by: yor_on on 14/03/2009 22:54:29
Way to go Vern :)
Title: Can we measure 'expansion'
Post by: DoctorBeaver on 14/03/2009 22:58:04
That calculator is gibberish!  [???]
Title: Can we measure 'expansion'
Post by: Vern on 14/03/2009 23:10:17
Here's the home page of the (http://www.star.uclan.ac.uk/~cph/) calculator. It seems legitimate. Dr. Chris Haines seems to be a Phd working in a graduate school in Italy.
Title: Can we measure 'expansion'
Post by: yor_on on 14/03/2009 23:19:44
It is certainly not easy from a layman perspective :)

------Quotes--

Omega_M ~ M/L x j/\rho_c, where M/L is the field mass-to-light ratio, j is the field luminosity density and rho_c is the closure density. A wide range of potential systematic effects are explicitly controlled by independently deriving the mean cluster mass profile (finding good agreement with theoretical predictions), the cluster light profile, the redshift evolution of both cluster and field galaxies, the differential evolution between the two, and the field and cluster efficiencies for the conversion of baryons into galaxies

We conclude that Omega_M=0.19 +/- 0.06 where the errors are objectively evaluated via resampling methods. The redshift evolution of the numbers of clusters per unit co-moving volume over the 0 <= z <= 0.6 range is found to be very slow, as is required for consistency with a low density universe. The evolution of galaxy clustering in the field is compatible with a low density universe, and strongly disfavors models of galaxy evolution that associate low density halos with individual galaxies.

http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/9711272

---------

Lambda: A constant term (labeled Lambda) which Einstein added to his general theory of relativity in the mistaken belief that the Universe was neither expanding nor contracting. The cosmological constant was found to be unnecessary once observations indicated the Universe was expanding.

As for that equation  ' H0 ( km s-1 Mpc-1 ) '
You better read this first :)
http://books.google.se/books?id=wgOYbScwi-cC&pg=PA373&lpg=PA373&dq=what+is+H0+(+km+s-1+Mpc-1+)+astronomy&source=bl&ots=6Z4OyVPseX&sig=_tcyQj6CFniP-mN43FCx9X6PNKE&hl=sv&ei=pyy8Sfq7B5GJsAaPkrzpDg&sa=X&oi=book_result&resnum=2&ct=result

And Look back time http://www.iop.org/EJ/article/1538-4357/619/1/L103/18425.web.pdf

The phenomenon that, owing to the finite velocity of light, the more distant an object being observed, the older is the information received from it. A galaxy one billion light-years away, for instance, is seen as it looked one billion years ago.

--------End Quotes.........

Ah, are we ready to calculate now?
Title: Can we measure 'expansion'
Post by: lyner on 15/03/2009 00:06:09
Well, I'll do it, then
The Hubble constant is 72km/s /MPc and the galaxy is about 0.1MPc across.
That means the recession of the most distant stars in our galaxy due to Hubble expansion is only 7.2km/s.
That's very very small wrt c so you will not detect it by red shift.

Even Andromeda which is 0.77MPc away is only  receding at 55km/s due to Hubble.

Red shift is significant much much further away.
Title: Can we measure 'expansion'
Post by: DoctorBeaver on 15/03/2009 00:47:21
SC - Andromeda receding? As in Messier 31 Andromeda? Are you sure about that?
Title: Can we measure 'expansion'
Post by: Vern on 15/03/2009 02:38:17
Quote from: sophiecentaur
Even Andromeda which is 0.77MPc away is only  receding at 55km/s due to Hubble.
But I think Andromedia is approaching us at about 30 km/s and accelerating toward us. And in 15 billion years or so we will be colliding with Andromedia. But the solar system probably can't survive that long.

But I guess the question at hand can't be advanced by the cosmic red shift. I think we were hoping to find some evidence that would help indicate whether our galaxy is expanding internally. It seems that evidence can not come from studies of the local red shift.
Title: Can we measure 'expansion'
Post by: lyner on 15/03/2009 09:39:30
I said Andromeda is receding due to Hubble expansion- that's nothing to do with how it's moving 'in it's own right'. The few km/s of space expansion is, of course , swamped be the galaxy' a motion. There will be stars within Andromeda which are traveling away from us due to their motion within their galaxy  and objects near those stars which are moving towards us.
The hubble calculation just tells you the expansion of space and the average motion at that distance..

(typo edit - the ipod is too damned smart!)
Title: Can we measure 'expansion'
Post by: DoctorBeaver on 15/03/2009 09:41:12
Ah, my apologies SC. I misunderstood what you meant.
Title: Can we measure 'expansion'
Post by: yor_on on 15/03/2009 12:22:32
DB you say a very interesting thing here.
"The space inside galaxies would expand if gravity were not holding it in check. The force is acting everywhere but in some places is more noticeable as there is less gravity."

What we are getting 'more' of is 'vacuum'.
When we talk about something getting 'more' of something, we usually refer to it in form of density. In this case though we are referring to a 'nothing' getting more. So, by what should we be able to proof the existence of a larger amount of 'nothing'. Yep, that's my thought too, there is only one 'objective' referrer of such a state, namely 'distance'. So are we getting larger 'distances' inside the solarsystem due to expansion? Apparently not, only outside our galaxies.

Now why is it this way? Apparently gravity is thought to be the arbiter of where expansion can or can't place 'new nothings' in our spacetime. Try to consider whether it is possible to place 'nothing at all' beside another 'nothing' and then say that we doubled the amount of nothings:). We know that there exist a vacuum and we know that it has a distance to it. From that view it's not implausible for a new addition of 'nothing' to widen the distances between 'nothings' aka 'vacuum'. But what the heck would that have to do with gravity? Either gravity is a implication of relativity and spacetime, and so is nothing more than the universal 'rollercoaster' acting upon every mass, its 'rides' created by mass in time. Or gravity is a 'force' carried by Higgs 'particles/bosons'. If we accept those ideas then what we call the 'expansion' of 'nothing', as a vacuum in fact is, must be a relation of matter/mass as gravity is created by matter/mass, no matter how one turns it around.

And that makes most sense to me if matter/space would be a symmetry, where you get both for the price of one, so to speak. And in that context the whole idea of distances becomes suspect, as we already know that distance is nothing more than a relation to acceleration, uniform motion, and density, and of course, how the whole idea of placing 'nothing' beside 'nothing' in any way should be able to lengthen a distance :)
Title: Can we measure 'expansion'
Post by: DoctorBeaver on 15/03/2009 12:57:08
But it isn't "nothing,is it. It's full of virtual particles.
Title: Can we measure 'expansion'
Post by: Vern on 15/03/2009 12:58:50
Quote from: sophiecentaur
Even Andromeda which is 0.77MPc away is only  receding at 55km/s due to Hubble.
Yes; I noticed that you limited your explanation to -- due to Hubble. and was not confused by it.

The idea that space inside a galaxy can expand, but the galaxy does not expand because gravity overcomes the expansion; that idea seems troubled. What of the behaviour of gravity that might need adjustment so that orbits of heavenly bodies would obediently conform to this new expanded space.

The whole idea of expansion seems a little ad-hoc and not well thought through.
Title: Can we measure 'expansion'
Post by: lyner on 15/03/2009 21:25:45
I would like to recant my statement about gravity altering things. The fact is that you can allow space to expand at the Hubble rate without needing to modify it due to gravity - unlike gravity, its effect gets bigger and bigger with distance and needn't be considered between stars.

5 am not sure about the `'not well thought out" comment. I'm sure it has had a bit more attention than any of the posted  new theories on this forum. I think the point about space expanding is that space only exists by virtue of the mass within it - as the masses spread out, so does the space.
Title: Can we measure 'expansion'
Post by: Vern on 15/03/2009 21:35:18
The main problem I have with the expansion theory is the part that allows expanding space to carry matter along with it such that the matter is not constrained to the speed of light. We can never observe that; we can only assume it happens because we know of things that are separated by distances that require faster than light speed to get the separation in the time allotted.

I am inclined to search for some other answer.

I have no problem at all with the notion that space expands because things move further apart. I have a problem with the reverse. Things move further apart because space expands.[:)] It just seems like a crutch go get around a problem with the big bang concept.
Title: Can we measure 'expansion'
Post by: lyner on 15/03/2009 23:24:50
Is there a causal 'direction' between the two processes? Why not let them happen together without a `"because"? The "because" could well come from outside the model - in the same way that the BB does.
It seems that, yet again we try to explain things only using familiar terms and find it doesn't work.
Sounds like a cop out, I know, but...
Title: Can we measure 'expansion'
Post by: Vern on 16/03/2009 12:32:22
It is easy to get side tracked; causality is a side issue; the key issue is; can things in space gain distance between themselves and other things at a greater rate than the speed of light?

This question has great implications. If things can behave in such a way it immediately falsifies the concept: the final irreducible constituent of all physical reality is the electromagnetic field.

That is no small thing. If it is so, it is the first observed reality since Maxwell's postulate, that falsifies that concept.

You can find anything on the internet (http://in.answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20081221065733AAIVBrZ) but it is interesting to see that others are thinking about this.

Bolding is my own.
Quote from: the link
Best Answer - Chosen by Asker
Every test of this theory has held true - all it would take is one single exception and the theory would need tweaking (or simply discarded and new theories based on the new observations formulated).
Based on the data alone, and the newer technologies which have, in every case, confirmed Maxwell's postulate, it is very reasonable to be confident and sure that this is, at least in part, the way the universe works.
Title: Can we measure 'expansion'
Post by: yor_on on 16/03/2009 23:13:14
To be honest, I'm not sure what 'virtual particles' is:)
I know we have some kind of, ah, 'boiling energy' in spacetime that seems to express itself both as 'relative particles' and 'relative photons'. and we have pretty good mathematics describing them too, as well as indirect evidence for them. But a vacuum is by definition empty space?
Awh :)

I mean, you can take your trailer and drive it through any spot of 'space' and there won't be a bump!! As you seem to say DB, it may be our definitions that is dubious here. But then if I may ask, what's behind a vacuum?

Title: Can we measure 'expansion'
Post by: DoctorBeaver on 17/03/2009 00:15:53
But then if I may ask, what's behind a vacuum?

The person doing the housework!  [:D]

Seriously, though, I'm not sure what you mean by that question.
Title: Can we measure 'expansion'
Post by: yor_on on 17/03/2009 12:01:29
Well, if vacuum is containing such a lot of 'energy' it can't be made of 'nothing' it seems to me. Also if it is what allows for expansion then that too seems to imply that a vacuum isn't made of 'nothings'. Maybe it's a 'weak link' :) in spacetime? But then again, if that is the deal here then one have to ask what 'spacetime' is? Is it both what we can measure as being consistent in time, and those fluctuations we believe 'vacuum' to have (virtual particles/photons), inherent energy and 'expansion'.

Then the question seems to be, are they a part of what we call spacetime, or are they some kind of 'rips/exceptions' in our new model? If they are a needed part of spacetime, won't we need to 'modify' our ideas? As well as the idea of 'dimensions'? To me it all seems to hinge on the way we choose to describe spacetime, it is when we find the right way and the right words for explaining it, that the real paradigm can take place. It's always like that, it seems to me, when we don't have the 'right' words for describing a phenomena.

And that seems to me to mean that Einsteins model is a description of what is in 3D + time, but what we need is a new description of what the model should be seen as with those other parameters 'counted in'. And that takes us back to the concept of 'dimensions' and what our definitions really say about them. Perhaps they are all wrong :) Perhaps we need some new conceptual thinking of what distance is, for example. I believe in Einsteins model, as far as I understands it, but I'm not sure the 'descriptions' we use are the best, it's like we are looking at spacetime via a mirror made by preconceptions anchored in our history. LeeE seems to wonder about it for example, and I'm sure you do too DB. Another preconception of mine is that there will be a 'simple' way of describing spacetime in words, accounting for all phenomena we see, we just need to 'turn our heads'. Not that I know how, though :)

That's why I ask :)
Title: Can we measure 'expansion'
Post by: Vern on 17/03/2009 13:02:28
Quote from: yor_on
LeeE seems to wonder about it for example, and I'm sure you do too DB. Another preconception of mine is that there will be a 'simple' way of describing spacetime in words, accounting for all phenomena we see, we just need to 'turn our heads'. Not that I know how, though :)
There is that 'simple' way of describing nature, yor_on. John Wheeler expressed the same concerns that you express in your quote above.
Quote from: John Wheeler
Some principle uniquely right and uniquely simple must, when one knows it, be also so obvious that it is clear that the universe is built, and must be built, in such and such a way and that it could not possibly be otherwise.
I think that James Clerk Maxwell gave us that principle nearly a hundred and fifty years ago. The problem is that we have not yet accepted it. My guess, as DoctorBeaver noted before, is that we have about another hundred and fifty years to go before we accept it.
It is this: The final irreducible constituent of all physical reality is the electromagnetic field.

I knew that Maxwell had nailed it when I realized that the postulate emboldened above completely explains relativity phenomena in flat space time, and refutes any notion of Einstein-Minkowski space-time.
Title: Can we measure 'expansion'
Post by: DoctorBeaver on 17/03/2009 13:50:05
Quote
And that seems to me to mean that Einsteins model is a description of what is in 3D + time, but what we need is a new description of what the model should be seen as with those other parameters 'counted in'.

We know that Einstein's models aren't complete even though he was a genius and a revolutionary thinker. For instance, he never tried to explain how matter warps spacetime. But even he was held back to some extent by pre-conceived beliefs. He couldn't at first accept that his calculations precluded a static universe and included the Cosmological Constant as a kludge. He did, though, finally accept the error of his ways where that was concerned.

With his ability to "think outside the box" I wonder what he'd come up with if he could come back to life now and see all the new knowledge we have acquired, all the new theories that have been devised, since his death.
Title: Can we measure 'expansion'
Post by: JukriS on 17/03/2009 14:06:13
Space dont expanding at all!

Energy expanding in sopace who dont expanding!

Also photons expanding and emit expanding energy and with that energy, expanding photons pushing themselfs far away same way what photons wexpanding!

thats why old light it is redshifting1

You cant see, heard, taste, smell or feel space1

You cant make any test with space!


There is no drawing force at all1

Only force is pressure!

We can explain everything with change of pressure!


All the phenomens can be explained by one force and this force is the  pressure. (Don´t forget the power of thought! You also can move yourself by the power of thought! Quite right. You get yourself to move with the help of the muscles . You so you send message of your brains to your muscles and you get yourself to move? What is power/force of this thought, which get you to move there where you want?).


We can describe by people what happens in the atomcores all the time. For example one thousand people can go to the space and curl up close to each other. Now we have made an energyconsentration of people that covers a certain spot of the space. We know that the biggest part of the atoms is empty space. Also between people there exists empty space that does not expand or curve.

Now these people can begin to straighten or in other words to open up and this way they push themselves away from each other. One can observe the hardest pressure in the middle of this human energyconsentration and people who locate in the middle must do an enormeous job so that they woun´t
flatten in the centre. These people in the centre sweat the most. This is excactly the same thing that happens without gravitation for example in the centre of the earth and in the centre of the sun.

The density of the human energyconsentration reduces and the people push themselves away from the centre of the human energyconsentration. Now for a little while we can observe a phenomen of gravitation without a drawing force (that actually does not exist) on the surface of the human energyconsentration.

In my opinion the space does not expand or curve. If it would expand, could you describe how does the space expand?

It is easy to describe how the energy all the time turns into a less dense energy in the atomcores, so I think that it is time to forget all about the magical expanding and curving of the space. You can also forget all the spare spacedimentions, the dark substance and the dark energy.

So the space does not expand or curve!

The atomcores expand and open up expanding electrons and expanding photons and they beam their expanding energy as waves away from themselves. This is how it goes!

When you look at the galaxy, you can understand that the energy inside the galaxy is denser than outside the galaxy. If you look at a star, you can understand that energy inside the star is denser than outside the star. This way you will know for sure that the energy inside the atomcore is denser than outside the atomcore. It is not difficult to understand that the energy inside the protons / neutrons is denser than outside of them and the energy inside the qvarks is denser than outside the qvarks and so on...

It it also easy to realize that outside the visible universe the is an area, where is really much more energy than the visible universe has all together and the energy some where out there is much denser than than it is in a visible universe. Still in that area far away from the visible universe there is no centre point where the energy would be denser than outside it.

That three-dimentionally expanding energyconsentration that bems energywaves with the nature of the galaxies, is formed also from separate three-dimentionally expanding energyconsentrations ect. And so the smaller separate energyconsentrations we talk about, the denser and denser the
energy is all the time.

So the atomcore does not have a centre point, where the energy would be denser than outside it. There is no centre point also at the universe, outside which the energy would be less denser.

Because the MOVEMENT takes place towards a less dense area, then the visible universe MOVES as an entity away from that one point that is really far away from the visible universe and where the energy is much denser than it is in a visible universe.

Title: Can we measure 'expansion'
Post by: yor_on on 17/03/2009 15:17:23
Jukris, I looked at your site, if you have a hypothesis you should place it in 'New Theories' instead of 'copy and paste' it to here. This is more or less :) 'mainstream physics' we are discussing, even though we discuss some 'weird' subjects like expansion. And none writing here is doing any polemics. It's not a 'religious subject' to us. So place your hypothesis in 'new Theories' and see what happens :)
Title: Can we measure 'expansion'
Post by: DoctorBeaver on 17/03/2009 15:24:35
Jukris - There are many errors in what you say and, unfortunately, a lot that I can't understand.

Quote
Also between people there exists empty space that does not expand or curve.

The space around any object with mass is warped. But with small masses like people it is so miniscule it is impossible to detect.

Quote
These people in the centre sweat the most. This is excactly the same thing that happens without gravitation for example in the centre of the earth and in the centre of the sun.

I have no idea what you mean by that.

Quote
The atomcores expand and open up expanding electrons and expanding photons and they beam their expanding energy as waves away from themselves. This is how it goes!

Electrons & photons do not expand. Nothing is just "beamed" away. Photons can be emitted but that's the nearest you'll get.

Quote
It it also easy to realize that outside the visible universe the is an area, where is really much more energy than the visible universe has all together and the energy some where out there is much denser than than it is in a visible universe.

How is that easy to realise? We haven't a clue what is actually beyond the visible universe. We make the assumptin that it's the same as what we can see. This is called homogeneity.

As with anything that cannot be seen or measured, we have to make assumptions. But those assumptions have to be realistic. For instance, past the visible universe could be a giant cheese factory made of pink bricks; but that is not realistic. The only realistic assumption we can make about what is beyond the visible universe is that it is the same as the visible universe. Anything else would be pure fantasy.

Quote
Because the MOVEMENT takes place towards a less dense area, then the visible universe MOVES as an entity away from that one point that is really far away from the visible universe and where the energy is much denser than it is in a visible universe.

But the visible universe is expanding in all directions. It isn't just moving away from something.

Quote
You say, space start expanding faster same time when quasars born!

Who is saying that? I've certainly never heard it before. Space has been expanding since the instant of the Big Bang. Inflationary Theory says it went through a period of accelerated expansion from 10-36 seconds to 10-33 seconds but quasars didn't start forming until millions, or even billions, of years later.

Quote
Because there born quasars, there start moving more energy between expanding photons and that energy get photons expanding faster!

There you go again. Where did you get the idea that photons expand? They don't.
Title: Can we measure 'expansion'
Post by: Vern on 17/03/2009 15:24:40
Quote from: DoctorBeaver
With his ability to "think outside the box" I wonder what he'd come up with if he could come back to life now and see all the new knowledge we have acquired, all the new theories that have been devised, since his death.
Since Einstein, like Schroedinger, hated Quantum Mechanics, I doubt that he would have liked any of the new string theories or their derivatives. [:)]

Schrodinger's Bio (http://nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/physics/laureates/1933/schrodinger-bio.html)

Quote from: the link
It came as a result of his dissatisfaction with the quantum condition in Bohr's orbit theory and his belief that atomic spectra should really be determined by some kind of eigenvalue problem. For this work he shared with Dirac the Nobel Prize for 1933.
Title: Can we measure 'expansion'
Post by: DoctorBeaver on 17/03/2009 15:30:22
Vern - I didn't say he would like any of it. In fact, I think he would find a lot of it rather distasteful.
Title: Can we measure 'expansion'
Post by: yor_on on 17/03/2009 15:39:47
I found a very nice tutorial to how to calculate redshift.
It's a whole site dedicated to it it seems, aimed for teachers.
http://cas.sdss.org/dr5/en/proj/teachers/advanced/hubble/specifics.asp
And the visual tools for it http://cas.sdss.org/dr5/en/tools/chart/
Title: Can we measure 'expansion'
Post by: Vern on 17/03/2009 15:47:28
Quote from: yor_on's link
The fact that redshift can be interpreted in two ways is a subtle but important point. When objects are close to Earth, their redshifts should be interpreted as coming from Doppler shifts due to relative motion. When objects are far from Earth, their redshifts should be interpreted as coming from the cosmological stretching of space. Be sure that students understand the concept of the stretching of space, because they will need it to understand the big bang in the next section.
Nice link yor_on; I see that we're now teaching that distant red shifts are due to cosmological stretching of space, and local ones are assumed to be Doppler.

The stretching of space is completely alien to my thought processes; I just can't get my head around it. I like good old solid 3D space and 1D time. But I realize I may be alone in that universe [:)]
Title: Can we measure 'expansion'
Post by: yor_on on 17/03/2009 15:57:47
I don't know Vern, myself I'm just trying to make sense of what 'mainstream physics' say :) And when it comes to 'expansion' I'm not sure what to think really. So I'm hoping for more 'input' on how we can test for it, maybe redshift is 'it'?

If we placed some measuring instruments at a precise distance of each other in outer space, shouldn't they too be expected to have a growing distance due to 'expansion'? We could try to send two satellites equipped with lasers for that exact measurement perhaps?

--
And make them stationary relative Earth of course.
Or maybe not::))
Title: Can we measure 'expansion'
Post by: Vern on 17/03/2009 16:36:57
Quote from: yor_on
If we placed some measuring instruments at a precise distance of each other in outer space, shouldn't they too be expected to have a growing distance due to 'expansion'? We could try to send two satellites equipped with lasers for that exact measurement perhaps?
You're right; it would be difficult; I think there might be a problem with gravity considerations. If we allow the gravity within galaxies to curtail the expansion, we wouldn't observe expansion.
Title: Can we measure 'expansion'
Post by: yor_on on 17/03/2009 18:28:10
Ahem, you might have a point there.
A small and insignificant point.
In fact intrinsically small.
So small.

Ah.
SH*
Title: Can we measure 'expansion'
Post by: JukriS on 17/03/2009 18:48:04
guess why that happend?


http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/080923-dark-flows.html


guess why that happend?

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/7440217.stm

guess why that happend?

http://arxivblog.com/?p=596
Title: Can we measure 'expansion'
Post by: JukriS on 17/03/2009 18:54:31
Guess why that happend


"Pioneer anomaly
Main article: Pioneer anomaly

Analysis of the radio tracking data from the Pioneer 10 and 11 spacecraft at distances between 20–70 AU from the Sun has consistently indicated the presence of a small but anomalous Doppler frequency drift. The drift can be interpreted as due to a constant acceleration of (8.74 ± 1.33) × 10−10 m/s2 directed towards the Sun. Although it is suspected that there is a systematic origin to the effect, none has been found. As a result, there is growing interest in the nature of this anomaly.

[edit]"
Title: Can we measure 'expansion'
Post by: Vern on 17/03/2009 19:03:17
This link from JukriS (http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/080923-dark-flows.html) is an article about stuff that can not be within the known universe. Observation of speeds place a great attractor well outside the known bounds.

Quote from: JukriS link
Inflationary bubble

The scientists deduced that whatever is driving the movements of the clusters must lie beyond the known universe.
Title: Can we measure 'expansion'
Post by: Vern on 17/03/2009 19:08:40
Quote from: JukriS
Analysis of the radio tracking data from the Pioneer 10 and 11 spacecraft at distances between 20–70 AU from the Sun has consistently indicated the presence of a small but anomalous Doppler frequency drift. The drift can be interpreted as due to a constant acceleration of (8.74 ± 1.33) × 10−10 m/s2 directed towards the Sun. Although it is suspected that there is a systematic origin to the effect, none has been found. As a result, there is growing interest in the nature of this anomaly.
Very interesting; it couldn't be that nature just naturally expands light, could it? Not to worry, we can attribute it to the expansion of space and have yet another confirmation of the big bang theory. [:)]
Title: Can we measure 'expansion'
Post by: JukriS on 17/03/2009 19:09:04
This link from JukriS (http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/080923-dark-flows.html) is an article about stuff that can not be within the known universe. Observation of speeds place a great attractor well outside the known bounds.

Quote from: JukriS link
Inflationary bubble

The scientists deduced that whatever is driving the movements of the clusters must lie beyond the known universe.



Yes, and guess what?

I profetian phenomena like DARK FLOW ALREADY 28.5.2008

iT IS WITH FINNISH



"Vauvagalakseja

http://www.ursa.fi/blogit/ta/index.php?title=hubble_paljasti_massiiviset_vauvagalaksi&more=1&c=1&tb=1&pb=1


Ehkäpä nämä vauvagalaksit ovat peräisin eri energiakeskittymästä kuin vanhemmat galaksit. Jos, niin silloin vauvagalaksien liikkeestä voitaneen havaita tämä asia.

Molemmat energiakeskittymät siis sijaitsevat näkyvän maailmankaikkeuden ulkopuolella ja ne laajenevat, avautuen energia-aaltoja joilla on galaksiluonne.

Heitämpä siis ilmoille epäilyksen tästä!

RemonttiJukteri"


http://www.onesimpleprinciple.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=2259


.
Title: Can we measure 'expansion'
Post by: DoctorBeaver on 17/03/2009 19:09:24
This link from JukriS (http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/080923-dark-flows.html) is an article about stuff that can not be within the known universe. Observation of speeds place a great attractor well outside the known bounds.

Quote from: JukriS link
Inflationary bubble

The scientists deduced that whatever is driving the movements of the clusters must lie beyond the known universe.

Cosmic string in the cracks between domains. Millions of lightyears long and denser than a neutron star.
Title: Can we measure 'expansion'
Post by: Vern on 17/03/2009 19:15:18
Quote from: DoctorBeaver
Cosmic string in the cracks between domains. Millions of light years long and denser than a neutron star.
I have not seen this before DoctorBeaver. Is that part of one of the string theories?
Title: Can we measure 'expansion'
Post by: DoctorBeaver on 17/03/2009 19:18:16
No, it's a totally different beastie. Although they are predicted by string theory.

from Wikipedia:

A cosmic string is a hypothetical 1-dimensional (spatially) topological defect in various fields. Cosmic strings are hypothesized to form when the field undergoes a phase change in different regions of spacetime, resulting in condensations of energy density at the boundaries between regions. This is somewhat analogous to the imperfections that form between crystal grains in solidifying liquids, or the cracks that form when water freezes into ice. The phase changes that produce cosmic strings may have occurred in the earliest moments of the universe's evolution.

Cosmic strings, if they exist, would be extremely thin with diameters on the same order as a proton. They would have immense density, however, and so would represent significant gravitational sources. A cosmic string 1.6 kilometers in length may be heavier than the Earth. However general relativity predicts that the gravitational potential of a straight string vanishes: there is no gravitational force on static surrounding matter. The only gravitational effect of a straight cosmic string is a relative deflection of matter (or light) passing the string on opposite sides (a purely topological effect). A closed loop of cosmic string gravitates in a more conventional way. During the expansion of the universe, cosmic strings would form a network of loops, and their gravity could have been responsible for the original clumping of matter into galactic superclusters.
Title: Can we measure 'expansion'
Post by: Vern on 17/03/2009 19:19:43
No, it's a totally different beastie.
Quick; write it up and dust off the mantel spot for the Nobel[:)]
Title: Can we measure 'expansion'
Post by: DoctorBeaver on 17/03/2009 19:22:48
And an Italian scientist thinks he may have found 1:

extract from http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2005-07/ns-iia072705.php (http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2005-07/ns-iia072705.php):

THE case for the existence of cosmic strings has just been boosted. If confirmed, these one-dimensional threads of energy that can span millions of light years could be the first sign of extra dimensions in the universe. Cosmic strings are predicted by string theory. They are gigantic counterparts of the strings that are thought to give rise to the fundamental particles of matter. String theory suggests that our universe may be a three-dimensional island, or "brane", and that the big bang was the result of a collision between our universe and another 3D brane. The collision would have given rise to one-dimensional cosmic strings, and finding such a string would strengthen the theory and support the idea that extra dimensions exist.

The immense energy of a cosmic string would warp the space-time around it. If one existed somewhere between us and a distant galaxy, say, the warped space-time would create two possible paths for the light from the galaxy to reach Earth. This would result in two identical images of the galaxy in our sky, just a whisker apart. Last year, that's exactly what Mikhail Sazhin of Capodimonte Astronomical Observatory in Naples, Italy, and the Sternberg Astronomical Institute in Moscow, Russia, and his colleagues found. They named the pair CSL-1 (New Scientist, 18 December 2004, p 30).
Title: Can we measure 'expansion'
Post by: Vern on 17/03/2009 19:31:15
Okay; now I remember coming across that notion several years ago. I didn't think it would catch on.

Gravitational lensing does happen; I didn't see in the article linked how they determined that the two star images they observed were not due to gravitational lensing of the more familiar kind.
Title: Can we measure 'expansion'
Post by: yor_on on 17/03/2009 19:50:10
Jukris, what exactly is your point?

You say you 'prophesied' this due to what?
Give it some time and make it into a comprehensive text.
That will make it easier for me to see how you think here.

So give it some time and build it up to a 'whole' text.
Title: Can we measure 'expansion'
Post by: DoctorBeaver on 17/03/2009 20:22:31
SHall we throw semilocal strings into the mix too? Shall we? Eh? Eh?
Title: Can we measure 'expansion'
Post by: yor_on on 17/03/2009 20:42:38
Are you saying that we should string 'it' on:)
I would much prefer a coherent discussion.
Cutting to the cheese, like a laser.
Not that I do that, of course.

Ah, cut cheese with a laser that is.

--
(Although it would be nifty:)
Title: Can we measure 'expansion'
Post by: Vern on 17/03/2009 22:33:05
I'm still trying to figure how strings can be semi-local. The edit box won't even accept it without the dash [:)]
Title: Can we measure 'expansion'
Post by: JukriS on 18/03/2009 08:24:16
Sorry abot my english. I know, is terrible.

I see news about baby galaxies 28.5.2008.

Then i just think about, maybe this baby galaxies are from some other giant expanding energyconcentration, what usual and bigger galaxies are from.

This giant expanding energyconcenrtration expanding and emit energywaves who have a nature of galaxies!

They are very far away outside visible Universe!





.
Title: Can we measure 'expansion'
Post by: DoctorBeaver on 18/03/2009 10:18:55
I'm still trying to figure how strings can be semi-local. The edit box won't even accept it without the dash [:)]

http://crd.lbl.gov/~borrill/defects/semilocal.html (http://crd.lbl.gov/~borrill/defects/semilocal.html)

Some of the animations are interesting. The best 1 is to scroll down to where it says "The full simulation volume (t = 20 - 2000, isosurface = 1/2) " and click on the link.
Title: Can we measure 'expansion'
Post by: Vern on 18/03/2009 16:23:26
Quote from: DoctorBeaver
Some of the animations are interesting. The best 1 is to scroll down to where it says "The full simulation volume (t = 20 - 2000, isosurface = 1/2) " and click on the link.
Yes; very interesting; I had not encountered the notion of local strings before.
Title: Can we measure 'expansion'
Post by: DoctorBeaver on 18/03/2009 21:49:57
Quote from: DoctorBeaver
Some of the animations are interesting. The best 1 is to scroll down to where it says "The full simulation volume (t = 20 - 2000, isosurface = 1/2) " and click on the link.
Yes; very interesting; I had not encountered the notion of local strings before.


If you had I'd say that you need to get out more!  [:D]

I've got nothing better to do than trawl through obscure science references.
Title: Can we measure 'expansion'
Post by: JukriS on 19/03/2009 10:46:40
Neutriinos explode and radiate energy waves. They will relocate their kineticenergy, expanding planets and Expanding atoms nucleus.

The longer time neutriinos moving mode, the more they affect the interaction of atoms with the cores.

The sun will neutriinos to transfer kinetic energy to the gasplanets more than pioneerprobes.

Gas Planets gets neutriinos "curving" towards him. Therefore, the Sun in a bigger pressure gasplanets than pioneerprobes.

This explains the so-called. pioneeranomalian!



Also that

http://arxivblog.com/?p=596
Title: Can we measure 'expansion'
Post by: DoctorBeaver on 19/03/2009 11:00:01
Quote
Neutriinos explode and radiate energy waves

What!?  [:o]

Where did you get that idea from?
Title: Can we measure 'expansion'
Post by: JukriS on 19/03/2009 13:48:15
Where did you get that idea, particle dont emit energy?

Of course also all particle emit energy!

This just entropy, you know!

There is no drawing force at all!

If the particles radiate energy, and if the energy of particles becomes entropian throughout the period of less high-density energy, combining macro and micro Kosmos just their own time to understand the overall!

Underground power

When we do experiments on the surface and find out how much the particles transfer the kinetic energy songs, it is worth remembering that they are at the stage of hot / high-density and an outer low-surface relative to the amount of energy that they have! Then they do not affect the interaction of atoms songs kernels very much and therefore do not give up their energy. (kinetic energy or heat energy, and it is the same!)

Later, when particle already moved huge emptynes through, the old density of particles is much less than the future of new particles. Particles of the old time is quicker, and they radiate energy more quickly away from himself. They are bigger and their share of more energy to make them explode their energy towards the nuclei of atoms.

The sun changes with time by red giant. the same phenomenon also occurs in micro-particles of the world!

Does not change the substance energy. Atoms in the kernel, there is no other than the energy that changes the whole period of less high-density energy in accordance with entropian!

Thus we realize that the so-called. dark energy is the one and the same energy as everything else is!

Our measuring instruments, we may not even be able to detect the energy that causes galaxy forces between the rejection, even though this energy is of the one and the same energy as everything else is.

This energy, therefore, to press us towards the expansion of the Earth's surface more strongly than the Earth's emitted energy pushes us away from the planet Earth!

For example, galaxy centers huge black holes are not much time to have affected interactions with each other, but now they come from the energy of which is the result of the stars, the turn affects a lot of other galaxy of stars with. During its journey, these particles are affected by interactions with each other and make each other explode or to become a faster high-density less energy, allowing them to transfer more ns. kinetic energy of non-residential galaxy force galaxy!

Quasars have been observed in born at the same time as the space began to expand an accelerating pace! It is thus seen how the energy started to become less high-density energy an accelerating pace, but still thought-state expansion and began to expand an accelerating rate? and this theory is based on the observation obtained from particles that have energy! The particles themselves are not changed over the entire period of less energy, high-density, when light stretches of red moves in general!

As simple as everything is on!

.

Tommy The Wizard Hellstenin book Einari told this on page 125 (A good book, worth reading!)

"The truth is in itself always simple. It has just identified. It is a bright, clear, and simple, so that even a child can understand it. In fact, just the child understands, because he does not make things complicated. The so-called adults are doing, and when Then someone says the truth, it is not expected, because it is not sufficiently complicated. vicious, huh? "


Expanding galaxy groups therefore tönivät each other away from each other already in existence in the state which is not really expanding or curving!
Title: Can we measure 'expansion'
Post by: Vern on 19/03/2009 15:01:38
Quote from: JukriS
Quasars have been observed in born at the same time as the space began to expand an accelerating pace! It is thus seen how the energy started to become less high-density energy an accelerating pace, but still thought-state expansion and began to expand an accelerating rate? and this theory is based on the observation obtained from particles that have energy! The particles themselves are not changed over the entire period of less energy, high-density, when light stretches of red moves in general!
Do you have a reference for this. I glean from your post that you're saying that there is some connection between Quasars and the expansion of space. I've never seen that before.
Title: Can we measure 'expansion'
Post by: DoctorBeaver on 19/03/2009 23:47:03
Quote
Neutriinos explode and radiate energy waves

What!?  [:o]

Where did you get that idea from?

I was referring to exploding neutrinos emitting energy. I have never heard of them exploding and I do not see how they can as they are fundamental. What do they explode into? They have no constituents.
Title: Can we measure 'expansion'
Post by: JukriS on 20/03/2009 08:04:21
What is inside atoms nucleus?

There is only energy.

Why everything what we can see, heard, taste, smell and feel, happend?

This all happend, because energy open up/expanding, changing to not so denstity energy all a time!

Not the substance altered energy!

The energy change of less high-density energy! In space who dont change at all!


Quasars are located in I think about 7-11 billion light-years away from us?

Space began to expand with an accelerating rate of 8 billion years ago? When the universe was 6 billion years old?


Quasars Energy was a time to move mode, and affect its light photons, who were coming towards us!


http://www.onesimpleprinciple.com/296

When you read my text, lets remember, i am lasy dude! i post write some text again. Like tornados.

I think Tornados, sunspots and gasplanets spots are same kind of phenomena who need some energy from space inside sun or planets and after that coming some energy out...
Title: Can we measure 'expansion'
Post by: JukriS on 20/03/2009 08:56:09
Of course, the light comes to us in the direction towards and quasars in the radiant energy has reached the same region where the light towards us came. and it has a light too light to help get information quasars. Surely, but if my time was before the hot / dense photons began to influence the interactions with each other and began to push each other away from each other. An accelerating pace because of how more and quasars and also stars was born, the more photons started to move around in space!
Title: Can we measure 'expansion'
Post by: DoctorBeaver on 20/03/2009 21:14:51
Quote
Space began to expand with an accelerating rate of 8 billion years ago? When the universe was 6 billion years old?

Where did you get that idea from? Space has been expanding since the moment of the Big Bang. If it hadn't expanded prior to 8 billion years ago, how did quasars form 11 billion years ago?
Title: Can we measure 'expansion'
Post by: Vern on 21/03/2009 02:45:01
Quote from: DoctorBeaver
I was referring to exploding neutrinos emitting energy. I have never heard of them exploding and I do not see how they can as they are fundamental. What do they explode into? They have no constituents.
I am coming to suspect that neutrinos may not actually exist. Their detection has many subjective elements that might yield to reports of detection when actually the data is within the noise level. I am reminded of the discrepancy between detected solar neutrinos, and the theoretical amount of solar neutrinos.

Looking back, I notice that there has never been an event that was detected by neutrinos, then we looked with other means and confirmed the detection. It is always the other way around, we see an event, such as a nova flair up, then we find that sure enough, we detect neutrino events that just might be some small portion greater than the noise level.
Title: Can we measure 'expansion'
Post by: DoctorBeaver on 21/03/2009 08:55:06
Vern - I agree they're slippery little buggers.
Title: Can we measure 'expansion'
Post by: Chemistry4me on 21/03/2009 10:16:32
Vern - I agree they're slippery little buggers.

Ditto. [:)]
Title: Can we measure 'expansion'
Post by: JukriS on 21/03/2009 11:22:24
Quote
Space began to expand with an accelerating rate of 8 billion years ago? When the universe was 6 billion years old?

Where did you get that idea from? Space has been expanding since the moment of the Big Bang. If it hadn't expanded prior to 8 billion years ago, how did quasars form 11 billion years ago?



Where did you get that idea from? Space has never been expanding.

Space is been there for ever! Sapce who dont expanding or curving! sapce who dont change at all!

Only energy expanding in space who dont expand!

Lets think about that way. galaxys centre is very big particle/black holes who expanding and radiate energywaces who have a nature of atoms.

It is take a time and finally born stars.

same thing happend for our particle.

Even first quasars born 11 billion years ago, it is take some time, before this particle, (who start moving when quasars born), born small "stars" who start radiate very small particle. With this energy waves, our particle get themselfs expanding faster and faster...


You cant see, heard, taste, smell or feel space and you BELIEVE, that space expanding!

Are you some religious or what!


Where did you get that idea from? Particle dont radiate energy?

Of course, also particle radiate energy.

Also particle can absorb and emit energy what particle radiate!

Ofcourse, because there is all a time entropy, you know!


Only one force!

PRESSURE, you know!

Change of pressure, nothing else!

No drawing force at all

No gravity, you know!

You cant explain drawing force.

You can explain pushing force easy way!

.
Title: Can we measure 'expansion'
Post by: Chemistry4me on 21/03/2009 11:47:09
Where did you get that idea from? Space has never been expanding.
It hasn't? [???]
Title: Can we measure 'expansion'
Post by: Chemistry4me on 21/03/2009 11:48:53
You cant see, heard, taste, smell or feel space and you BELIEVE, that space expanding!

Are you some religious or what!


Where did you get that idea from? Particle dont radiate energy?
Haha. [:D]

Now that's funny. [:)]
Title: Can we measure 'expansion'
Post by: Chemistry4me on 21/03/2009 12:08:09
Looks like I'll have to go back and learn Year 11 physics/astronomy again. [:)]
Title: Can we measure 'expansion'
Post by: JukriS on 21/03/2009 12:23:31
Looks like I'll have to go back and learn Year 11 physics/astronomy again. [:)]

No way dude!

Why you want to learn againg wrong physics?

Forget extra dimensions, expanding and curving space, dark matter and dark energy!

Just think about with you own brains everything.

There is only one element who changing and it is energy, no space.

occam cut expanding and curving space off. Also extra dimensions off, you know!


.
Title: Can we measure 'expansion'
Post by: Chemistry4me on 21/03/2009 12:25:32
So if what you say is true...

What do you mean exactly by 'energy changing'?
Title: Can we measure 'expansion'
Post by: JukriS on 21/03/2009 12:35:10
So if what you say is true...

What do you mean exactly by 'energy changing'?


Energy changing all a time to not so density energy!

I can easyly proof that.

All that energy, what sun already radiate, was inside sun 5 billion years ago. Then that energy was smaller area what is now! Then sun was more density. Same thing happaend all a time for energy who is inside atoms nucleus who expanding and radiate energywaves who have a nature of electrons and particle. Electrons just moving to the next expanding atoms nucleus and get this expanding faster!



All the phenomens can be explained by one force and this force is the  pressure. (Don´t forget the power of thought! You also can move yourself by the power of thought! Quite right. You get yourself to move with the help of the muscles . You so you send message of your brains to your muscles and you get yourself to move? What is power/force of this thought, which get you to move there where you want?).


We can describe by people what happens in the atomcores all the time. For example one thousand people can go to the space and curl up close to each other. Now we have made an energyconsentration of people that covers a certain spot of the space. We know that the biggest part of the atoms is empty space. Also between people there exists empty space that does not expand or curve.

Now these people can begin to straighten or in other words to open up and this way they push themselves away from each other. One can observe the hardest pressure in the middle of this human energyconsentration and people who locate in the middle must do an enormeous job so that they woun´t
flatten in the centre. These people in the centre sweat the most. This is excactly the same thing that happens without gravitation for example in the centre of the earth and in the centre of the sun.

The density of the human energyconsentration reduces and the people push themselves away from the centre of the human energyconsentration. Now for a little while we can observe a phenomen of gravitation without a drawing force (that actually does not exist) on the surface of the human energyconsentration.

In my opinion the space does not expand or curve. If it would expand, could you describe how does the space expand?

It is easy to describe how the energy all the time turns into a less dense energy in the atomcores, so I think that it is time to forget all about the magical expanding and curving of the space. You can also forget all the spare spacedimentions, the dark substance and the dark energy.

So the space does not expand or curve!

The atomcores expand and open up expanding electrons and expanding photons and they beam their expanding energy as waves away from themselves. This is how it goes!

When you look at the galaxy, you can understand that the energy inside the galaxy is denser than outside the galaxy. If you look at a star, you can understand that energy inside the star is denser than outside the star. This way you will know for sure that the energy inside the atomcore is denser than outside the atomcore. It is not difficult to understand that the energy inside the protons / neutrons is denser than outside of them and the energy inside the qvarks is denser than outside the qvarks and so on...

It it also easy to realize that outside the visible universe the is an area, where is really much more energy than the visible universe has all together and the energy some where out there is much denser than than it is in a visible universe. Still in that area far away from the visible universe there is no centre point where the energy would be denser than outside it.

That three-dimentionally expanding energyconsentration that bems energywaves with the nature of the galaxies, is formed also from separate three-dimentionally expanding energyconsentrations ect. And so the smaller separate energyconsentrations we talk about, the denser and denser the
energy is all the time.

So the atomcore does not have a centre point, where the energy would be denser than outside it. There is no centre point also at the universe, outside which the energy would be less denser.

Because the MOVEMENT takes place towards a less dense area, then the visible universe MOVES as an entity away from that one point that is really far away from the visible universe and where the energy is much denser than it is in a visible universe.

http://www.onesimpleprinciple.com/l2



.
Title: Can we measure 'expansion'
Post by: Chemistry4me on 21/03/2009 13:02:52
Is this your own theory?
Title: Can we measure 'expansion'
Post by: JukriS on 21/03/2009 13:04:47
Is this your own theory?

Yes

Is just about idea.

i dont have mathematic for my idea

.
Title: Can we measure 'expansion'
Post by: Chemistry4me on 21/03/2009 13:06:17
What do the other people here think about it?
Title: Can we measure 'expansion'
Post by: DoctorBeaver on 21/03/2009 14:33:30
Jukris - you obviously believe what you say but you seem to ignore a lot of scientific evidence. There may be domains outside our visible universe that behave differently but there is no real evidence for that. We can only make assumptions. Those assumptions are based on observation and well-founded theories, not wild speculations.

You can't say that the physics that is taught is wrong. For many years some of the best minds in the world have been working on why things look the way they do, why things behave the way they do. They have worked out laws that explain much of what we see in the universe and, in most cases, those laws are consistent. We can't explain everything, that much is true; but certainly most of what we see is explainable by well-established and proven physics.

To just say that it's all wrong without some kind of scientific justification or hard evidence to back up your statement is silly and people will not take a lot of notice of you.

You say "Atoms are expanding all atoms history, you know!". Where is there any evidence for this? In fact, all the evidence says that statement is wrong. If atoms expanded then nothing would be stable.
Title: Can we measure 'expansion'
Post by: DoctorBeaver on 21/03/2009 17:41:48
Jukris - Please give some evidence for these statements you have made:

1) Atomic nuclei expand
2) Neutrinos explode

Unless you can show that these events actually happen then I cannot take your theory seriously and I doubt anybody else would.
Title: Can we measure 'expansion'
Post by: Chemistry4me on 22/03/2009 03:16:37
So I don't have to go back and learn Year 11 physics/astronomy again? [:)]

Title: Can we measure 'expansion'
Post by: DoctorBeaver on 22/03/2009 03:24:47
So I don't have to go back and learn Year 11 physics/astronomy again? [:)]



Hold fire on that
Title: Can we measure 'expansion'
Post by: Chemistry4me on 22/03/2009 03:28:06
Yeah, I think I'll start from Year 1 again. [:)]
Title: Can we measure 'expansion'
Post by: Ethos on 22/03/2009 04:33:14
Actually, I've wondered about the whole expansion scenario myself more than once or twice. Consider this; If space is expanding, then all of space must be expanding, we can't limit it to just far away Galaxies. The expansion must include the space between our planet and neighboring planets also. The reason we don't observe it is because the measuring stick we use is expanding also. And the reason for this would be that space is expanding not only between us and other Galaxies, but also between particles of matter. Remember what science tells us; That Matter is composed of mostly space. Either space is expanding every where or it isn't expanding at all.
Title: Can we measure 'expansion'
Post by: DoctorBeaver on 22/03/2009 10:11:04
Ethos - We've been through this. Inside galaxies gravity holds the expansion in check. Inside atoms we have the other forces (EM, weak & strong) doing the same. Were the space inside atoms expanding then pretty soon things would start falling apart as EM is subject to the inverse square law.
Title: Can we measure 'expansion'
Post by: Ethos on 22/03/2009 13:54:52
Ethos - We've been through this.

Ah yes, my oversight. It's what I get for scanning in haste, ............sorry............
Title: Can we measure 'expansion'
Post by: Vern on 22/03/2009 15:48:24
JukriS; I need to hire an assistant; it takes much time to read your posts.
Title: Can we measure 'expansion'
Post by: DoctorBeaver on 22/03/2009 20:00:54

DoctorBeaver -  Please give some evidence for these statements you have made

1. Space expanding

2. Space curving

3. There is drawing force

4. There is 4 different kind of forces

5. There is dark matter

5,5 There is dark energy

6. There is extra dimensions

7. First is nothing and then born space, time and very density energy

8. How atom nuclei control electrons?

9. How you stay at earth skin?

10. How planets stay sun orbit?

11. Why galaxies take a round like they do?

12. Why they can see new stars near giant black holes in galaxies centre?

13. How you explain pioneerprobes anomaly?

14. How you explain Dark flow?

15. How you explain, photon go fast and then slow in stuff and after that again fast?................................

1. Space expanding – The Doppler shift of distant objects.
http://csep10.phys.utk.edu/astr162/lect/cosmology/expansion.html (http://csep10.phys.utk.edu/astr162/lect/cosmology/expansion.html)
http://archive.ncsa.uiuc.edu/Cyberia/Cosmos/ExpandUni.html (http://archive.ncsa.uiuc.edu/Cyberia/Cosmos/ExpandUni.html)

2, Space curving - I could cite any text on General Relativity.

3.  There is drawing force – where have I said there is such a thing?

4.There is 4 different kind of forces – standard physics as accepted universally; although Dark Energy could make it 5.

5. There is Dark Matter - Something is making galaxies behave the way they do. There must be extra mass there somewhere that stops them flying apart. Whatever that is is called Dark Matter.

5.5 There is dark energy – Something is driving the expansion of the universe and that something is called Dark Energy. Nobody knows what it is.

6. There is extra dimensions – I have only ever said that these are theorised. No-one has any proof.

7. First is nothing and then born space, time and very density energy – Standard Big Bang theory which most physicists accept as the most probable beginning of the universe.

8. How atom nuclei control electrons? - They don't. It is quantum mechanics and the forces inside atoms that determine how electrons in atoms behave.

9. How you stay at earth skin? - Gravity. Do I really need to prove that gravity exists? No-one can explain how it works yet.

10. How planets stay sun orbit? - Newtonian mechanics & gravity. Newton's laws of motion are used to send spacecraft billions of miles to the their targets so he can't have been far wrong.

11.Why galaxies take a round like they do? - Same reason; Newtonian mechanics and gravity.

12.Why they can see new stars near giant black holes in galaxies centre? - Because they are there and our observational equipment is now good enough. Or are you saying that there should not be any new stars there? There is enough gas there so why shouldn't they form?

13. How you explain pioneer probes anomaly? -  I don't know much about it but from what I've read it could be down to gravitational forces from objects in the Kuiper belt or any number of mundane reasons that cannot as yet be proven.

14. How you explain Dark flow? - My gut feeling is that it has to do with cosmic strings bounding our domain. If they exist they will have incredible mass; far greater than any blackhole.

15, How you explain, photon go fast and then slow in stuff and after that again fast? - Put simply, as photons travel they encounter other particles. They are absorbed and re-emitted (or maybe it is that a different photon is emitted after the interaction). The more particles they encounter, the slower their apparent velocity. However, it is only their apparent velocity that changes. In between interactions the photon travels at the same rate.

Now, back to this:

Quote
Atoms nucleus and all particle expand

No they do not. In all the physics experiments that have ever been done, all the measurements that have been taken,  there has never been even the tiniest bit of evidence that it happens. I have never even seen it theorised anywhere. The only place I have ever seen anything like that said is here by you. Soufflees expand. Bread expands. Middle-aged men's bellies expand. Atomic nuclei & particles do not.

To be honest, Jukris, I'm getting a bit bored with this. You keep spouting the same old stuff without giving any scientific justification for what you are saying. You say that what is taught is wrong, yet what is taught is the culmination years of serious work by some of the greatest thinkers and researchers who ever lived.

What you said initially about there possibly being a domain with “lower pressure” caught my interest a bit as I do believe that we exist in just 1 small part of the universe of the universe that is conducive to our existence. However, all that other rubbish you have come out with has made me not want to explore that matter with you any further.
Title: Can we measure 'expansion'
Post by: DoctorBeaver on 24/03/2009 01:31:42
I've tried to reason with you but you refuse to accept scientific theories that have stood up to every experiment and piece of research that has been thrown at them. The evidence against what you say is overwhelming and there is absolutely no evidence to indicate that you could be right.

I've had enough of it now so don't expect any more replies from me.
Title: Can we measure 'expansion'
Post by: lyner on 24/03/2009 20:01:13
Why has it taken you so long to see sense, DrB?
You might have known you were on to a loser with this guy long ago.

Just talk to sensible people like me! At least my b/s is coherent.
Title: Can we measure 'expansion'
Post by: DoctorBeaver on 24/03/2009 20:13:24
I don't like leaving people living in ignorance. I thought that maybe once I'd pointed out that he was talking bollox he may have changed his mind.
Title: Can we measure 'expansion'
Post by: Ethos on 26/03/2009 15:15:02
I don't like leaving people living in ignorance.

We all live in ignorance of one form or another DocB, allow him his bliss...................Ethos
Title: Can we measure 'expansion'
Post by: DoctorBeaver on 26/03/2009 17:25:49
I don't like leaving people living in ignorance.

We all live in ignorance of one form or another DocB, allow him his bliss...................Ethos

Which is what I shall be doing henceforth.