Naked Science Forum
On the Lighter Side => New Theories => Topic started by: opportunity on 24/12/2018 08:56:04
-
Distant spiral galaxies, very very distant, and thus presumably the oldest we can see, hold the same structure as our own closer galaxies. Yet this seems to contravene the idea of an ever constantly expanding universe, and accelerating expansion at that.
Is gravity immune to the idea of a constantly expanding universe? Is this why gravity is so hard to pin, owing to the big bang theory?
-
Yet this seems to contravene the idea of an ever constantly expanding universe, and accelerating expansion at that.
Why do you think that?
-
On the surface, one could consider that the most distant galaxies would/should perhaps highlight how expanding space, space expanding everywhere at once, should show these very distant galaxies as expanding with space, yet as the explanation goes gravity somehow keeps these galaxies together. Yet this suggests that gravity defies the expanding space. I don't have any firm position on that idea, perhaps more interested on how it is explained.
For instance:
https://www.spaceandmotion.com/cosmology/top-30-problems-big-bang-theory.htm
...point four, and perhaps others.
-
Yet this suggests that gravity defies the expanding space.
Gravity "defies" expanding space in the same sense that a bar of steel "defies" your attempt to pull it apart. The force of gravity is much stronger on a local level than the force due to the expansion of space is, exactly like the electromagnetic forces holding the bar of steel together are much stronger than the force exerted by your arms.
-
That's a good description. So gravity holds galaxies together. In each galaxy are stars held together by the force of gravity. So, the idea of an expanding universe is only relevant to the space "in between" galaxies then?
-
I'm of a different mindset here, so let me suggest an alternative position. Space is not expanding or accelerating, mass is receding. There never was a Big Bang. The universe is infinite, with no beginning or end.
Think of the universe from a purely mathematical standpoint.
If the universe was nothing, it's value would be 0. Clearly it's not nothing, so it's value would be >0. I would also argue that the universe could never reach a state of 0, because 0 is a finite value. If 0 ever was the value of the universe it would be in a state of perfect equilibrium, and would maintain that state forever and always. Science agrees, as absolute 0 is theoretically impossible. In conclusion, 0=0, which would seal the fate of the universe in a finite state. That's all it could ever be. We're here, so the universe never has been in a 0 state, and never will be.
The universe is, >0
The other value the universe could hold would be 1, but in the context of describing the universe this would be an absolute value. Like 0, if the universe ever achieved this value, it would remain this way forever and always. It's not nothing, but it would be a continuous empty universe void of anything. Also like 0, this state could not spontaneously change, because 1=1. It is a finite value. That's all it could ever be. We're here, so the universe never has been in a 1 state, and never will be.
The universe is, <1 (absolute)
This is based purely on mathematical equality. 0=0, and 1=1. Both are finite values. Neither spontaneously change states, because if it were possible, math would make no sense. e=mc^2 would not make sense. The universe would not make sense. Computers wouldn't work.
This leaves us with a third possibility. Between 0 and 1 (absolute) lies an infinite number of variables. Our universe is infinitely variable, or maybe a bit more accurate, analog. The universe is an infinitely variable analog state, always has been and always will be. The universe cannot hold a finite value, and we are the proof of observation which supersedes all other observations. I don't care what the red-shift tells us. We have misinterpreted that observation.
The big bang is pseudoscience. To have a Big Bang, we removed physical properties of the universe. Space-time, C, gravity, etc., all gone. That condensed ball of energy they call the beginning is an imaginary condition, and quite literally, mathematically impossible. They have energy condensed to a singularity, 1, surrounded by nothing, 0. 0 and 1 cannot occupy the same state. The big bang essentially claims 0=1.
You could claim I'm being a little too rigid in mathematics, but all observations point to a universe that's a slave to mathematics. If the rules of math don't apply to the Big Bang, than I dare say it wouldn't apply anywhere else. That's false. Math does apply, or e=mc^2 would not make sense.
There is only 3 possible values in describing the whole of the universe, 0, 1 (absolute), and infinity. Any other values make no sense. Unless someone wants to claim, .7, or 8, but that makes about as much sense as 2+2=fish. Infinite is the only value that can give us variability, or in our case, infinite variability. We are analog. Always have been, always will be.
-
To answer the question more directly. Gravity has been at work pulling galaxies together all along, but we're receding at a constant rate. I don't know exactly how to describe this recession, but let's call it -C for the time being. As we recede mass diminishes, or weakens, so the force of gravity loses its grip over time. Galaxies drift back as we steadily trudge inward at a constant rate. We are moving 3-dimensionally inwards. I don't want to dominate your thread with my crazy view though, but I think we're having difficulty understanding gravity because our reasoning has been flawed by the finite big bang mentality. We're looking at the universe from a standpoint of 0 to C in a finite manner. It's really 0 < C < 1. The constants are infinitely variables. We're bound to C, so they appear static. Einstein defined the universe from 1 to C, and quantum physics is looking at it from C to 0. Both are looking at it from a finite perspective. They aren't wrong, but relativity and quantum mechanics are inherently incompatible, or different. I'm not sure variables from Relativity work the same in Quantum Mechanics. Plus they're kind of stuck on a finite universe. They're approaching it from the wrong perspective and assumptions. My opinion of course.
-
One last thought. Way back in time when galaxies were closer together, gravity held a greater influence over adjacent galaxies. Its energy was spread out, or diversified. As we recede inward, and the gap between galaxies widens, gravity becomes more focused locally over time. Local gravity increases in relation to the matter within it over time, as it holds less influence over distant galaxies. It's like focusing the beam in a flashlight. It's more defined in galaxies in the current state of the universe. That focus will continue to increase over time.
I suspect dark matter could also be a myth. I don't understand the math, and how we arrived at that conclusion entirely, so I can't say for sure. We are about to run an experiment where we're going to try to detect dark matter. I'm guessing there's a good chance it will fail. Can't say for sure though. I'm guessing the universe is a little less complicated than we've made it, due to faulty reasoning.
-
That's a good description. So gravity holds galaxies together. In each galaxy are stars held together by the force of gravity. So, the idea of an expanding universe is only relevant to the space "in between" galaxies then?
Pretty much.
-
Cahill & Rothall show that the Nobels for expansion are a farce.
http://www.ptep-online.com/2012/PP-28-14.PDF
Cahill & Rothall – 2012 – Discovery Of A Uniformly Expanding Universe.
The main theory behind the BigBang & expansion & Dark Energy is redshift. Ranzan shows that this is all krapp. Ranzan explains that redshift is due to the stretching of photons as they approach mass & the stretching of photons as they recede from mass. Praps the cleverest thing i have ever read. Everyone must read his stuff.
http://www.cellularuniverse.org/Th9(ajaaR)CosmicRSTheory-Ranzan.pdf
Ranzan – 2014 -- Cosmic Redshift In The Non-Expanding Cellular Universe.
Just to clarify, Doppler redshift is true, certainly at lesser distances, but at long distance the Ranzan redshift becomes significant.
-
Everyone must read his stuff.
http://www.cellularuniverse.org/Th9(ajaaR)CosmicRSTheory-Ranzan.pdf
Ranzan – 2014 -- Cosmic Redshift In The Non-Expanding Cellular Universe.
I am going to take some time to read it. I see something a little more dynamic going though. Consider 3-dimensional motion in an infinite universe with a 1-dimensional direction. The direction is the universe is in and out only. Any linear motion in space is more towards the outward direction. At rest, you're moving more inward. Motion is constant in either direction. So, you have a +C and -C. The journey is infinite in either direction. The further in you go, the cooler it is. The further out you go, the hotter it is. It's very simple, based on two basic waves. Normal positive waves that we're all familiar with, and negative, or inverse waves. Matter is an inverse wave traveling at -C inward. Space is a positive wave, traveling outward. Gravity is an inverse wave, because it is derived from mass.
0<C<1 The flow of matter is inward. Constants are virtual, not constant. Einstein defined a perspective from 1-C in a finite manner. It's correct, but not complete. QM is defining the universe from C-0. String is trying to tie them together, but they're also using finite values. And I seriously doubt the whole vibrating string thing. I lean more towards pilot wave theory, or bohemian mechanics. But yes, steady state is far closer to the truth.
-
Distant spiral galaxies, very very distant, and thus presumably the oldest we can see, hold the same structure as our own closer galaxies
On what do you base this premise?
I've just read a book by a professional astronomer who says they are quite different. Who would I believe??
Some thoughts about the differences:
- There seems to be an excess of active galactic nuclei at great distances (quasars). Presumably, gravity has pulled our middle-aged galaxy into a more stable configuration
- A shortage of elements higher than helium in the distant universe means that stars would be much larger than the stars we see today, much hotter, with much shorter lifetimes. That leads to a very different star population, and a different "temperature" for the galaxy. This affects the ability of cold gas clouds to form new stars.
- The somewhat orderly spiral arms of a galaxy like ours require that the galaxy be largely undisturbed for one or more rotations.
- Unfortunately, the most distant galaxies we can see are magnified and distorted by gravitational lensing. Hopefully, the James Webb Space Telescope (if/when it becomes operational) should be able to image non-distorted distant galaxies in the infra-red spectrum.
Now it's your opportunity...
redshift is due to the stretching of photons as they approach mass & the stretching of photons as they recede from mass
The Pound Rebka experiment showed that there is indeed a redshift as photons climb out of a gravitational well - but there is an equal and opposite blue shift as they enter a gravitational well.
So, a photon entering and leaving a gravitational well does not experience an overall redshift.
See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pound%E2%80%93Rebka_experiment
-
but there is an equal and opposite blue shift as they enter a gravitational well.
So, a photon entering and leaving a gravitational well does not experience an overall redshift.
I get this. What if the gravity wells were vastly different, from the time a photon left a distant galaxy, to the time it's received by the other galaxy? Are we talking about a 1-1 relationship from redshift to blueshift?
-
redshift is due to the stretching of photons as they approach mass & the stretching of photons as they recede from mass
The Pound Rebka experiment showed that there is indeed a redshift as photons climb out of a gravitational well - but there is an equal and opposite blue shift as they enter a gravitational well.
So, a photon entering and leaving a gravitational well does not experience an overall redshift.
See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pound%E2%80%93Rebka_experiment
Imagine a cannonball falling towards the Sun & then grazing the Sun & then continuing a long way past. Imagine a 2nd cannonball initially following 1 km behind. As they approach the Sun the distance tween increases to more than 1 km. As they depart the distance tween increases again. The distance tween stretches during approach & during departure. Likewise a photon stretches during approach to mass & during departure, giving redshift. The older the light then the larger the redshift.
One result is that despite the universe being infinite Earthlings are not burnt to a crisp.
The Pound-Rebka blueshift-redshift effect is due to the extra speed of the 2 cannonballs on approach, & this effect is much more powerful than Ranzan's very weak stretching effect (which is due to the extra distance tween the 2 cannonballs), & the (Pound Rebka)(Einstein Shift) speeding up is cancelled by the slowing down during departure, whereas the Ranzan stretching effect does not suffer cancellation (or very little).
Just to clarify, cosmic Doppler redshift is true (receding quasars have a redshift related to velocity), certainly at lesser distances, but at long distance the Ranzan redshift becomes significant. Hencely the acceleration of expansion is false, & the expansion is false, & hencely the bigbang universe is false.
-
To challenge the idea of the BBT (and of course associated "expanding universe") requires knowledge of not just who put it there, yet who are those who keep it there on that pedestal, and what idea they are open to as a challenge.
Looking at the significance of the big bang theory, and of course the red shift effect, short of our ability to travel at light speed, let alone close, to get detailed measurements from other locations in our perceived universe, when in the future will the scientific establishment be bold enough to consider the BBT can be challenged and in indeed how? What data is required? What will put the BBT into the bin, what piece of evidence? Has the scientific establishment discussed what "could" challenge the BBT and more importantly how it could challenge the BBT? Or is the BBT set in stone and thus this a wasted topic?
-
As I understand it, there are two features that give the BBT credence, the red shift effect and the CMB radiation. Explaining those two features independently from the idea of an expanding universe would be a good case. This is why the idea of "expanding space" is the smoking gun for a BBT...….one needs to demonstrate space is in fact not expanding, yet an illusion of both light and energy.
-
Don't get me wrong, the red-shift effect and CMB radiation are real, they're no illusions. The illusion if the BBT is wrong is the idea of expanding space.
-
That's a good description. So gravity holds galaxies together. In each galaxy are stars held together by the force of gravity. So, the idea of an expanding universe is only relevant to the space "in between" galaxies then?
Pretty much.
This is what I've alluded to without intention:
http://www.sci-news.com/astronomy/science-universe-not-expanding-01940.html
-
That's a good description. So gravity holds galaxies together. In each galaxy are stars held together by the force of gravity. So, the idea of an expanding universe is only relevant to the space "in between" galaxies then?
Pretty much.
This is what I've alluded to without intention:http://www.sci-news.com/astronomy/science-universe-not-expanding-01940.html
Yes the redshift is due to something else -- as mentioned in my #13.
-
Important V relevant.
Are we either?
-
Or worse?
-
Lets say we need to agree with contemporary theory while staying sane.
-
Are we allowed to present ideas that we can't prove, like yours?
How many times have we heard a theory, tried...no good....why do we continue to listen to new ideas?