Naked Science Forum
On the Lighter Side => New Theories => Topic started by: timey on 27/03/2017 22:11:17
-
An alternative perspective on space expansion...?
My model holds an alternative perspective with respect to the expansion of space in the universe which I intend to go on to discuss, but firstly, to initiate the platform from which my alternative perspective may be acknowledged:
Currently held physics theories are based on the idea that everything is expanding away from everything else at an accelerated rate.
This is backed up by the Hubble interpretation of a velocity related red shift distance correlation...and the luminosities of super nova.
However, on examining this idea of universal expansion I have found there is a certain logical flaw that arises...
We can observe that everything is expanding away from our observation point in every direction, but under this remit of expansion what is occurring for the observation point?
Presumably in a universe that is universally expanding in every direction, the observation point that we observe these observations from must also be expanding away from everywhere else...but if everything else is expanding away from the observation point equally in all directions, where exactly is it in the universe, i.e. which direction is it, that the observation point is expanding away to?
-
Presumably in a universe that is universally expanding in every direction, the observation point that we observe these observations from must also be expanding away from everywhere else..
I answered this the other day but the post disappeared in the upgrade.
By an odd coincidence I used the same eg as Alan in another thread on time.
Take a rubber band and mark a series of dots on it. Then stretch the band, you will see that they move apart and if you look at any dot you will see that it will view all the other dots as moving away from it. You can do the same with a rubber sheet (a plane) or a volume.
This is just a natural effect of the expansion of surfaces and volumes.
-
Presumably in a universe that is universally expanding in every direction, the observation point that we observe these observations from must also be expanding away from everywhere else..
I answered this the other day but the post disappeared in the upgrade.
By an odd coincidence I used the same eg as Alan in another thread on time.
Take a rubber band and mark a series of dots on it. Then stretch the band, you will see that they move apart and if you look at any dot you will see that it will view all the other dots as moving away from it. You can do the same with a rubber sheet (a plane) or a volume.
This is just a natural effect of the expansion of surfaces and volumes.
Ok - good.
So what we are looking at is an expansion of space between dots, where we are saying that the distance between all dots is becoming greater.
Not only is the distance between dots becoming greater, but the distance is becoming greater at an accelerated rate.
First consideration:
Where red shifts are concerned, don't dots that are further away from the observation point travel away from us at faster velocities than dots that are closer?
-
It's just that if we put redshift velocities on our elastic band scenario, where let's say that there are 11 marks on the elastic band at regular intervals, and we are stating Mark 6 as being our observation point.
To show the increased velocities at further distance we will have to have an elastic band that is more stretchy at the ends than it is in the middle, which raises the concept of a middle.
If we were to move the observation point to Mark 2, the observation would not be the same from Mark 2 as from Mark 6. Mark 1 would be expanding away at a greater rate than Mark 3 would, and so on.
Under the remit of distance related red shift velocities as observed from Mark 6, we cannot achieve a typical volume space increase that will be the same observation from any point within the increasing space.
So - does the observation of the increased red shift velocities observed of increasingly further flung distances render the observation of expansion as 'observo-centric'?
i.e. that from any other observation point in the universe the correlation between velocity and distance that we observe from our observation point would be differing - begging the question as to why our observation from our observation point should be 'special'...
-
I think that you should start with learning the actual science before trying to analyze it. You just say false thing after false thing, Go read a book.
-
"New Theories of Everything"
Chapter 3: Initial Conditions
By: John D Barrow
(Professor of Mathematical Sciences and Director of the Millennium Mathematics Project at Cambridge University, Gresham Professor of Geometry at Gresham College, and Fellow of the Royal Society.)
Thank you...
-
Colin - my post was to illustrate that if we observe the light sources that are more distant to us as expanding away from us as more quickly than light sources that are closer, and we map out these light source trajectories and their related velocities, then if we were to move ourselves from our observation point in a direction to midway point between us and the most distant star we are able to observe, then all the stars that we have already mapped the velocities for will no longer appear to be travelling at those velocities.
The stars that used to be just next-door to us that were moving more slowly when we were closer to them, will now appear to be moving faster.
I will now make an analogy of a post of Alan's on another thread where he has said that a clock that is observed to be faster from the lower potential, and slower from the higher potential cannot be running both faster and slower.
A star that is observed from one part of the universe as moving faster, and from another part of the universe as moving slower, cannot be moving both faster and slower.
-
A star that is observed from one part of the universe as moving faster, and from another part of the universe as moving slower, cannot be moving both faster and slower.
Doppler shift is the perception of a frequency. The original source frequency has not changed. 'one part' and 'another part' are two different locations and speeds!
-
To which you might reply, if you were replying, that this is why we say that the velocities are not due to the rate that the light source is receding away from observation point at, but are due to the rate that the distance between the light source and observation point is expanding at...
(Or is it a combo of both?)
So we could state this phenomenon being that the light sources themselves are stationary, and that it is the distances between light sources (galaxies) that are expanding in length... at an accelerated rate...(hark fanfare)... enter Dark Energy to centre stage.
Dark Energy is pushing everything apart at an accelerated rate. No-one knows what it is or how it does what it is supposed to be doing.
But what is it doing?
Clearly if we put a single dot in the middle of 5 dots that closely circle the middle dot, and then ask the distance between each dot to expand at an accelerated rate, the 5 dots circling the middle dot will have to move outwards, but where is the middle dot going?
Alternatively, if we have 600 smaller dots that are very slightly irregular in size, that are equally distributed to form a sphere of dots, and we apply gravity, then we will observe that the 600 dots will clump into bigger dots, lets say 60 bigger dots.
We will also observe that the 60 bigger dots that have formed from the 600 smaller dots will remain distributed within the dimensions of a sphere that is slightly smaller than the dimensions of the original sphere of 600 smaller dots, but that the open spaces between the 60 bigger dots will have expanded in comparison to the original distances between the 600 dots.
So - it is a possibility that the observation of open spaces between galaxy clusters expanding doesn't necessarily mean that these galaxy clusters are themselves moving away from us in their entirety.
In a universe where mass trends to clumping, open spaces will expand in length where a galaxy cluster's masses are becoming closer together under the influence of gravity.
Where two neighbouring galaxy cluster's masses are becoming closer together, the distance between these two neighbouring galaxy clusters will be increasing as the masses comprised of each individual galaxy cluster become closer together, and this increase in distance between the 2 neighbouring galaxy clusters is consequently reducing in strength of g-field, and the red shift observations can be attributed to g-field frequency shifts, as opposed to recessional velocities.
This is a description of a contracting universe as per my cyclic model.
-
How would you know what the velocity of the galaxy was initially if the velocity has been slowed by time dilation?
And if you cannot know the initial velocity then how can you calculate a percentage of the speed of light in order to ascertain the time dilation effect?
Therefore, how can you calculated a time dilation effect that is caused by a velocity, if the time dilation effect slows the velocity. That is a catch 22.
Yes, it's a tricky one to answer...
The problem is negated in my cyclic model. The 3rd time dilation causes a temporal curvature as well as giving physical cause for acceleration of gravity.
SR is then just an experience for the traveller, as opposed to an observation of the travelers motion for the observer.
Chris - I watched a Horizon program on Dark Energy last year where physicists were saying in light of Dark Energy remaining a complete mystery, that perhaps a new approach is required...
Among those physicists was George Efstathiou from Cambridge University.
Do you know him?
-
Timey #6
A star that is observed from one part of the universe as moving faster, and from another part of the universe as moving slower, cannot be moving both faster and slower.
My 1st reply was inadequate. My point is, it's not the physical behavior of the star having 2 contradictory states, but the differing perceptions of an observer 'here' and an observer 'there'.
My simple analogy: a cloud of water vapor on a sunny day. Each observer sees their own personal rainbow.
-
There is no reason for expansion or contraction of the universe. GR dilation and potentially SR rotation is all that is needed to view all galaxies as red shifted from our perspective in the outer regions of our own galaxy. We are in a less dilated position then 75% of the light created in all other galaxies. GR relativity is consistent with all galaxies relatively red shifted. Even Andromeda is red shifted from our position. The only way we know of the eminent collision is the arm moving towards us is more shifted that the arm moving away.
Logic should reign over the collective scientific mind but it does not.
-
There is no reason for expansion or contraction of the universe. GR dilation and potentially SR rotation is all that is needed to view all galaxies as red shifted from our perspective in the outer regions of our own galaxy. We are in a less dilated position then 75% of the light created in all other galaxies. GR relativity is consistent with all galaxies relatively red shifted. Even Andromeda is red shifted from our position. The only way we know of the eminent collision is the arm moving towards us is more shifted that the arm moving away.
Logic should reign over the collective scientific mind but it does not.
How can you be so wrong and so confident?
-
Timey #6
A star that is observed from one part of the universe as moving faster, and from another part of the universe as moving slower, cannot be moving both faster and slower.
My 1st reply was inadequate. My point is, it's not the physical behavior of the star having 2 contradictory states, but the differing perceptions of an observer 'here' and an observer 'there'.
My simple analogy: a cloud of water vapor on a sunny day. Each observer sees their own personal rainbow.
My apologies Phyti, I must have missed your post.
Yes this is precisely my point.
If an observed velocity looks different from different perspectives, then there lies the possibility that the observation of a velocity can be interpreted under a differing remit.
I am looking to describe a contracting universe from the Einstein equation (that will adequately describe either an expanding or a contracting universe).
In order to describe a contracting universe I am seeking to re-interpret Hubble's red shift 'velocities' as a time dilation phenomenon, where the galaxies are not receding away from us at speed, but instead the masses that the galaxy clusters are comprised of are being pulled closer together.
This would mean that the distance between galaxy clusters is becoming greater, and that the g-field associated with that distance is becoming weaker.
Now we are back to a Doppler shift type scenario with a difference. The difference being firstly that there is no co-moving expansion, and secondly that in re-interpreting Hubble's velocity related red shifts as a time dilation phenomenon, I am stating that this time dilation is a 3rd time dilation phenomenon that gives a physical cause for the acceleration, or deceleration that a body experiences in the g-field.
So the Doppler shift type scenario becomes a case of a constant metre being travelled under the remit of variable time causing a Doppler effect.
This picture now needs to be bridged to the observations of the GR and SR time dilations phenomena, and this is best answered in reply to your post on my 'is there a discrepancy with the equivalence principle' thread, so I will do so there.
-
There is no reason for expansion or contraction of the universe. GR dilation and potentially SR rotation is all that is needed to view all galaxies as red shifted from our perspective in the outer regions of our own galaxy. We are in a less dilated position then 75% of the light created in all other galaxies. GR relativity is consistent with all galaxies relatively red shifted. Even Andromeda is red shifted from our position. The only way we know of the eminent collision is the arm moving towards us is more shifted that the arm moving away.
Logic should reign over the collective scientific mind but it does not.
How can you be so wrong and so confident?
Isn't it obvious I have read more and understand deeper? I notice you never try to correct my assertions. Possibly because you do not know how? Yes I am confident. For you its just unknowns from subjective interpretations you were taught. You absolutely know I am wrong but you do not know why. It's Because you do not think for your self.
-
If we run my contracting model of the universe backwards in sequential time from present moment, what one would see is distances between masses becoming lesser as mass un-clumps.
Due to this un-clumping, masses would slowly* be being reduced back to individual particle format, and the universe would be comprised of a more or less uniform sea of individual particles with very little distance between them.
Run my contracting model further back in time from this point and one would observe all of those particles zooming towards a central point at an accelerated rate where they would be compressed into a singular black hole.
(*I say slowly because this is a little more complex than described. There is flux between particles and mass occurring systematically through the process as stars are formed, energy is transferred via radiation, and black holes eject/reject particles via super luminal jets.
Run my contracting model forward in sequential time from present moment, and one would observe that masses are becoming further clumped. More and more black holes will form where smaller masses will be consumed by them.
These massive black holes will merge with each other to become bigger black holes where eventually all the mass of the universe will be of one massive galaxy type structure comprised only of super massive black holes, that then go on to merge with one another to become a singular black hole.
Without any other counterpart gravitational force acting upon this singular black hole that now has all of the mass of the universe in it, this black hole explodes all of its content in particle format to form a sea of particles.
This is my model's rendition of Big Bang and Inflation theory...
-
This equation 'will' describe a contracting universe:
https://wikimedia.org/api/rest_v1/media/math/render/svg/0dbbeb5051daeedf7ef8e47ea43451756c68247c
...and Hubble's velocity related interpretation of the red shift distance correlation 'can' be re-interpreted.
:wiki
The expression on the left represents the curvature of spacetime as determined by the metric; the expression on the right represents the matter/energy content of spacetime. The EFE can then be interpreted as a set of equations dictating how matter/energy determines the curvature of spacetime.
Where Einstein, nor anyone since, despite being able to calculate the fact of this curvature to a precise degree, can tell you 'why' matter/energy determines the curvature of spacetime.
My model is simply giving the acceleration of gravity - this being a force acting upon mass via the g-field by unknown means - a physical cause. This physical cause being a 3rd time dilation that is caused by the energy of the g-field, where this 3rd time dilation is then the physical cause of the curvature of space via the acceleration due to shorter seconds in the g-field >>>M, and the deceleration due to longer seconds in the g-field <<<M.
All that is required to understand this concept is to consider that the phenomenon of time itself is physically caused as a reactive to energy where:
+energy=shorter seconds.
GR and SR time dilations, where the frequency of electron transitions is observed from differing potentials, or differing relative motions, as differing from the observation point clock, can then be considered/calculated as potential energy related.
-
I would have to argue that the expansion does not exist because I believe red-shift shows a compression of light rather than expansion. Red-shift to me is quite clearly lights inability to permeate. Light reflecting bodies allows us to observe the amount of space between body and observer, we observe the permeate of light in this observable space to be invisible and without colour. Temporal distortion (wave-length) of permeating light being the compression of the observed invisible light.
-
This equation will describe a contracting universe.
https://wikimedia.org/api/rest_v1/media/math/render/svg/0dbbeb5051daeedf7ef8e47ea43451756c68247c
-
A contracting universe can be described by Einstein's equation without invoking Dark Energy or Dark Matter.
Chris - I watched a Horizon program on Dark Energy last year where physicists were saying in light of Dark Energy remaining a complete mystery, that perhaps a new approach is required...
Among those physicists was George Efstathiou from Cambridge University.
Do you know him?
-
It is possible that the space dust influence has been underestimated and it may be no universe expansion at all.
-
Space dust could preferentially absorb the shorter wavelengths as a ratio. Another clue is we only use SR red shift and not GR red shift. BH's prove the timing is incorrect. The universe is doing anything your subjective model predicts in your own mind.
-
Space dust could preferentially absorb the shorter wavelengths as a ratio. Another clue is we only use SR red shift and not GR red shift. BH's prove the timing is incorrect. The universe is doing anything your subjective model predicts in your own mind.
But space expansion is a GR concept. In SR spacetime is flat.
-
Space dust could preferentially absorb the shorter wavelengths as a ratio. Another clue is we only use SR red shift and not GR red shift. BH's prove the timing is incorrect. The universe is doing anything your subjective model predicts in your own mind.
But space expansion is a GR concept. In SR spacetime is flat.
There is no such thing as flat space. Even between galaxies there is dilation of attraction on a larger scale. Andromeda is moving towards us and yet it is red shifted. The only way we know it is moving towards us is the arm moving towards us is more blue shifted than the arm moving away is red shifted. The lensing in a galaxy is the curve of space which is really dilation of space with a threshold boundary past where the mass exists. A galaxy and a planet have the same issues with dilation only the galaxy is accumulated dilation. Its still the inverse square of the distance outside of the galaxy. Why do you think each of the voyagers appeared to slow down when they reached the edge of our solar system? The clock tick rate increased making it appear the voyagers slowed down. Main streams model does not have that as a possibility. Einstein was probably correct the universe is a steady state of motion rather than expansion.
Only SR is used for expansion because of main stream's model does not include GR.
-
Why do you think each of the voyagers appeared to slow down when they reached the edge of our solar system? The clock tick rate increased making it appear the voyagers slowed down. Main streams model does not have that as a possibility. Einstein was probably correct the universe is a steady state of motion rather than expansion.
Only SR is used for expansion because of main stream's model does not include GR.
Voyagers could've been slowed down by space dust as well, possibly, or their tick rate has increased because of a higher gravitational potential which would also mean that they actually travel slower. But I don't know their story.
-
A contracting universe can be described by Einstein's equation without invoking Dark Energy or Dark Matter.
Chris - I watched a Horizon program on Dark Energy last year where physicists were saying in light of Dark Energy remaining a complete mystery, that perhaps a new approach is required...
Among those physicists was George Efstathiou from Cambridge University.
Do you know him?
There is very little, if not no evidence at-all that observed red shift of the frequency of distant light sources is proof of expansion.
But there is staggering evidence that light is gravitationally shifted in frequency via the gravitational field. (Pound Rebka)
An alternative to a velocity related interpretation of red shift observations is to consider the shifts in frequency as having been caused by the gravitational field.
Although GR is the best description that we have of our universe, GR has a bit of trouble describing the gravity of gravity:
http://www.einstein-online.info/spotlights/gravity_of_gravity
Non-linearity makes relativistic physics more difficult than Newtonian gravity or electrodynamics. There is no general way of building up more complex situations from elementary building blocks. For each complex situation, the calculations must start anew. If you know how a test particle would move in the vicinity of two different single black holes, that does not tell you what gravity the particle would feel if both black holes were present.
By stating the frequency change in light in the g-field to be caused by slower time in the g-field itself, (a symmetry of frequency changes for mass in the g-field, where pe=mgh and where m=0 no pe is added), this affords a means of describing gravity by means of the adding up sum totals and attributing the resulting increase in gravitational acceleration to the factor of shorter seconds.
This also offers a bridge between the particle model and the wave model and causes quantum to be a continuum.
This is an alternative description of the mechanics causing the observation of the redshift distance correlation in order to describe a contracting model that remains fully described within the remit of Einstein's equation describing GR.
This alternative does not require Dark Energy or Dark Matter.
-
Only SR is used for expansion because of main stream's model does not include GR.
This is more nonsense that GoC has spouted before. The standard cosmological model is GR. The redshift calculations are GR, since they are based on the use of a scale factor and scale factors cannot possibly exist in SR.
-
Only SR is used for expansion because of main stream's model does not include GR.
This is more nonsense that GoC has spouted before. The standard cosmological model is GR. The redshift calculations are GR, since they are based on the use of a scale factor and scale factors cannot possibly exist in SR.
Do you even know the difference between GR and SR? SR is velocity issues while GR is dilation issues. You can have stand still red shift from light as dilation with little SR speed. Main stream shut down an astronomer who claimed different sized galaxies in the same group had different red shifts. Basically labeled him a quack. Size of dilation is a GR affect in red shift. Main stream's model does not consider the accumulation of dilation in a galaxy because they believe in flat space within a galaxy. The lensing effect is the accumulated dilation of a galaxy. And there is a threshold boundary. By our perspective much further out than where 75% of the light is created in the center of more extreme dilation we naturally view all galaxies as red shifted by GR without expansion.
If you are considering Dark Matter as GR you are incorrect again. Main stream force fits dark matter into their model of understanding. You probably foolishly believe the universe is only 13.6 billion years old because that is what you were taught. BH's of 30,000 AU prove that to be incorrect also.
You allow main stream to think for you and parrot their teachings without a real understanding of the problems their view creates.
You really haven't read enough to form your own opinion especially where the math does not fit the model.
They really only use SR expansion of receding galaxies and not GR dilation. There is equivalency in red shift and GR can be relatively stationary with its red shift. SR is strictly a receding issue.
Saying something without explanation to back up what you say seems to be your contribution. You need proper knowledge and that comes from studying not mimicking illogical subjective statements.
-
Recently, I composed a hypothesis that may very well explain the reason of the expansion of the Universe through "dark" energy. The idea is that the big bang was caused by the gravitational collapse of a black hole in another dimension of space-time. The gravity pushed through this fabric (four dimensional) and all of this gravity then became the inevitable dark energy that is causing the equal expansion of space around us at all time. If this were to hold true, not only may the universe contain finite space and matter, it would explain the evaporation caused by Hawking radiation, and the future expansion of our universe into solely space. I recommend checking out my recent proposal.