shmengie

I've formulated a basis for a prediction. In haste I posted it here, for timestamp purpose, because I don not know if the correlation has been made to what I've tried to state, in practice it is a prediction unverified by MY research. While I will likely work toward it's verification... I've had a mental block, I've overcome I attribute to discussion within this thread. http://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/index.php?reportsent;topic=66046.msg484446#msg484446 I may post clarification to the postulated prediction, before I continue to research conclusion. I don't know the future yet, but I'm getting there. That's worked for me so far. Argh, I don't want to stray toward philosophy, but I fear I perceive a leading argument. I have stated on occasion I know I don't know a lot. Lambda-CDM is a large body of knowledge, with which offers my ignorance many avenues to hide. I haven't been entirely clear on how much I think I know and how much I know I don't. I know I know a lot of both, however, proof will evolve and there's no one correct answer worth evaluating, IMO. One issue, one must deal with, at terms that only applies to the one. A philosophical tangent is one I've engaged effort to avoid, but find myself in a direct apoplexy with the effort. Although I view philosophical concepts outside my favored branch of science, its application within my reasoning and conclusions are pertinent to both this thread and are directly associated with my conclusion and it's ability to be termed "accepted." That can and sometimes happens when one makes a conscious decision to choose to go against the accepted "consensus." Dark Energy is currently an energy of an undefined or of non-specific point of origin. Based on my understanding of Lambda-CDM as a whole. Right or wrong, its what pop-sci lead me to believe. Instead of evaluating the numbers I concluded it was reasonable to search for an origin. Lambda-CDM is a large body of knowledge. I know this, I don't expect I'll ever know all of it. I accept, I move on. Lambda-CDM as a whole, to my knowledge has produced a theory that Dark Energy is a force of nature. I agree, examine, I don't understand, I don't like that, it persists..... time goes on.... Hear it again... again I no like. (for i=loop repeat ~ times else resolve); (execute i=loop function);

I will say thank you again. I'm going to write my paper and have it published. I thank you for helping me better define the topic which I must address.

You guys simply do not grasp the scope of the question posed, nor the logic I've used toward deduction. I'm not going to defend my choice in angle of attack, perhaps explain. LCDM is a fantastic body of work, it totally impresses me. I know I do not understand it and I've decided not to make an attempt until I can determine validity of one fundamental precept that I cannot resolve. I can't say you do or don't get it. I've spelled out the sequence of events that led to its conclusion (hell LCDM does that nicely). You say I'm wrong based on math or because I don't understand LCDM. I don't argue either, but seems you don't understand the implicit bias LCDM applies to redshift. Redshift MUST mean the universe is expanding. This is a pillar. It's an indisputable fact. LCDM doesn't question it any more, because every development inside of LCDM has gone toward proving exactly why it LOOKS like the universe is EXPANDING. I question this precept, that is an undeniable fact that ALL of LCDM depends on. It's not my lack of understanding LCDM, it's my question. The one I can't resolve. You can say I wrong till we're both blue in the face, doesn't change the facts. I've spelled out how redshift could be explained. It doesn't conclude an expanding or contracting universe. It explains why it looks like the fabric of spacetime appears to be being stretched. That's all. The conclusion breaks the "FAITH" in the EXPANDING precept, so you simply cannot conceive the possibility. All evidence that I've investigated, AND I'VE POINTED OUT TO YOU. Cannot be refuted that this is the case. One can only conclude. YOUR FAITH in LCDM is YOUR BELIEF SYSTEM. EVERY argument that calls it into question either ignores the facts or highlights ignorance of the one who disagrees. That's not my flaw. I know what I'm ignorant of. You probably do, but cannot overcome your BIAS to contemplate the fact. Like I said, I'm done. I cannot argue against one, nor many that depend on FAITH for conclusion. That's why I questioned REDSHIFT in the fist place. FWIW, in the 30s Einstein had predicted gravity shift. In the 50s it was proven. If the proof that it's wrong was done, why is it not included in reference, in typical scientific practice, to base the concepts that's dismissed? The calculation could be done with geodesic equations, I'm going to explore that avenue. It hasn't been done, or I wouldn't have to. I'm using logic and education to overcome my deficiencies. You use faith to justify your choice. I see it a little different than SCIENTIFIC. which has been a flawed argument you repeatedly used. Apparently more than one cannot agree when Faith becomes part of the equation. That's the problem I'd like to be able to overcome. You can't view it, because you're blinded by your faith... or at least that's how it seems.

I feel little enough to post one last time. I'm done. Thanks.

I don't posses a robust understanding of LCDM, such as yourself. I have a smaller collection of understandings to deal with. I accept that well. It may equate to a misunderstanding, for I am not a cosmologist. I like simple. I enjoy logic. I once ran into unjustifiable assertions while following my misunderstanding of Lambda-CDM. It induced the urge to question one piece of evidence. Doubt it's scientific, for I am not a scientist. But it seemed a logical course of action at the time. A flaw in my logic, I failed to recognize at the time, caused me to determine there is a flaw in evidence deemed cosmological shift. I attempted to apply logic. (apparently because I have not done math, this is an impossibility, tho not self evident to me). With out sound logical reason I deemed a flaw exists and determined a timeline from which it originated, and why it hasn't been resolved. But alas, I'm not a scientist. I may only misunderstand LCDM principles.

I believe if there is no cosmological parameter or it = 0 as Einstein mistake might suggest. The timeline of sight and shift correlation could coincide with an evolutionairy change in gravity field everywhere light might traverse unencumbered by mass. I believe LCDM equations could be modified (minimally) if a viable evolution of mass organization parameter could be determined. I believe galaxies formation is non constant rate, much like all stars are not equal mass, life span nor formation rate. Galaxy collision and black hole behaviors should also be taken into account but logical sequencing confounds me. I suspect consistence exists, but aside from using the cosmological parameter as the most likely candidate, I cannot propose a viable alternative. But like Strange tends to point out... What I believe amounts to squat. I don't believe doppler shift is cosmological shift. I believe cosmological shift is gravity shift. Why do I keep squating???

I rarely if ever conclude I am right, without exhausting attempt to prove wrong first. This might seem to resemble a scientific principle, but I possess an abundance of ignorance. I have issues with the abundance of Lambda-CDM principles that consistently referring to Lambda-CDM as a basis of self evidence. I've concluded Lambda-CDM to be built on a foundation of assertions evidenced neither right nor wrong. Instead of a definitive yes or no, it seems to be it's a series of assertions of sequence where one right proves another. I really like that foundation, but I made a mistake of charging myself with locating evidence for the crutch (used to be termed pillar) that might have a differing definition or cause. I've stated repeatedly I like Lambda-CDM. Tho that is of no consequence, toward achieving a goal I've set fourth. I have found Lambda-CDM very frustrating because so many theories use it for a foundation. That's a consequence of it's acceptance. Not it's fault. But makes achievement of my stupid question, a likely impossibility. Any anisotropy will grow over time. Sounds like a sound principle. The paper however seemed to imply Dark Matter might be source of supernova events and hurt my feeble brain. Perturbation Theory relies heavily on Lambda-CDM. This implies a circular reference, I've sought a method to avoid. I really have only one question that I quest to answer without circular reference. It's my fault. I set out on a path of futility. This forum has made this self evident fact clear. Thank you. I've contemplated dark matter to an extent. Independent of Lambda-CDM. Trying to focus only on observational evidence, I've been made aware. I conclude it's origin is of considerable importance, to ascertain, before implication of it's existence can reach any logical consequence. My conclusion is important only to me. But alas, w/out defining a the most likely source for a majority of Dark Matter, I cannot agree with its complete consequence. I believe super nova events are the most likely source of Dark Matter. It's my opinion. I know that. But it is mine. However, if supernova events are the most likely source of Dark Matter. Dark Matter cannot be the source of super nova events. Any circular reference of this nature defy logic IMO. Now I don't know if I'm right or wrong. But I must admit I have a reluctance to follow any paper which refers to Lambda-CDM as a basis for topics of discussion. I don't conclude any one theory contained in Lambda-CDM is correct nor incorrect. I've reached an impasse, by asking a wrong question. I've concluded I cannot make a personal justification to follow or not follow Lambda-CDM without answering one very simple question. The rules for answering my simple question contain this logic. I must find an answer to cosmological redshift. Any evidence of this answer may not contain reference to principles contained in Lambda-CDM. It's a poorly phrased question, I'll admit, because it implies reference to Lambda-CDM. Is there a plausible cause to redshift that is not related to expansion? I've concocted a solution independent of Lambda-CDM. In order to falsify it to my satisfaction, simply cannot utilize a document that implies principles of Lambda-CDM are assumed correct. It's virtually impossible to work around the inherent flaw of my logic. The main of (or only) research that might pertain to the question I pose inevitably relies on assumptions made in Lambda-CDM. Argh. I don't argue a varying constant G. I have argued that a constant G is used in Lambda-CDM. I've also argued the field of gravity's force changes. (I assumed it meant, a constant, need not apply) Tho I see similarities. For I have asserted (there exists a viable) reason not to use one. Other than that, I have no idea which argument, if any, I intend to support. Think my brain is fried. LOLOL I've iterated most of those points, in this thread, tho not in one (quite lovely IMO) summation and my use of decade specifics were equated in life spans of idea publishers. Incontinence of points made were of my own flawed design. Mostly because I changed the topic of the subject w/out starting a new thread while doing so, and confusion ensued.

That can only make sense to me if all mass wasn't in a homogeneous configuration. The distribution of gravity, if mass starts still or highly energetic is going to persist homogeneous configuration because of the field of gravity as well as opposed to it. Because the baseline gravity configuration would tend to maintain the same configuration.

I really would like to see a statement: This equation rules out an evolutionary distribution of mass as cause for redshift. I've searched, maybe I haven't found it because I don't want to, but all evidence thus far has proven otherwise.

I believe matter condensing into stars is a very slow process, especially from a homogeneous like beginning. After the initial formation pressures forced the issue elsewhere. But that's all very hard for me to conceive. Based on CMBR, it seems this happened fairly consistently everywhere, but even that I have difficulty conceiving. Where the consequences of the first mass contraction likely, initially only black holes of a supper massive nature? Not likely, but, how does one make any such assertion? The distances that separate galaxies seems quite vast. From a homogeneous like beginning, how long did it take for all visible matter to reach galaxy density distribution. 14 billion years? Hubble can see that far back and it looks highly reminiscent of what exists closer. How can it be possible from a homogeneous like beginning, in only 14 billion years? Seeems to me like there is a lot of math that doesn't add up quite right...

The way I see it 14 billion years of evolution is a lot of change over a very long period of time. Because it's dealing with numbers I can't fathom, in so many different changes in concentration I can barley imagine, I don't see how the math could be applied in a reliable fashion. I also envision it's there may not be a straight line geodesic solution. I have a real hard time imagining initial star formation, in relation to what we see now.

I have not found this proof. The fancy geodesic equations all appear to lead back to documents that seem to state otherwise. That's my problem.

But I don't care if expansion can or cannnot be the cause. That's inconsequential to the question I pose. I assumed my question was wrong by asking it in the first place. I only wondered if there was another plausible explanation, not proof.

I know a lot about expansion principles, but I asked an what if it was wrong... When I formulated my thesis I assumed redshift may have another cause, and held with it. Once I reasoned out (in my minds eye) how it might look like cosmological redshift...

Well... I already knew I asked the wrong question, so I didn't have to justify as the right question. But it was one I choose to answer knowing there was an alternate explanation that is accepted to be abundantly clear to the community at large. Without a doubt, you are right. I didn't say I cannot do math. Tho I have a strong grasp of it, I have done little calculus, which is a personal defect I have endeavored to rectify. I don't have a math to my problem because my problem is inherently complex. That's no fault of my own, it's just a fact, if you want to apply math to 14 billion years of universe evolution, it implies 100 billion different galaxies forming 100 billion factor more stars, from an non definitive initial mass. The math for that I cannot comprehend. Maybe it's just me, but that seems nearly an impossible task. I realized this was a problem a long time ago, and I still have no clue how to resolve if I'm ever to solve my problem.

You figured it out, but didn't see my reasoning, you assumed I was wrong and have been trying to prove it to me. DOH, I'm slow. Not your fault.

I asked the wrong question! But none of us have ascertained why. The fault lies with me. I didn't tell you from the from the onset why I asked a question I thought was wrong.

I assert I may have language skill issues and request help. The documents of reference: have been indicated to address change in mass thru the course of evolution do affect distribution of strength in field of gravity. FLRW: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Friedmann–Lemaître–Robertson–Walker_metric FLRW model assumes homogeneity (a point of view that does not change) Sachs–Wolfe effect: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sachs–Wolfe_effect#Integrated_Sachs.E2.80.93Wolfe_effect Indicates to me, a change in mass over time is inconsequential because the amount of mass therein does not change. I dont argue that the distribution of force does change, not the amount of mass. I argue that the effect/force of gravity changes. But they do not address this, they use English language to state these facts. Or so I perceive. Do my English skills need to be addressed? Or is it really a problem with my logic? I've suggested that this issue is enigmatic.... And that I've ascertained it from an abundance of ignorance. Probably should have said I asked the *WRONG* question...

I fear the issue I believe I have identified is going to be difficult for me to resolve. This fear has persisted for a while. I thought I spelled it out clearly, but there appears to be a defect in my thought process. homogeneous: of uniform structure or composition throughout Was the universe in this state at one time? Probably From any given point would the force of gravity be much different from any other given point? Not likely Would that time be now? No. ------------------- Is the universe homogeneous now? no From any given point would the force of gravity be the same? Not likely Is there a law of equivalence that can be applied to fix this problem? Is it a problem?

1. I assert I do not use math 2. I assert I use logic 3. I assert I find a flaw 4. I assert where I find said flaw 5. I assert flaw is ignored A. You debunked my logic, iterating I do not use math. 6. I assert flaw in your logic B. Return to A run Why do I perceive one of my assertions (an change in mass distribution) is ignored? You've directed me to two bodies of work, that show I'm incorrect, but when I read them, they indicate to me I am not incorrect. I've pulled the statements they make. Ones that indicate change in mass distribution is not taken into account. They also indicate that what I would like to prove, is resolved by applying it to expansion. I can accept mass distribution has changed. I cannot accept expansion, but that's not the issue I'm trying to address, it's one I've tried to avoid. I did develop a thought experiment. I doubt you gave it any attention, because I used steady state like properties in the example. We all know SS is wrong... Therefor (I assume) why bother.

I pointed out a flaw I identified in " The Sache Wolfe effect. " You have not addressed my identification other that to mean I cannot apply logic. There for I question my language skills. - Direct cause/effect. Tho it is somewhat indirect, because I made an assumption: that you call me an idiot and that was the implied such meaning. Does "Sache Wolfe effect" account for a change in distribution of mass or ignore it with a blanket statement? I would like to affirm my ability to read... On an a somewhat related note: (tho my ability to read does require affirmation for this one too......) I didn't know what FLRW meant, so I looked up the wiki on it: I don't know if I've asserted evolution of the universe to imply a different account of mistakes or not. Until my English capabilities are ascertained, I fear making any further comment. I've been searching for math, that would either affirm or deny my postulation. If I've viewed these documents before and dismissed them as "not applicable" one might ascertain it was not w/out reason. I assert the evolution of the Universe may have caused a shift. Verbiage in these documents suggests it does not apply and is not addressed. Tho they do contain math that is pertinent and will likely prove exactly what I suggest is correct... IF *and*only*if* EXPANTION IS NOT INFACT THE CAUSE. The approach taken is in direct conflict of my objective. Which leads me to ask why??? We know the universe has evolved. Why does this one seemingly evident fact not apply in the math? Seems the documents that would prove it argue it's inconsequential... Huh, they use science... I'm not a scientist. Guess that's really why I don't get it. YOU WERE RIGHT ALL ALONG.

I told you I have issues with math. Affirming common knowledge, by example of ignorance... Seems childish to me. I fear I misinterpreted english in the link you availed. Aka The Sache Wolfe effect. So while I know I have issues with math, I find my issues with English may trump the issue you choose to highlight by example. Furthermore I don't recognize those equations, only a few symbols are familiar to me. Guv I can equate to relativity and transformation. If you can tell me how that applies to an evolving gravity field, I would be very appreciative. I need more verbiage to know what you are presenting. Tho question my English language skill, I do find troubling as well, which induces a fear that additional verbiage may not help.

I don't know how to translate: One big large cloud of gas into billions of galaxy (slight reconfiguration/transformation) how do they put it. as to "NOT EVOLVE SIGNIFICANTLY" I don't know how to describe my difference in opinion. math = Fnet = m•a = 0 must be right.

I don't seek an answer to the question: is the universe expanding. I haven't given it much thought. I got stuck while questioning redshift origin. Not expansion of the universe or what if any implications the answer to my question might have. I'm trying to rule out anything that's not pertinent to my question. You keep bringing up this question, but I see as impertinent. Perhaps I should ask you, because you keep going in that direction. Do you believe it does? I seek to answer why redshift might vary over distance and consequently time. Expansion may have something to do with it, but I'm stuck in another avenue of exploration at the moment. I don't wish to argue validity of SS. I don't agree with it because it directly conflicts with the notion of evolving universe, I hold self evident. Sache Wolfe, resolves any notion of an evolving universe and gravity distribution and change with a blanket statement I view flawed. Distribution of gravity has changed, is changing and the way things go, will keep doing it. While the total quantity of mass may be invariant, we'll assume accuracy of this assertion, to reduce further complication another variance would imply (I'll try not to throw you off by using logic, if it gets too difficult, I'll try to avoid using such non-scientific methods ). I do find flaw. Because concentration and more specifically locality of mass dramatically change the potential when one varies either of the two. Not being a scientist, I don't grasp the full potential of the inverse square law (or do I???) but when one rules a law as inconsequential, one must examine it's FULL potential, rather than ignore it. Perhaps scientists may exempt any law the like w/out such examination. Not being one, I don't know how it works. Now I don't know when scientists should or shouldn't deem laws of variance inconsequential, guess because I'm not a scientist. But when I apply logic, I see flaw. huh.... I don't know what I'm thinking. oh, Newton and his inverse square law, what a fool... Is that right? No, he was an ass, not a fool. hm... Its too hard for me to get it. sorry I brought it up. I do not argue that SS is correct nor that BB is correct. Neither argument do I find simple, because there are many assertions with each that remain definitively unresolved. I don't wish to resolve such complex problems. There is one iota of a problem I would like to resolve. It may pertain to the arguments aforementioned. I don't know. I find my one problem of paramount import, because I can view neither SS nor BB in any great detail until my one little iota is resolved. Seems ones view of tackling ones problem scientifically in a public forum must clearly specify these constraints. I apparently have neglected to do so. I apologize for my frustration. I didn't mean to specify otherwise. I find theory of gravity problematic. That doesn't mean I find theory of gravity to be something other than simple. But if every gravity of every atom reaches every other atom and its reach is universal, I view that with a bit of skepticism and why I find it problematic. However because the force diminishes based on the square of distance, even tho the net mass of the universe may in fact be static, it's distribut I have one problem with redshift, has nothing to do with expansion, AFAICT. If you want to go there, have fun and start your own thread. This one is mine. I did associate the thread with expansion, my bad. Go with ignorance of science as reason.

Eureka I've got it! Actually I conceived it a long time ago, but neglected to simplify it. My bad. Guess I'm not a scientist after all. A simple thought experiment, with limited assumptions. For the moment, assume SS is correct in that space/distance do not change. -we'll modify this in a bit, but lets set the stage first. This will be easy if we imagine a static box full of evenly distributed matter looks something like a gas. Now we want to measure light shift, so we need source and observer spaced some distance apart. call light source point A call observer point B A and B locations are opposite corner corners and light constantly traveles from A to B distance between A & B happens to be about 14 billion light years. Mass of A & B do not change and oddly never change. Now measure shift between two points. (we have some w3ird apparatus that can do this) No, shift nothing moved (yet). pretty consistent with steady state so far Now we don't believe the universe is SS. Funny thing about mass, it gravitates. A&B have no mass, so mass doesn't gravitate toward them. w3ird I know, but this is a thought experiment. We believe the universe has evolved, so lets assert the box evolves. Lets further assume all mass resolves into two galaxies in corners different from A & B. Don't know why, it just happens. Space hasn't changed but mass distribution has. Is it possible over the 14 billion years it takes for this change to happen the space and distribution of the field of gravity has changed shift in light. Would that shift in light resemble cosmological redshift in any way. Lets suppose that either Point A or B changes locality without motion so that we may meter the shift in light from varying distances, without incurring doppler effect. I assert the field of gravity evolves at all points in the box as the galaxies resolve from gas to galaxy. I further would assert this shifts light as it traverses from point a to point b, occurs due to change of gravity. I don't believe space affects a photon but that gravity does. My this is the epitome of my thesis. I don't know how to prove it. But I've come to believe it has merit. If Lambda-CDM stands independent of redshift, this is inconsequential to Lambda-CDM, other than changing a pillar to a crutch. I'm a loon, I know, or better an oxymoron. I've reasoned out this is plausibly correct shape of things. The box idea was a little late to the game. I've applied a fair amount of logic in my reasoning, and my conclusions thus far stand. I haven't figured out the math of it, so I must not be a scientist, I agree to a degree. Using the box idea one could conceive a specific amount of mass for start to end... Maybe I finally figured out a way to do the math. Hmm... Need to go buy a book on relativity, or use the internet. I've played that experiment in my head many times and concluded it would likely resemble aspects of cosmological redshift. I hadn't previously determined a method to define a specific amount of mass to begin with, so I couldn't ascertain a means to work it out. Finally found a means to accomplish my goal. I think the experiment could work out with something of a resemblance to the nature of things. It's a little different that reality, but many aspects share enough similarity. I don't know... why I keep saying that, i dont know.