Roger_XR

There is an associate professor - Christos Tsagas from Greece - (from an article on http://www.lifeslittlemysteries.com/1795-accelerating-universe-dark-energy-illusion.html) "a new theory suggests that the accelerating expansion of the universe is merely an illusion, akin to a mirage in the desert. The false impression results from the way our particular region of the cosmos is drifting through the rest of space, said Christos Tsagas, a cosmologist at Aristotle University of Thessaloniki in Greece. Our relative motion makes it look like the universe as a whole is expanding faster and faster, while in actuality, its expansion is slowing down — just as would be expected from what we know about gravity." As far as I know this is relatively new and there will be those that disagree, still I find it interesting.

Hey, Some REALLY good stuff guys. But back in the real world it's nearly Christmas and I have small children. I'll be back MERRY CHRISTMAS TO ALL (relatively speaking)

Rather I think you mean educated guess, You did not address the conversation about warping of space versus the mere bending of light by gravity. Did you use to read a lot of science fiction? You use very few words with little fact of things that I've already (usually) seen on the internet but with a dose of really rude thrown in. To a certain extent we need "currently accepted science" upon which to build upon. However, when that "currently" accepted science stands in the way of (in my opinion) advancements in that science, then the current view must be questioned. As I've pointed out before, there were those that believed that the Earth was flat. That was the "currently accepted science" of that time. Okay, "science" is probably not the correct term. But it was the current belief at the time. To choose "warpped space" over simple gravity effect is done in part because it is the "currently accepted science" and probably because it was Einstein that said it. Is there a better reason to believe in warpped space? I always listen (even to ACG52 - he's a bit rude but he tries). I probably wouldn't have used the term "convenience" but if I have a certain bias (as I am sure I must) I believe everyone else does also. No problem with that really. I only ask for an open mind. If I am right or if I am wrong, to me at least I try to put ideas out there that challenge the "currently accepted science". Funny thing about math in this field is that (apparently) you can make it say whatever you want. I'll explain. I saw a show on TV where a scientist had an idea of - I believe he called them "banes" anyway these were like different realities of this Universe. But he went on to say that he had to invent a whole new math to explain it. Space Time: In relativistic contexts, time cannot be separated from the three dimensions of space, because the observed rate at which time passes for an object depends on the object's velocity relative to the observer and also on the strength of gravitational fields, which can slow the passage of time. As for that other stuff you were saying - Spacetime tells matter how to move....ect. Sorry, that sounds pretty strange.

Okay big guy, if you have two competing hypotheses for which you CANNOT prove either one, How do YOU chose? The one that everyone else believes in or think for yourself? Have you ever had an original idea on the subject? The easier chose is to go with the mainstream dogma.

Go back and re-read what I wrote. NEVER did I say that photons shouldn't be affected by gravity. I know and have known about the experiment that Einstein did to visulize the light of stars behind a total eclipse. (about 1917 I think in Austrlia) First you say that, "Your issue seems to be with the fact that since photons are massless, they shouldn't be affected by gravity." But then you go on to say, "Photons aren't directly influenced by the gravitational field..." So I'm not real sure which one you believe. I DO believe that the photons ARE influenced directly by gravity. However you cannot (as I stated) us Netonian physics to compute the effect on photons. Occam's razor, which as you know states that, "among competing hypotheses, the one that makes the fewest assumptions should be selected." It is easier to believe that gravity, which we have known all our lives, is bending the light instead of the "warping" of space. Also I might point out that at one time it was believed that the Earth was flat. You would have pretty much have to be crazy to believe otherwise. Just because Einstein (who, don't get me wrong, was a VERY smart man) came up with the warping of space as a concept, does not mean he was right (at least about this one thing.) Nor am I the only one to ever question Einstein. Nevertheless, each of the examples you stated could also be explained by gravity effecting the light or radio waves. However, can you quote a experiment in which gravity was excluded as the cause? Everything I have heard is of light passing by a very massive object (the Sun, a galaxy, ect.) Which by the way have gravity. Please if you're going to quote me, at least READ what it was I said. OKay?

I agree of course that the early Universe was very hot and the energy of that time easily overcame the effect of gravity. And it just now occured to me that perhaps we take gravity for granted. I've been hearing about the Higgs Boson. It is thought that this particle may be responsible for giving an object mass. Therefore, since "gravity is the agent that gives weight to objects with mass", (From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia) can we know if gravity existed at the moment of the Big Bang. In other words did the Higgs Boson exist at the time of the Big Bang? Without the affect of gravity and in the presence of a huge explosive force, all matter (I assume in the form of subatomic particles) would have flown out at tremendous velocity. Before that can be answered I guess we'll have to wait for them to confirm the Higgs Boson and then try to figure if it could have existed at the moment before the Big Bang. Now as for Einstein, He used GR to calculate the trajectory of a light particle around a massive object (such as our Sun or another Galaxy) instead of Newtonian physics. Very smart but the conclusion he drew from it I think is wrong. Wrapped space? A photon of light is not the same as the mass of a rock (of whatever size). A photon is affected by gravity, but of course a photon is also a wave particle so it could be expected that the effect on the photon would be very different. So as you can no doubt guess I do not believe in wrapped space.

I do hate to be a doubting Thomas but your link says in part, "This model is valid in the present era only on large scales (roughly the scale of galaxy clusters and above). At smaller scales matter has become bound together under the influence of gravitational attraction and such bound objects clumps do not expand at the metric expansion rate as the universe ages, though they continue to recede from one another." Do you see how this explanation tries to hedge its bet by saying that it is but it isn't valid. The Universe is the same through out. At one time everything was VERY close together and would have had a certain degree of attraction to everything else. Yet the Universe expanded anyway. And I HAVE read other theories that say it was indeed a Big Bang. I do hate to be a doubting Thomas but your link says in part, "This model is valid in the present era only on large scales (roughly the scale of galaxy clusters and above). At smaller scales matter has become bound together under the influence of gravitational attraction and such bound objects clumps do not expand at the metric expansion rate as the universe ages, though they continue to recede from one another." Do you see how this explanation tries to hedge its bet by saying that it is but it isn't valid. The Universe is the same through out. At one time everything was VERY close together and would have had a certain degree of attraction to everything else. Yet the Universe expanded anyway. And I HAVE read other theories that say it was indeed a Big Bang. Wish that were all there was to the story. If you're a scientists, you likely work for a University. Now just frow what you said, the evidence "makes a very solid case" and everybody is going to believe that thinking. If you don't have tenure you had better believe it too. What if you had a theory that disproved Einstein? (and I've heard a few actually) Such theories don't hold up well because Einstein is almost sacrosanct so anything that goes against Einstein is obviously wrong. So maybe I don't trust the scientific community so much. I've lived a long time and I've seen a few things. It's what I think.

Yeah, I've heard that. I just don't think even our best minds can know that for a fact. I feel that to many people take what someone else has said as the absolute truth. Is it true? Maybe. But what if it's wrong? Then we will continue to believe that and stop all effort to research any other thought that might not fit with the current thinking but which may in fact be right. The scientists that come up with any given theory have a vested interest in making sure that theory is maintained. But of course it won't really matter. If there's a Big Crunch or an Infinite Expansion we'll be long dead.

This is an argument from incredulity.

But would not that part of the galaxy that you say is receding have occured first and started its outward travel at that point. (Time equal zero) That part of the galaxy was there long before even our local group was created? You and I will just have to disagree on that part about "new space" being formed from nothing. I understand that there are people that believe that but it sounds more like science fiction to me. One other thing I thought of, If we can "see" an object at 13.7 billion light years and it took the light 13.7 billion years to reach us (less perhaps because we were closer to that point at one time - though still billions of years) then the age of the Universe would have to be greater than 13.7 billion years old.

Ok AGC52, I've been doing a bit more studying. This time I got some material from astro.ucla.edu. This particular paper was rather well written but there is more I need to study. For example; It stated that "The high redshift supernovae (Type 1A) are fainter than would be expected." They did not write their paper to answer my particular question but the question would be: If we look outward and the furthermost object (what we see at 13 billion light years say) had a particular speed, then when we look at another object closer to us in time at say about 11 billion light years is slower in speed, and another object at about 9 billion light years is slower in speed, and continuing in this way all the back to our local group, which is slower still, then why could we not say that the Universe is in fact slowing down not speeding up? Could we not say that the very early Universe was indeed moving at a fast speed (relatively) but as time goes on the Universe has slowed down to the speed we notice today? (and No I do not mean just our local group).

I'll start with your question first. My degree is in chemistry. Before that I worked in electronics and computers. I have been studying cosmology for a long time, mostly from the papers I have read on the internet. And as I've said, I'm a fairly smart man. And what I have learned is that not everybody is on the same page as to the theories of just what happened. I have read that the Universe began with a Big Bang and grew in size from there. I have read that there was no single place that the Universe started and therefore had no center or no edge. Which to believe? Good news is you get to decide for yourself. I think the latter theory is just whack, but hey that's theory for you. I did find a paper that refutes much of what you say. And I would like to point out that I DO NOT necessarily refute what you're saying, only that the distances and time are SO VERY VAST that I do not believe we can made absolute judements just yet. I'm including the link to further show you that even those that have a lot of "background" in this field disagree to a certain degree. http://www.lifeslittlemysteries.com/1795-accelerating-universe-dark-energy-illusion.html

Ok then, Since you say you know it all, then perhaps YOU could enlighten me. Always willing to learn but you have so far said nothing but reaffirmed that WMAP could measure something that everybody else I have read says is hypothetical. What then is dark energy? How then is dard energy measured? You either know and can tell me or you don't know and should just say so. You are very big on statements but very short on facts to back it up. I will be MOST happy - thrilled even - to finally learn what dark energy is but so far you aren't saying. Or can't say. Am I "clueless"? It would be the rare individual that could know everything about everything. You apparently take everything that you read about "developments in astronomy and cosmology" as fact. I on the other hand try to maintain an open mind and look at these developments as the theory they are purported to be. And the "facts" put forth by WMAP seem to have had little in the way of new information. (e.g. how did they measure the dark energy or what it is and so forth) I flesh out my ideas to try and convey my thoughts and the reasoning behind my thoughts. You use a mere sentence or two to rudely say that I am wrong or clueless but leave behind no facts. I would humbly say that I am a very smart man and if you use reason and facts to back up what you say then I will be GREATLY in your debt. But if you merely refute what is said or refer to such things as the WMAP or such, then I can only conclude that you don't know enough to have an intelligent discourse. You would then of course be wasting both our times.

The cases of falsifying reserch you say have been detected and corrected. Have they ALL been detected? Can we be SURE that all of these have been detected? I don't think so. WHAT was measured?????????? You CANNOT measure something if you don't know what it is you're measuring. Seem Logical? To measure voltage you first have to have an idea of what it is and how then to measure it. They have NO idea what it is. You couldn't measure voltage with a scales for example. Nor could you measure light with a voltmeter. These are forms of energy but we have to know which one it is before we can measure it. No, those folks of WMAP are touting something they can't prove. Cold Fusion ring a bell? ACG52, up till now I've given you some credit for knowing something of the subject, but when you state, "Once measured, it's no longer hypothetical" to something so absurd, what am I to think? Sleep on it at least and think of something that will at least make more sense than that.

ACG52 You and I may just agree on something here.

No, but I can see why you might think so. In math if I have an object and add another then logically I then have two such objects. To say that I have three would be illogical. Fallacious logic. To often, I have heard of observations or of experiments that the researcher then makes the result fit his view of what he expected to get. Happens all the time in science and no doubt in cosmology as well. I was reading a bit on WMAP and those people really know how to toot their own horn. For example they stated that: 6.WMAP's accuracy and precision determined that dark energy makes up 72.8% of the universe (to within 1.6%), causing the expansion rate of the universe to speed up. - "Lingering doubts about the existence of dark energy and the composition of the universe dissolved when the WMAP satellite took the most detailed picture ever of the cosmic microwave background. Then I hear that no one knows what dark energy is but these guys have measured it. Either they know what it is and can measure it or they do not know what it is and therefore cannot measure it. Simple logic. (there's that word again) Yet they purport to have measured it and with a high degree of accuracy. What I have read is: "dark energy is a hypothetical form of energy." Can "hypothetical" be measured?

(Look up COBE and WMAP) I prefer theory, experimentation, observation and mathematics over 'logic'. I will look up COBE and WMAP as you suggest. But consider, If the result of your experimentation, observation or your mathematics is not logical, it is also invalid. But one little thing did lead me to this from Wikipedia: Cosmologists use the term (anisotropy) to describe the uneven temperature distribution of the cosmic microwave background radiation. There is evidence for a so-called "Axis of Evil"[1] in the early Universe that is at odds with the currently favored theory of rapid expansion after the Big Bang. Cosmic anisotropy has also been seen in the alignment of galaxies' rotation axes and polarisation angles of quasars. So you see, Not everybody is on the same page here as regards the CMBR. Who to believe? Pick your favorite.

Did you mean CMBR? How fast does light travel? I'm going to guess that the CMBR travels at the same rate. We can only see the light that reaches us. The CMBR has been traveling for a very long time to reach us. When we see a star or galaxy at say 13 billion light years, we are NOT seeing that star right now but as it was then. Therefore, when we see the CMBR we are seeing it as it was at sometime in the past. That does not mean that is in anyway uniform through out the Universe anymore than the light from that distance star would be the same if we could observe if from different distances from that same star. As for observations that are made. No doubt they are the best that we can get for the amount of time that we have been observing. There are people that thought the Earth was flat. After further observations it was determined otherwise. The cosmological red-shift may follow a similar path. Not enough observations. If in fact I am right then I could ask you: What has your logic done for science lately?

Widdekind I'm not sure what point you were trying to make. But it did seem you were pointing out the reasons why a Universe might be open versus closed. I believe ours is a closed Universe and will cycle and has cycled through many many cycles of Big Bang -> Big Crunch in an infinite time scale. The "theory" of which you speak is just that - theory. You cite no observations that contradict.

. I got this from Wikipedia: The age of the universe is about 13.75 billion years, but due to the expansion of space humans are observing objects that were originally much closer but are now considerably farther away (as defined in terms of cosmological proper distance, which is equal to the comoving distance at the present time) than a static 13.75 billion light-years distance.[2] The diameter of the observable universe is estimated at about 28 billion parsecs (93 billion light-years),[3] putting the edge of the observable universe at about 46–47 billion light-years away.[4][5] He did use the term "edge" albeit "of the observable universe". The "expansion of space" of which he speaks is probably what you also alluded to in your reply. This expansion of space was a theory (as I understand it) to get around the limit of the speed of light insofar as matter traveling faster than that. So, are we to believe that "space" is a thing? Do you remember when they tried to prove the "ether"? They thought that if sound waves traveled through a medium (such as air) then light must also travel trough a medium - the ether. Of course it was never proved and the expansion of space cannot be proved either and to me at least goes against all logic. Likely you do not believe in a cyclic Universe as I do and that's fine. I cannot prove what I say anymore than you can. But to me my view is more logical at least.

Darwin was talking about selection of species that made them more biologically adept because they had traits whereby they could function in their enviroment better than a rival for that enviroment. You CANNOT compare natural selection to the Big Bang. The Universe has changed over time but has NOT "descended over time." I believe the most logical answer it that all the matter in the Universe came together in one place. The Big Crunch perhaps? Think of the BIGGEST Black Hole ever! Then at some point and for some reason, a chain reaction caused all of this matter (subatomic particles?) to explode. The Big Bang. Ever see an explosion? The material thus ejected is uneven in its distribution. Much as we see in the present Universe. We can see the early Universe as it WAS 13.7 billion years ago. The things we see at 13.7 billion years ago are no longer there and haven't been for perhaps billions of years. Those objects from where we see them have been moving outward from THAT point and the Universe may in fact be MUCH older than 13.7 billion years. The future of our Universe, I believe, is that there will be another Big Crunch. This then followed by another Big Bang and so on. As for time: Time is the measure of durations of events and the intervals between them. This is a purely human concept. So to say that you could stop time or go back in time, I think is wrong. We move forward in time only as a consequence of our being alive. At the "time" of the Big Crunch and just before the Big Bang, I believe there was time if perhaps only in the psychological sense. In other words if there had been someone there to observe then they (had they some time keeping device) would be able to measure the time involved. (sort of the: If a tree fell in the woods and no one was there to hear it . . . . . . . .)

Hi Michel123456, Actually, a billion years still may not be a long enough period of observation. As fast as things are moving out there, the Universe is still very very very large. But I can certainly understand wanting to at least try and understand what it is that we think we see. And it is only natural that people will try to understand the world in which we live. Therefore it is also only natural that people will try and formulate theories that might explain what we see. This is good because it fosters new ideas and one of those MAY actually be correct. However, some of the theories that I have seen border on science fiction and wishful thinking. Another funny thing is that many will support their view with math ( with some assumtions thrown in). Which someone else will refute with math (and further assumtions). The current theory is that the Universe is increasing its expansion rate. But it would only make sense to think that the Universe at the edge of the expansion is the same as the Universe at the center. If the Universe at the center isn't doing it then it would not make sense that the furthermost reaches of the Universe are doing anything different simply because it is so very far from us. It is true that what we see at 13.7 billion years in the past WAS doing something very different at THAT time. My fear is that the scientific community will (and perhaps already has) formulate a belief that will become so ingrained that it will persist long after newer evidence proves it wrong. Sort of like the flat Earth theory.

If we look back toward the beginning and say that the Universe is 13.7 billion years old, we are looking at the Universe as it WAS 13.7 billion years ago. What the Universe was doing 13.7 years ago is VERY different from what it is doing NOW. Unfortunately, we cannot see the early Universe as it is NOW. Those objects that we can see at great distance do not exist anymore and some of those for perhaps billions of years. Perhaps you might suggest the red shifting of the light coming to us from those distances, but I might also suggest that what we "see" at 13.7 billion light years may in fact be VERY much farther away than what we "see" them NOW. For all we know the Universe could have stopped its expansion and have already started back toward the "Big Crunch". I don't believe it has just yet but my point is that there is now way for us to know at this point. After we have had a MUCH longer period of observation of the Universe then perhaps we can formulate a better theory.

I have often heard of the "angular momentum" from the creation of our solar system - and indeed the creation of the other systems and the galaxy itself. It would seem that the alignment of the planets follows the plane that the Sun rotates on with little above or below that plane. The first question would be: What would determine the initial "angular momentum" direction that the solar system began to rotate about. Next: It would seem perhaps that the galaxy itself formed in a similar fashion (and long before) with a large Dark Hole mass at its center. The difference being that our galaxy's center has stars and dust and other matter above and below the rotational plane of the main body of the galaxy. Would it seem reasonable to think that the Dark Hole at the center of the Galaxy is rotating in the same direction as the main body of the Galaxy much as the planets in our solar system follow the Sun?