Einstein was right!

[Strange]

If the Big Bang is the "Birth" of the universe

 

 

There is no evidence that is the case.

 

 

 

If we were able to go back in time to our perceived beginning of the big bang it would still appear that the universe was about 13.8 billion years old.

 

So is this a type of steady state theory (as proposed by Fred Hoyle)?

 

Then the question you have to answer is: what is the source of the CMB?

[Butch]

Yes,it is. The Big Bang and the Steady State can co-exist under my hypothesis. The CMB is just that, background radiation from the or a Big Bang. I find this exciting!

That would not be an illusion. The 2 balloons would really touch each other.

 

And what would be the process that makes the observer move away?

The illusion would be that the balloons are not expanding but are being pulled together by some attractive force, the same illusion we would experience if the dimension of space were expanding.

I am still giving thought to the gravitational red shift, however the direction I am currently pursuing is that if space is expanding at an accelerating rate, photons would have greatly increasing wavelength to maintain energy in equivalence with normal space time. This increase in wave length would be greater than expected. I am not sure how this can be measured short term, however long term, objects that were thought to be receding would not be receding at all. This I also find quite exiting, certainly more exciting than a universe that ends when it reaches absolute zero.

[Strange]

Yes,it is. The Big Bang and the Steady State can co-exist under my hypothesis.

 

 

I don't see how. A steady state theory says that the universe has always been (roughly) the sae. The big bang model says it has cooled from an early hot, dense state.

 

How do those co-exist?

 

 

 

The CMB is just that, background radiation from the or a Big Bang.

 

That is not what the current model says. So you need to explain why it has the exact spectrum and temperature that it does. Something more detailed than "background radiation".

[Butch]

First off throw away thinking of space as anything other than volume change.

Secondly the acceleration of space is something of a misnomer. In point of detail the rate of expansion per Mpc is slowing down not accelerating.

The acceleration portion is the seperation distance based on one formula for recessive velocity (which is not a true velocity but an apparent velocity)

v=Hd.

 

There is no centre of expansion, there is no inside or outside of the balloon, those analogies were never intended to define expansion. Its only intention is to show a homogeneous and isotropic geometry change of the dots on the surface of the balloon.

(all points expanding equally without change of angle)

please read these two papers on the above.http://www.phinds.com/balloonanalogy/ : A thorough write up on the balloon analogy used to describe expansionhttp://tangentspace.info/docs/horizon.pdf :Inflation and the Cosmological Horizon by Brian Powell

I agree completely, just did not want to knee jerk respond to the question of where the center of expansion was.

 

As for the volume change statement, I am not going to say it is inaccurate, however I tend to believe the universe is infinite, so expressing space as a volume gets a bit tricky. I do have some rules for dealing with infinity, and I will introduce them when they are needed (they will be needed).

I don't see how. A steady state theory says that the universe has always been (roughly) the sae. The big bang model says it has cooled from an early hot, dense state.

 

How do those co-exist?

 

 

 

That is not what the current model says. So you need to explain why it has the exact spectrum and temperature that it does. Something more detailed than "background radiation".

Two possibilities:

 

1) The Big Bang is a singular ongoing event which is the very nature of our universe, however rather than just everything receding from everything else, space itself is "Banging" and at an accelerating rate. This one would be a relief to Dr. Perlmuter I believe.

 

2)The Big Bang could be a local event like many other Big Bangs in the universe.

 

Note that my hypothesis would require energy increase, but again we have to deal with that infinite thing. (Again I will introduce this later.)

OK, I will introduce it now...

I have two rules for dealing with infinity, I don't know if anyone has come before me on these...

 

1)Any quantity that is a factor of infinity approaches infinity.

 

2)Any quantity that is not a factor of infinity approaches zero.

 

The relationship between time and space in my hypothesis is simply the inverse square.

 

Space = 1/Time^2

 

y=1/x^2.

 

Try plotting that with limits of infinity.

Edited November 15, 2016 by Butch

[Strange]

The relationship between time and space in my hypothesis is simply the inverse square.

 

Space = 1/Time^2

 

y=1/x^2.

 

Try plotting that with limits of infinity.

 

 

And, as already noted, that is not consistent with the evidence. Therefore it is wrong.

1) The Big Bang is a singular ongoing event which is the very nature of our universe, however rather than just everything receding from everything else, space itself is "Banging" and at an accelerating rate. This one would be a relief to Dr. Perlmuter I believe.

 

What des "space is banging" mean?

 

What is the theoretical basis for this?

Bear in mind, we have a detailed and very accurate theory behind the current big bang model: it has made many precise, quantitative predictions which have been compared against evidence. You just seem to have some vague, hand-wavy qualitative statements. I know which model gives me more confidence.

 

And why is the rate of "banging" accelerating? Magic? Or is there some physics behind this?

 

 

 

As for the volume change statement, I am not going to say it is inaccurate, however I tend to believe the universe is infinite, so expressing space as a volume gets a bit tricky.

 

Many scientists would also agree that space is probably infinite. This is an accepted possibility in the current model. It does not get in the least bit "tricky".

[Butch]

"That is not consistent with the evidence, therefore it is wrong." Could you be a little more eloquent? I have been answering a great many challenges and I think I have been very informative... If you would describe what evidence I will reply.

 

g @ sea level = 32'/sec^2 is a hyperbolic function, is it not?

Edited November 15, 2016 by Butch

[Strange]

"That is not consistent with the evidence, therefore it is wrong." Could you be a little more eloquent? I have been answering a great many challenges and I think I have been very informative... If you would describe what evidence I will reply.

 

 

Can you show that the rate of expansion described by Hubble's law is consistent with your equation?

[Butch]

As I stated previously red shift might be misleading, it might be that it is gravitational redshift. A proof of this would take millennia at least, however consider this, if the universe is infinite and Hubble is correct it seems we would have reached absolute zero by now.

 

Also there is the possibility that the Big Bang is a local event, then Hubble would be accurate relating to a local event.

As to the acceleration, Dr Perlmuter would be the current expert on that, he used redshift to detect that the universe does seem to be expanding at an accelerating rate.

Perhaps if you would consider my ideas for a bit you could help me. My real problem is finding a measuring stick, they all seem to be trapped in space/time.

Edited November 15, 2016 by Butch

[Strange]

As I stated previously red shift might be misleading, it might be that it is gravitational redshift. A proof of this would take millennia at least

 

 

Why would it take millennia? We know the average density of the universe. We know the distribution of galaxies and their masses. If it is gravitational redshift then you should be able to show the calculations that support this. I can't see how it is possible, but I would be happy to be shown.

 

On the other hand, if all you have is a baseless guess, then it is pretty pointless.

 

 

 

, however consider this, if the universe is infinite and Hubble is correct it seems we would have reached absolute zero by now.

 

Why?

 

(You might want to think about the temperature of the CMB, when preparing an answer to that.)

 

Now, about those questions you keep avoiding:

 

1. What does "space is banging" mean?

2. What is the theoretical basis for this?

3. And why is the rate of "banging" accelerating?

4. What is the physics behind this?

5. Can you show that the rate of expansion described by Hubble's law is consistent with your equation?

6. What is the source of the CMB in your model?

Is the fact the you are unwilling/unable to answer these an indication that you don't actually have a scientific hypothesis?

 

 

As to the acceleration, Dr Perlmuter would be the current expert on that, he used redshift to detect that the universe does seem to be expanding at an accelerating rate.

 

7. Can you show that the amount of acceleration, and the time it started, is constant with your model?

[Butch]

Perhaps something with very pure lasers?

[studiot]

 

Note that my hypothesis would require energy increase, but again we have to deal with that infinite thing. (Again I will introduce this later.)

OK, I will introduce it now...

I have two rules for dealing with infinity, I don't know if anyone has come before me on these...

 

1)Any quantity that is a factor of infinity approaches infinity.

 

2)Any quantity that is not a factor of infinity approaches zero.

 

The relationship between time and space in my hypothesis is simply the inverse square.

 

Space = 1/Time^2

 

y=1/x^2.

 

Try plotting that with limits of infinity.

 

 

You posted this stuff in another recent thread, I can't now find - it may have been locked.

 

I asked you about it there but received no reply.

[Strange]

Perhaps something with very pure lasers?

 

 

What is that supposed to mean?

 

Now, about those questions you keep avoiding:

1. What does "space is banging" mean?

2. What is the theoretical basis for this?

3. And why is the rate of "banging" accelerating?

4. What is the physics behind this?

5. Can you show that the rate of expansion described by Hubble's law is consistent with your equation?

6. What is the source of the CMB in your model?

7. Can you show that the amount of acceleration, and the time it started, is constant with your model?

[Butch]

You are going to love #7...

 

1) I am saying that the spatial expansion could be the Big Bang, rather than massive bodies receding from one another dimensional space is expanding, this does fly in the face of Hubble, so I tend towards the local event hypothesis, but who knows?

 

2)Equivalence, Einsteins curvature model.

 

3) I don't know... As I stated earlier the universe would have to be gaining energy, but how will you measure that relative to infinity?

Edited November 15, 2016 by Butch

[Mordred]

Still waiting for you to show a homogeneous and isotropic expansion along with the fluid equations.

 

That little equation is virtually meaningless and doesn't even describe gravitational redshift let alone any redshift.

Edited November 15, 2016 by Mordred

[Butch]

4)Only way I can describe it is: Space = Time^2.

[Mordred]

4)Only way I can describe it is: Space = Time^2.

lets start here first define space. Then name the required number of coordinates to describe space.

[Butch]

5) No, they may be in conflict, and they may not... Perhaps you can come up with an experiment?

 

6)The Big Bang.

Give me a bit on #7...

I am referring to the dimension of space, 3 coordinates.

Edited November 15, 2016 by Butch

[Strange]

3) I don't know..

 

 

That is probably the only answer you can give to all the questions. Basically, you don't have a clue and are just making stuff up.

[Butch]

Start here, more to come...

https://www.aip.org/news/2011/2011-nobel-prize-physics-accelerating-expansion-universe

[Strange]

5) No, they may be in conflict, and they may not... Perhaps you can come up with an experiment?

 

 

Why do I need to come up with an experiment? You have provided an equation. We have observational dat (Hubble's law). All you need to do is show that your equation produces the results that match observation.

[Butch]

Why so much vinegar, you are being abusive for no reason.

[Strange]

6)The Big Bang.

 

You can't just say that. You are proposing a new model. You therefore need to do at least as well as the current model.

 

The current model predicts the exact nature and temperature of the CMB.

 

If you cannot do the same then your idea fails.

Why so much vinegar, you are being abusive for no reason.

 

I am not being abusive. I am just asking you to (a) provide details of your model and (b) show how well it matches observation.

 

So far you are doing pretty badly on (a) and haven't even attempted (b). You don't even seem to understand the problem.

[Butch]

You will find here a model of the cosmology for the Drs. Discovery that the universe is expanding at an accelerating rate via super novae and red shift. Note that in this model that the rate of acceleration varies, with my hypothesis that acceleration could be constant, after all, relating to your inquiry of what causes the expansion, what caused the change?

 

http://aether.lbl.gov/bccp/news.html

I think I am doing rather well, but that is a matter of opinion.

I am not proposing a new model, I am proposing a mechanism for accepted models, Einsteins principal of equivalence and the curvature of space.

 

It matches gravity quite well (see graphs)

It describes curvature of space.

Edited November 15, 2016 by Butch

[Strange]

I think I am doing rather well, but that is a matter of opinion.

 

 

You have not quantified the rate of expansion or acceleration of expansion in your model.

You have produced a graph which is not consistent with observed data.

You have failed to answer 7 basic questions about your idea.

Specifically, you are unable to account for the CMB.

 

I fail to see how the complete absence of science in your posts could be considered "doing well".

 

 

Note that in this model that the rate of acceleration varies, with my hypothesis that acceleration could be constant, after all, relating to your inquiry of what causes the expansion, what caused the change?

 

The model is based on observation. If your hypothesis produces a different result then it is WRONG.

[Butch]

The model is NOT based on observation it is an attempt to explain a perplexing observation, maybe you should actually look at the model.

 

Here's a link to an image:

 

https://goo.gl/images/jmhzgR

Edited November 15, 2016 by Butch