Einstein was right!

[Butch]

Again let me repeat something I should not have to...

 

There are no facts in science, there is only speculation, hypothesis and accepted theory! Nothing is wrong or right!

Congratulations on an excellent demonstration of trolling, you should really be proud of yourself.

Can you explain calculus?

Do you know calculus?

Are you saying Perlmuter is wrong also?

[Mordred]

Science is still based on correct mathematics. Which if you consider the lack of dimensional matching on your equation. Ie the dimensions of the LHS doesn't match the RHS. Your equation is automatically incorrect.

 

 

Don't quote Perlmuter in regards to your equation. He most definetely doesn't use it. Nor does he share your claims. He at least knows the correct math

Edited November 16, 2016 by Mordred

[Strange]

There are no facts in science, there is only speculation, hypothesis and accepted theory! Nothing is wrong or right!

 

 

No one is arguing with that. However, hypotheses and theories are based on mathematical models and evidence.

 

You do not have either of these. Well, OK: you have a trivial graph. The graph does not match the evidence and therefore it is WRONG.

 

The fact that nothing is ever definitively proved in science does not mean that you can make up nonsense and claim it is equally valid. Especially when it is contradicted by the evidence.

 

Neither your graph nor a steady state model are consistent with the evidence. Therefore they are WRONG.

[Butch]

The evidence is gravity and the graph does match, ask Mr. Einstein! Your opinion on wether I am wrong or right does not matter, I may be wrong, I have been wrong many times. If you are really interested in this topic ask questions and I will answer... Your opinion really is not needed.

Are you still a student?

[Mordred]

try making sure the units on the LHS match the RHS of your equation. Volume=space 3d m^3... on the RHS you have sec^2.

 

The LHS does not equal the right hand side. equation wrong.

Are you still a student?

maybe you should be Edited November 16, 2016 by Mordred

[Butch]

Dr. Perlmuter says the acceleration has been going on since the Big Bang, his only qualification is that the rate of acceleration has not been constant, you made the statement that the acceleration has not been going on for 13.8 billion yrs.

We're you wrong?

[Mordred]

no you obviously didn't read the material presented by Dr Perlmuter. You definetely never looked at the equations he used.

[Butch]

The graph is simple, but it is not trivial. I tire now, but it has been fun. Please give my ideas some thought? We'll talk again.

[Strange]

The evidence is gravity and the graph does match, ask Mr. Einstein!

 

 

It does not match the rate of expansion, which I assumed it was supposed to show. If it is just a graph of the inverse square law, then that is correct in Newtonian gravity and a good approximation in GR.

 

Plus, as Mordred has noted, it is dimensionally wrong.

 

If you are really interested in this topic ask questions and I will answer...

 

 

Great! Most of the following are still unanswered:

 

1. What does "space is banging" mean?

 

You said "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 is correct. (Although you said it "flies in the face of Hubble" which, obviously, it doesn't.)

 

So we can consider that one answered (even if I am not sure you understand what you said).

 

2. What is the theoretical basis for this?

As you seem to accept space is expanding, we can assume you accept that GR is the theoretical basis for this.

So we can take this one as answered.

But ...

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

4. What is the physics behind this?

You have not yet given an answer to this.

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

You have not answered this. It should be simple for you to show the connection between your inverse square law and a linear increase in velocity with distance.

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

You have not answered this. And it is critical to any cosmological model.

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

You have not answered this.

[Butch]

No one inquired about orbits, orbits were a big hurdle! I do have answers about that! Tomorrow;)

[Strange]

Dr. Perlmuter says the acceleration has been going on since the Big Bang

 

 

From your earlier post:

 

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

 

The text on that image says: "Expansion slows then accelerates" and "Until about 5 billion years ago the rate of expansion of the universe was slowing because of gravity".

 

So your own source shows you are WRONG.

[Butch]

I will answer those seven again... Tomorrow. Night all you nerds.

[imatfaal]

!

Moderator Note

 

Last chance Butch

 

Make a valid attempt to answer questions (not with silly assertions that Saul Perlmutter says it is so) and provide a bit more maths .

 

If we do not see these valid attempts to get into a sensible speculations argument then we will lock the thread. Do not respond to this moderation - Do get with the program and answer questions.

 

[Butch]

3)This is like asking "Why did the Big Bang happen" better ask God, I do not now and never will have that answer, the evidence is there, so we accept it.

5) I will have to agree I need to work on this one, thank you for the challenge.

6) With my model, and with any model that has the universe expanding at an accelerating rate, there will need to be a source of energy outside of what we perceive as space time. If you know of any theories that touch upon this I would appreciate your input.

[Strange]

3)This is like asking "Why did the Big Bang happen" better ask God, I do not now and never will have that answer, the evidence is there, so we accept it.

 

 

The difference is that we have a scientific theory, which describes what happens very precisely. There are, of course, some open questions and puzzling aspects but in general we have a pretty good model.

 

All you have is baseless claims.

 

 

 

6) With my model, and with any model that has the universe expanding at an accelerating rate, there will need to be a source of energy outside of what we perceive as space time. If you know of any theories that touch upon this I would appreciate your input.

 

There are no such models (and no need for one) as far as I know. And I don't see the relevance to the question.

 

Is this your way of saying that your idea cannot explain the CMB? In which case there is no reason for it to be considered as a possibility.

[Butch]

7) My model has no beginning. Time extends to infinity. The reason the Big Bang appears to have started 13.8 billion years ago is because of the curvature of space. When we look at things, no matter what form of detection we use we are looking at the past. We perceive Space as flat and Time as distorted in gravitational fields.

The "beginning" of the Big Bang represents a point at which the universe was in a very dense state, Time would be compressed to a point where our observations would tell us that x point in time was the beginning. The point at which this occurs on my chart is @ x=1. Note that this point is fluid and moves with us through space time, as T0 moves. So in 10 billion years the Big Bang will still appear to have begun 13.8 billion years ago.

 

Not much math here just that the curvature of Space is a hyperbolic function. It is a matter of understanding what that means to our observations in an infinite universe.

 

The real math will be finding Hubbles place in this. That will take some time, so I don't see need to keep this topic open for now. Thank you again for your interest, I will be in touch.

[Mordred]

your formula is still invalid as you have m^3=s^2. Start there.

Edited November 16, 2016 by Mordred

[Butch]

your formula is still invalid as you have m^3=s^2. Start there.

It is not a formula it is a function. The Space axis represents the rate of expansion. Apply that to each of the Cartesian axies. Edited November 16, 2016 by Butch

[swansont]

7) My model has no beginning. Time extends to infinity. The reason the Big Bang appears to have started 13.8 billion years ago is because of the curvature of space. When we look at things, no matter what form of detection we use we are looking at the past. We perceive Space as flat and Time as distorted in gravitational fields.

The "beginning" of the Big Bang represents a point at which the universe was in a very dense state, Time would be compressed to a point where our observations would tell us that x point in time was the beginning. The point at which this occurs on my chart is @ x=1. Note that this point is fluid and moves with us through space time, as T0 moves. So in 10 billion years the Big Bang will still appear to have begun 13.8 billion years ago.

 

 

 

IOW in your model the CMB is always at 2.7 K. Is that right?

[Butch]

 

 

The difference is that we have a scientific theory, which describes what happens very precisely. There are, of course, some open questions and puzzling aspects but in general we have a pretty good model.

 

All you have is baseless claims.

 

 

There are no such models (and no need for one) as far as I know. And I don't see the relevance to the question.

 

Is this your way of saying that your idea cannot explain the CMB? In which case there is no reason for it to be considered as a possibility.

My model has no effect on CMB, CMB is evidence of the Big Bang, I do not disagree.

I have to go stretch fish lips, but there is a little corner of my mind that is always working on this... BBL.

[swansont]

My model has no effect on CMB, CMB is evidence of the Big Bang, I do not disagree.

I have to go stretch fish lips, but there is a little corner of my mind that is always working on this... BBL.

 

 

CMB temperature is also an indication of the time since recombination.

[Strange]

7) My model has no beginning. Time extends to infinity. The reason the Big Bang appears to have started 13.8 billion years ago is because of the curvature of space. When we look at things, no matter what form of detection we use we are looking at the past. We perceive Space as flat and Time as distorted in gravitational fields.

 

 

Please show the mathematics to support this idea. Otherwise you might as well say it is caused by invisible pink unicorns.

It is not a formula it is a function.

 

Dimensional analysis still shows it to be invalid, whatever you call it.

My model has no effect on CMB, CMB is evidence of the Big Bang, I do not disagree.

 

You obviously do, or this thread would not exist.

 

Do you even know what the current theory says the origin of the CMB is?

[Butch]

 

 

IOW in your model the CMB is always at 2.7 K. Is that right?

I would like to see how you arrived at that, not saying it is wrong, just something I had not considered and could be a great help.

[Strange]

I would like to see how you arrived at that, not saying it is wrong, just something I had not considered and could be a great help.

 

 

Fairly obviously it is because you said: "So in 10 billion years the Big Bang will still appear to have begun 13.8 billion years ago."

So do you know the origin of the CMB?

[Butch]

 

 

Fairly obviously it is because you said: "

So in 10 billion years the Big Bang will still appear to have begun 13.8 billion years ago."

 

So do you know the origin of the CMB?

Dude! Freakin' awesome! You found the measuring stick! If CMB remains constant I am right, if not I am wrong.

It was about 20 yrs ago it was detected and measured am I correct?