What is the mechanism for SPACE EXPANSION ?

[Marius]

Recently I started a topic here in the attempt to explain the galactic redshift without the notion of 'space expansion', which was immediately moved to Speculation by a moderator and closed on the basis that I could not explain the MECHANISM which makes light to loose energy over vast distances, and therefore my whole theory (which is actually based on Fritz Zwicky's tired light) was unsupported and not worthy of consideration because of this.

Actually I tried to explain it by saying that the mechanism is Dark Something, a mysterious phenomenon which science has not yet discovered, as I understand from Mainstream Science this a very good and entirely plausible explanation for Space Expansion, which relies on a yet to be discovered DARK ENERGY to explain the mechanism for this space expansion, which in the current BIG BANG Cosmological Model has no scientific explanation what so ever. And for a yet to be discovered DARK MATTER to explain the inconsistency between Einsteins relativity theory and the way galaxies form and spin at huge velocities, which neither Newton's law or Einstein's general relativity explains. This is what caused the moderator to get angry and close the thread. But I only used the same ridiculous explanation that Mainstream uses to explain the mechanism of space expansion, and galaxy formation. If the moderator would be impartial and correct, he should move ALL threads involving space expansion which are based on unexplained mechanisms and unproven entities such as DARK ENERGY and DARK MATTER to SPECULATION, and close them.

 

Edited January 2, 2022 by Marius

[swansont]

11 minutes ago, Marius said:

Recently I started a topic here in the attempt to explain the galactic redshift without the notion of 'space expansion', which was immediately moved to Speculation by a moderator and closed on the basis that I could not explain the MECHANISM which makes light to loose energy over vast distances, and therefore my whole theory (which is actually based on Frank Zwicky's tired light) was unsupported and not worthy of consideration because of this.

!

Moderator Note

To be precise you were asked for a model and evidence for your proposal, which is not the same thing as a mechanism. You did offer a mechanism, and several people pointed out that the mechanism (scattering) does not account for observations. It is therefore falsified. (Newtonian gravity lacks a mechanism, but that is not sufficient to discard it; gravity really does depend on the masses and distance^2, at the level of precision where we use Newtonian gravity)

Lacking a model that matches the evidence means your proposal was unsupported.

What is required, then, is to show that expansion is what matches the evidence.

 

 

 

24 minutes ago, Marius said:

Actually I tried to explain it by saying that the mechanism is Dark Something, a mysterious phenomenon which science has not yet discovered, as I understand from Mainstream Science this a very good and entirely plausible explanation for Space Expansion, which relies on a yet to be discovered DARK ENERGY to explain the mechanism for this space expansion, which in the current BIG BANG Cosmological Model has no scientific explanation what so ever. And for a yet to be discovered DARK MATTER to explain the inconsistency between Einsteins relativity theory and the way galaxies form and spin at huge velocities, which neither Newton's law or Einstein's general relativity explains. This is what caused the moderator to get angry and close the thread. But I only used the same ridiculous explanation that Mainstream uses to explain the mechanism of space expansion, and galaxy formation. If the moderator would be impartial and correct, he should move ALL threads involving space expansion which are based on unexplained mechanisms and unproven entities such as DARK ENERGY and DARK MATTER to SPECULATION, and close them.

!

Moderator Note

The thread was closed because you were asked for a model and evidence to support it, and not only failed to do so, you attempted to distract from your failure.

In short, the thread was closed because you didn’t follow the rules. Reading more into it is an issue of your motivations, not mine.

Others will point out the role of dark energy, and evidence of expansion, but it’s telling that you are not familiar with all of this already

 

[studiot]

45 minutes ago, Marius said:

Recently I started a topic here in the attempt to explain the galactic redshift without the notion of 'space expansion', which was immediately moved to Speculation by a moderator and closed on the basis that I could not explain the MECHANISM which makes light to loose energy over vast distances, and therefore my whole theory (which is actually based on Fritz Zwicky's tired light) was unsupported and not worthy of consideration because of this.

your actual question here is

Quote

What is the mechanism for SPACE EXPANSION ?

Unfortunately the answer here is that nobody really knows.

It is empircal. That is appears to be an observed fact in the face of the unavailability of alternative hypotheses that do not contradict other existing observations.

Read my last sentence very carefully because alternative and accepted hypotheses have been overturned in the past on the basis that they predicted something that does not happen by observation.
The most spectacular such overturning is probably the discovery of oxygen when it was held that if a substance burned it lost something (which seemed very reasonable at the time), but when all the products of combustion were first collected and weighed their weight was always found to exceed the original substance weight so in fact the only tenable hypothesis was that the substance gained (combined) with something unknown.

[beecee]

9 hours ago, Marius said:

This is what caused the moderator to get angry and close the thread. But I only used the same ridiculous explanation that Mainstream uses to explain the mechanism of space expansion, and galaxy formation. If the moderator would be impartial and correct, he should move ALL threads involving space expansion which are based on unexplained mechanisms and unproven entities such as DARK ENERGY and DARK MATTER to SPECULATION, and close them.

Hmmmm, it actually appeared to me that you were the one getting angry, using the f word, and other more general insults, when your errors and mistakes were pointed out. Space expansion is overwhelmingly supported by the evidence, such as cosmological redshift, and the CMBR at 2.7K or left over relic heat from a hotter, denser universe. 

The mechanism behind the expansion is though not known. Do you accept that gravity exists? Scientists also do not really know about the reason why gravity is felt when mass warps spacetime. 

Your own reasons (scattering) was invalidated. 

Other mistakes you made point to the real fact that you do not know enough about current present day cosmology to ever attempt to over turn it.

[joigus]

Some hopefully helpful ideas much related to what @studiot and @beecee have told you:

Explaining a phenomenon via a mechanism: A well-established theory is already there that should explain the phenomenon, simply because it's its job to do so.

Example: Rayleigh scattering (mechanism) and Maxwell's equations (fundamental law) explain why the sky is generally blue, but red during the sunset, or the other way around in Mars. 

Example: Light turning redder and redder the farther away from you it comes from in the sky.

Non-examples: Accelerated expansion of space, entropy of black holes, existence of different families or generations of (quark, lepton) in the standard model of elementary particles. We know they can be accomodated in the laws easily. But we haven't the faintest idea why they should be there. It would be just as easy to plug in contraction of space, or just no expansion or contraction at all; there could be several models of what's inside a black hole that gave the same entropy for all we know; there could be just one family of (quark, lepton) or 3, or 103. Why not?

Edited January 2, 2022 by joigus
Significant addition

[Genady]

10 minutes ago, joigus said:

... or just no expansion or contraction at all ...

I don't think this is correct. The Friedmann equations (GR in a homogenous isotropic universe) have only expanding or contracting solutions, no static ones. Even adding a cosmological constant in GR didn't help -- it allowed only an unstable equilibrium.

[joigus]

10 minutes ago, Genady said:

I don't think this is correct. The Friedmann equations (GR in a homogenous isotropic universe) have only expanding or contracting solutions, no static ones. Even adding a cosmological constant in GR didn't help -- it allowed only an unstable equilibrium.

You're right if what you mean is that there are physical reasons to reject those solutions: A static universe would be unstable. But solutions they are. Einstein looked for that, and found it, because he had the prejudice of a static universe. In fact, the whole reason why he introduced the cosmological constant is precisely because it allowed him to tailor-make the universe as static. He did find that solution, but it's a freak universe. Then he regretted that he could have found the expansion of the universe as the biggest blunder of his life. Or so the story goes.

Edited January 2, 2022 by joigus

[Markus Hanke]

11 hours ago, Marius said:

Recently I started a topic here in the attempt to explain the galactic redshift without the notion of 'space expansion'

I think you are focussing far too much on a single phenomenon, whereas metric expansion actually serves as a coherent model for a whole host of different observational data points. It isn’t only about redshift by any means. Note that we are talking cosmological redshift here, and not the Doppler effect or any other frequency shifting - my impression is that you haven’t understood the difference.

The other thing is that metric expansion is an unavoidable consequence of the laws of gravity - if you feed basic cosmological assumptions into the field equations, then any solution you get out will have an intrinsic tendency to metrically expand (ie some of the metric coefficients will necessarily be time-dependent). This is mathematical fact. So, if you postulate a static universe of any kind, you’ll need to explain how metric expansion does not happen, in addition to those observations that are difficult to explain without expansion. The only way to really do that is to postulate amendments to the laws of gravity, which takes you down into a really, really deep rabbit hole.

So, based on current knowledge and data, metric expansion is simply the most coherent explanation that covers the widest range of observations without having to postulate any new physics.

[Marius]

On 1/2/2022 at 2:26 PM, swansont said:

!

Moderator Note

To be precise you were asked for a model and evidence for your proposal, which is not the same thing as a mechanism. You did offer a mechanism, and several people pointed out that the mechanism (scattering) does not account for observations. It is therefore falsified. (Newtonian gravity lacks a mechanism, but that is not sufficient to discard it; gravity really does depend on the masses and distance^2, at the level of precision where we use Newtonian gravity)

Lacking a model that matches the evidence means your proposal was unsupported.

What is required, then, is to show that expansion is what matches the evidence.

 

 

 

!

Moderator Note

The thread was closed because you were asked for a model and evidence to support it, and not only failed to do so, you attempted to distract from your failure.

In short, the thread was closed because you didn’t follow the rules. Reading more into it is an issue of your motivations, not mine.

Others will point out the role of dark energy, and evidence of expansion, but it’s telling that you are not familiar with all of this already

 

And I gave you the model, which is the photon equation E=hf, which directly links energy to frequency, and loss of energy to drop in frequency. Galactic redshift is nothing more but a direct consequence of the photon model, IF we agree that photons can loose energy over vast distances, due to interactions with other particles or some unknown process, without being blurred.

You say that this model is not possible because you know for a fact how light interacts with ALL POSSIBLE PARTICLES (which include unknown particles) on its course of millions or billions light-years, in which light has to travel through plasma clouds, gas clouds, free electrons, neutrinos, and so on, and that all these processes are well known and lead to a scattering of light which would cause light to appear blurred. But we know for a fact that light does indeed travel through those mediums, not just in a pure vacuum, and that it reaches us without being noticebly blurred. For example, each galaxy has an immense halo of electrically charged gas (or plasma), which spreads for millions of light years, and yet we see the galaxies very clearly !  It is extremely unlikely that light somehow manages to travel through these mediums for millions of light years without interacting with other particles and loosing energy in this process. This means that it is extremely likely that light does indeed loose energy, which implies that it is shifted to red, without being blurred, even if you pretend to know for a fact that this is not possible.

So here is your model. 

Now what is your model for space expansion, I mean what do you think that happens in a space that stretches space with this immense acceleration, as though space would be an actual physical object that can somehow change its shape and expand/curve and so on ? Also how do you measure the expansion of a space, if say there are no galaxies in said expanding space, and no galactic redshift to interpret as space expansion ? And finally, what is the experimental evidence for expanding space ? What human made experiment proves without a shadow of a doubt that space does indeed expand ?

If you cant answer this questions is becase your expanding space is a total bs with no logical consistency or actual proof, other than galactic redshift, which is a circular argument because you conclude space expands because you presume redshift is caused by space expansion. Your presumption is also the conclusion, circular logical fallacy. 

 

 

  

 

  

 

Edited January 3, 2022 by Marius

[exchemist]

15 minutes ago, Marius said:

And I gave you the model, which is the photon equation E=hf, which directly links energy to frequency, and loss of energy to drop in frequency. Galactic redshift is nothing more but a direct consequence of the photon model, IF we agree that photons can loose energy over vast distances, due to interactions with other particles or some unknown process, without being blurred.

You say that this model is not possible because you know for a fact how light interacts with other particles on its course of millions or billions light-years, in which light has to travel through plasma clouds, gas clouds, free electrons, neutrinos, and so on, and that all these processes are well known and lead to a scattering of light which would cause light to appear blurred. But we know for a fact that light does indeed travel through those mediums, not just in a pure vacuum, and that it reaches us without being noticebly blurred. For example, each galaxy has an immense halo of electrically charged gas (or plasma), which spreads for millions of light years, and yet we see the galaxies very clearly !  It is extremely unlikely that light somehow manages to travel through these mediums for millions of light years without interacting with other particles and loosing energy in this process. This means that it is extremely likely that light does indeed loose energy, which implies that it is shifted to red, without being blurred, even if you pretend to know for a fact that this is not possible.

So here is your model. 

Now what is your model for space expansion, I mean what do you think that happens in a space that stretches space with this immense acceleration, as though space would be an actual physical object that can somehow change its shape and expand/curve and so on ? Also how do you measure the expansion of a space, if say there are no galaxies in said expanding space, and no galactic redshift to interpret as space expansion ? And finally, what is the experimental evidence for expanding space ? What human made experiment proves without a shadow of a doubt that space does indeed expand ?

If you cant answer this questions is becase your expanding space is a total bs with no logical consistency or actual proof, other than galactic redshift, which is a circular argument because you conclude space expands because you presume redshift is caused by space expansion. Your presumption is also the conclusion, circular logical fallacy. 

 

 

  

 

  

 

One problem with such a model, surely, is that a non-expanding universe with "tired light" fails to account for either the CMBR or what General Relativity tells us we should expect, and nor does quantum mechanics provide for any process to allow photons to lose energy in the way you describe.  So why would science adopt a model that creates three major unresolved problems, in preference to one that accounts well for all three? Choosing  a model with weaker explanatory power is not generally the way science progresses. 

And what does your model predict? How can we test it, in a way that shows its superiority, in some way, to the current one?   

[swansont]

1 hour ago, Marius said:

And I gave you the model, which is the photon equation E=hf, which directly links energy to frequency, and loss of energy to drop in frequency

A model would allow one to quantify the frequency drop. It is because we have models for different scattering processes that we know that scattering does not match observation of the redshift.

 

1 hour ago, Marius said:

You say that this model is not possible because you know for a fact how light interacts with ALL POSSIBLE PARTICLES (which include unknown particles) on its course of millions or billions light-years,

I didn’t say the model isn’t possible (you’re not doing too well on reading comprehension here), I said you haven’t provided one.

But if you’re going to invoke unknown particles, you need to have a really good model. Which you don’t have, since you don’t have a model of any kind.

For example, the model for Compton scattering says the wavelength shift and angle of scattering are related. There’s an equation, and it follows other laws of physics.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Compton_scattering

(but we also know Compton scattering isn’t responsible for the redshift)

[beecee]

1 hour ago, Marius said:

And finally, what is the experimental evidence for expanding space ? What human made experiment proves without a shadow of a doubt that space does indeed expand ? 

(1) The cosmological redshift (2) The CMBR at 2.7K 

Since  Hubble observations have shown us that all galaxies are moving away from us...with the exception of those reasonably close by where gravity takes over.

It would also help if you read properly all the answers you have been given, particularly the one above by Marcus, instead of simply ratttling off your misconceptions re tired light.

https://astronomy.swin.edu.au/cosmos/t/Tired+Light

Tired Light

"Proposed to account for the observed redshift of distant galaxies, the ‘tired light’ model suggests that electromagnetic radiation (light) loses energy during its passage from distant objects.

There is currently no observational evidence to suggest that the energy of photons can be reduced in this way, as a change in energy would also mean a change in momentum resulting in the ‘blurring’ of distant objects. The tired light model also lacks support in the astronomical community as it does not predict the observed time dilation seen in high-redshift supernova light curves.

The currently accepted explanation of the redshifted distant galaxies and time dilated light curves, is that the Universe is expanding and we are observing a cosmological redshift due to this expansion."

::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::

[Markus Hanke]

3 hours ago, Marius said:

You say that this model is not possible because you know for a fact how light interacts with ALL POSSIBLE PARTICLES (which include unknown particles)

We do know how light interacts with all the particles of the Standard Model. Furthermore, postulating unknown particles (which would need to have some very strange properties) to explain cosmological redshift is a far bigger step than simply accepting metric expansion, which is a natural consequence of the laws of gravity, and requires no new physics. So you don’t gain anything.

 

3 hours ago, Marius said:

 

3 hours ago, Marius said:

It is extremely unlikely that light somehow manages to travel through these mediums for millions of light years without interacting with other particles and loosing energy in this process.

Sure, but such scattering processes are wavelength-dependent, so spectral lines are not shifted uniformly. That’s precisely the point - cosmological redshift affects the entire spectrum uniformly, which is how we know it isn’t due to scattering. This has been pointed out multiple times already.

3 hours ago, Marius said:

what do you think that happens in a space that stretches space with this immense acceleration

There is no physical medium that ‘stretches’ - metric expansion just means that the outcome of length measurements depends on when they are performed, in a specific way. They are not invariant under time translations.

4 hours ago, Marius said:

Also how do you measure the expansion of a space, if say there are no galaxies in said expanding space

Expansion is accumulative, so it depends on total distance. Thus you simply look at what is behind the empty region, and that will tell you the expansion of the entirety of space between you and the observed object.

4 hours ago, Marius said:

What human made experiment proves without a shadow of a doubt that space does indeed expand ?

There are no experiments, and there never will be, since metric expansion only becomes apparent on scales of ~MPc. All evidence is observational and large-scale.

But of course you can locally test the laws of gravity, of which metric expansion is a direct consequence. This has been done extensively, as I’m sure you know.

[Ghideon]

4 hours ago, Marius said:

And I gave you the model, which is the photon equation E=hf, which directly links energy to frequency, and loss of energy to drop in frequency. Galactic redshift is nothing more but a direct consequence of the photon model, IF we agree that photons can loose energy over vast distances, due to interactions with other particles or some unknown process, without being blurred.

 

How does your model explain the observed behaviour of gravitational waves? For instance the observation of a cosmic event* in both gravitational waves and light. Such observations are predicted by general relativity and as far as I know adds observational evidence in support of the theory. 

 

*) Example: https://www.ligo.caltech.edu/page/press-release-gw170817

[studiot]

On 1/2/2022 at 12:03 PM, Marius said:

Recently I started a topic here in the attempt to explain the galactic redshift without the notion of 'space expansion',

Before you try to explain 'the galactic redshift', it would be wise to demonstrate that you know what it is you are trying to explain.

Can you do this ?

 

 

 

[Phi for All]

On 1/3/2022 at 11:38 AM, Marius said:

If you cant answer this questions is becase your expanding space is a total bs with no logical consistency or actual proof, other than galactic redshift, which is a circular argument because you conclude space expands because you presume redshift is caused by space expansion. Your presumption is also the conclusion, circular logical fallacy.

!

Moderator Note

I want you to understand that what you're doing is NOT discussion. You've adopted a stance, and you've presented it, but when confronted with replies that refute what you're saying, using mainstream science understanding, you choose to ignore them instead of researching their validity and taking them on board to adjust your arguments accordingly. This shows us you don't understand what the refutations are explaining, which is further supported by your initial misunderstandings. You don't seem to know enough science to understand why it's unreasonable to make the assertions you make.

In other words, you aren't listening, you're soapboxing. You're continuing to make the same claims even though they've been shown to be wrong. You seem to be caught in a loop where you can't learn why you can't learn these things, and unfortunately this behavior breaks a few of our rules. Nobody wants to waste their time if you aren't going to listen, yet EVERYBODY would love to see that you actually learned something from these discussions. Fair warning that folks are starting to report your posts as a waste of time, so if you can figure out a way to support your ideas better, or actually reply to what the other members are trying to tell you, it might keep you from getting banned for rule-breaking. And let's be clear, if you're banned it will be because you broke the site's rules, not because you broke Einstein's theories.