about expanding of universe

[Rolando]

I appreciate your point of view. How can expansion be "observed"? All they have to work with is red shifts. I'm not sure what you mean by there being no consensus among researchers on where to draw the boundary. I'm thinking the boundary is superclusters of galaxies. Where else can it be? Our instruments of measurement are certainly bound by electromagnetic forces, far stronger than gravity. I just can't understand what your point is, and I would like to, if you would care to expound a little more.

Since this is a more specific question than the one origianlly asked by URAIN, I started the new thread "Is the expansion of the Universe limited to voids?" where this is discussed.

 

What else may cause the red shift? Andromeda is one of the very few galaxies that are blue shifted because it seems to be headed towards us.

For a large list of different redshift mechanisms, see http://www.marmet.or.../mechanisms.pdf . The list includes also mechanisms that have not been proposed as explanations of the Hubble redshift, but of other phenomena.

[Airbrush]

Since this is a more specific question than the one origianlly asked by URAIN, I started the new thread "Is the expansion of the Universe limited to voids?" where this is discussed.

 

 

For a large list of different redshift mechanisms, see http://www.marmet.or.../mechanisms.pdf . The list includes also mechanisms that have not been proposed as explanations of the Hubble redshift, but of other phenomena.

 

Thanks for providing a link and I will check out your other discussion. Your link is not working for me. Can anyone else use it?

 

Could you just summarize a few of the other explanations for Hubble redshift? Interstellar dust?

[BJC]

Thanks for providing a link and I will check out your other discussion. Your link is not working for me. Can anyone else use it?

 

Could you just summarize a few of the other explanations for Hubble redshift? Interstellar dust?

 

I think Rolando is referring to this paper; found on the website ( http://www.marmet.org/louis/ )

 

This is the title and abstract taken from the "mechanisms.pdf"

DRAFT: On the Interpretation of Red-Shifts:

 

A Quantitative Comparison of Red-Shift Mechanisms

Louis Marmet 9t h July, 2011

Abstract

This paper gives a compilation of physical mechanisms producing red-shifts of astronomical objects . Over sixty proposed mechanisms are listed here for the purpose of quantitative comparisons . These mechanisms may not account for all observations but are restricted to particular situations such as the solar limb red-shift, the red-shift of quasars or the cosmological red-shift. However , the paper focus es mainly on 51 mechanisms giving a quantitative description of how large red-shifts are related to distance. For each mechanism a description is given with its properties , limits of applicability, functional relationships and a discussion.

 

Looks, at first glance, to be well written. Each of the 52 "mechanisms" is briefly discussed with the mathematics and limitations.

 

edited to add:

the PDF is difficult to search - i would have preferred to have the .ps file. Marmet appears to have used fixed font spacing to align sentences which makes searching difficult: viz. "cosmic" could be "co smic" or "cosm ic", etc.

Edited August 5, 2011 by BJC

[URAIN]

Do any one help me, what Aguirre is saying?

 

"This we will find out.

 

 

 

496=496

 

In der Ruhe liegt die Kraft

 

Sig"

Edited August 5, 2011 by URAIN

[michel123456]

Do any one help me, what Aguirre is saying?

 

 

"This we will find out.

Aguirre has some answers he will provide us. I would suggest him to change his style if he wants to be considered seriously. It would be nice since his unconventional ideas are worth discussing IMHO.

 

 

496=496

I don't know what it means to him. Still googling. (edit: maybe 496 ? and its relation to E8??)

 

In der Ruhe liegt die Kraft

Confucius, after googling it means roughly "in silence sits the strength"

 

Sig"

His signature. Edited August 5, 2011 by michel123456

[URAIN]

Does neothers theorem's "invariance" will give any explanation about the expansion of the universe ? does it helps to know how universe is expanding?

 

 

 

 

[Aguirre]

“If it expanding how itpossible?”

 

That was your question.

 

And I said we will find itout.

 

No more no less.

 

 

 

 

Now, how you explain thenon-equilibrium state

 

of the universe withoutthe expansion?

 

 

 

 

496=496

 

In der Ruhe liegt dieKraft

 

Sig

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[SpeedFreek]

Rolando, do you have any published, peer-reviewed sources for alternatives to cosmological redshift?

[pantheory]

SpeedFreek,

 

......any published, peer-reviewed sources for alternatives to cosmological redshift?

There are many alternative explanations for redshifts that are well-known in cosmology. Tired light and Gravitational redshifts are maybe the most well known of these. Tired light is maybe the oldest but the old version of it does not explain the time dilation of supernova but more modern versions have been proposed since then such as this one as well as many others.

 

http://www.mendeley.com/research/an-alternative-explanation-for-cosmological-redshift/

 

The diminution of matter was first proposed by Hoyle Narlikar in the early 60's. Larger atoms in the past would have produced longer wavelengths of EM radiation. Particle interactions over great distances is another explanation.

 

http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/arxiv/pdf/0706/0706.2885v2.pdf

 

Dirac proposed the expansion of space and expanding matter to explain redshifts.

 

Gravitational redshifts (Einstein redshifts) / Compton redshifts etc. etc. etc.

 

The problem with most such models including the mainstream expansion of space proposal, is that they make no other predictions. Presently the biggest contradiction to the expansion of space idea is that quasar light is not time dilated. This is not a problem for some other redshift explanations. Only the expansion of space idea would seem to be consistent with the Big Bang model.

[SpeedFreek]

Yes, I am well aware of all the known valid alternatives, but I was interested in whether any of the other alternatives, as proposed by Marmet, have been through the peer-review process. As I understand it, some of Marmet's ideas are "fringe" and have not been accepted by the mainstream.

 

As to the quasar issue, how can their periodicity be used as a standard candle? Are the processes that cause them regular enough for us be able to calculate their time-dilation?

 

 

 

 

 

 

[pantheory]

Yes, I am well aware of all the known valid alternatives, but I was interested in whether any of the other alternatives, as proposed by Marmet, have been through the peer-review process. As I understand it, some of Marmet's ideas are "fringe" and have not been accepted by the mainstream.

In my brief search I could see no mainstream papers by Marmet concerning cosmology. His cosmological material that I could find seem to have been self published. Paul Marmet was professor and later department head of physics at Laval University, QuŽbec, for over 20 years. He said "it is difficult to get published in mainstream journals ..... if your proposal is entirely contrary to the mainstream model, regardless of your credentials, affiliations or prior publications."

 

http://www.uow.edu.a...pubs/04jse.html

 

As to the quasar issue, how can their periodicity be used as a standard candle? Are the processes that cause them regular enough for us be able to calculate their time-dilation?

From what I have read, light and brightness periods/ profiles of quasars are quite similar/ regular. That at the farthest distances as well as those close by, there is a similar periodicity, as well as light and brightness profiles, and the frequency of light pulses. Quasars have a strong correlation to the galaxy that surrounds them as do the blackholes which they stem from. The bigger the galaxy the larger the theorized black hole and longer the period of rotation, as well as the length and brightness regularity of the quasar. But General Relativity is thought to predict time dilation of quasars as it did for type 1a supernova, so that what has been observed and confirmed concerning quasars, is thought by some to be a strong contradiction of both General Relativity and the Big Bang model.

 

http://news.discover...nt-quasars.html

ArXiv.org - On time dilation in quasar light curves, Mike Hawkins -- http://www.physorg.c...s190027752.html

 

Discovery News - No Time Dilation for Distant Quasars? http://news.discover...nt-quasars.html

 

New Scientist - Time waits for no quasar - even though it should.

 

http://www.newscient...-it-should.html

 

PhysOrg.com - Discovery that quasars don't show time dilation mystifies astronomers.

 

http://www.google.co...biw=911&bih=399

Edited August 7, 2011 by pantheory

[Widdekind]

New Scientist - Time waits for no quasar - even though it should.

 

Type Ia SNe, which are-and-have-been quasi-identical "Standard Candles", where-ever-and-when-ever they have ever occurred, do show cosmological time-dilation, in accordance with their red-shift.

 

If, in contrast, more-ancient-and-distant Quasars, at higher red-shift, appear to age as quickly, as more-recent-and-closer Quasars, then that immediately implies (w/o calling into question GR & cosmological expansion) that Quasars are not "Standard Candles", that they evolve over time, and that the more ancient Quasars were more rapidly varying, than the more recent Quasars. Since sizes are inferred, from time-scales multiplied by the speed-of-light; and, assuming that cosmological time-dilation is actually occurring; then, the more ancient Quasars were smaller, and less massive -- completely consistent, with Quasar evolution, and mass accretion:

 

The most straightforward scenario, according to Hawkins[/ur], is that we just don't understand how quasars evolve. After all, as the supermassive black holes powering these beasts gobble up matter and grow, the blinking may change.

 

time dilation effects are exactly offset by an increase in timescale of variation associated with black hole growth (Hawkins 2010).

Edited August 8, 2011 by Widdekind

[pantheory]

Widdekind,

 

.......that Quasars are not "Standard Candles", that they evolve over time, and that the more ancient Quasars were more rapidly varying, than the more recent Quasars. Since sizes are inferred, from time-scales multiplied by the speed-of-light; and, assuming that cosmological time-dilation is actually occurring; then, the more ancient Quasars were smaller, and less massive -- completely consistent, with Quasar evolution, and mass accretion.

Quasars are not exactly standard candles but the periodicity of their pulses of brightness are regular, predictable and consistent. There is also a correlation between quasar brightness and distance, the farther away a quasar the more likely that it will be brighter and the surrounding galaxy larger, also contrary to the standard model. The farthest quasar to date appears to be the brightest with the largest profile of heavy elements ever observed. The problem is that the periodicity does not change with distance. The most distant quasar's frequency of light pulses and EM light curves are the same as the closest ones, violating not only General Relativity but also the expansion of space model, and therefore might contradict the present interpretation of redshifts as well as the Big Bang model.

 

Quasars become brighter and more numerous the further out we look ....

(quote from link)

 

http://www.setterfie...lDiscussion.htm

 

http://www.time.com/...,843526,00.html

 

http://cas.sdss.org/...es/galaxies.asp

 

Edited August 8, 2011 by pantheory

[michel123456]

Pan, I hope you were rambling on the web searching support for your arguments and not presenting links that you support. Specifically Barry Setterfield is a creationist proponent of the Genesis Science Research ( Does science really disagree with the Bible?) not recognized by mainstream scientists.

 

The "who is talking" is important.

[Rolando]

Rolando, do you have any published, peer-reviewed sources for alternatives to cosmological redshift?

There are some among the references in L Marmet's draft "On the interpretation of red-shifts: A quantitative comparison of red-shift mechanisms" (http://www.marmet.or.../mechanisms.pdf)

[pantheory]

Pan, I hope you were rambling on the web searching support for your arguments and not presenting links that you support. Specifically Barry Setterfield is a creationist proponent of the Genesis Science Research ( Does science really disagree with the Bible?) not recognized by mainstream scientists.

 

The "who is talking" is important.

You are right Michel. I didn't notice that there was a creationist affiliation with that article that I posted or I never would have posted it, but I agreed with that part of the article that I read. Although I may agree with some creationist arguments concerning what's wrong with some science models, I certainly do not agree with what they think is right

Edited August 9, 2011 by pantheory

[URAIN]

In metaphysics theory (PREM PARVATHI PRINCIPLE THEORY) I have given a prediction about space. what you say about it ?

 

Theory is on blog www.baseforreincarnation.wordpress.com

 

That prediction is " something may be (energy) converting into space". (it is only my guess therefore I put it in prediction)

 

What you say about it ?

Edited September 10, 2011 by URAIN

[Wishing Man]

I have a theory about the expansion of the universe. I am no expert on the matter, but have thought it through and would like a more informed opinion.

 

First off, this uses the Big bang Theory and the fact that matter warps space, to find this explanation, so if you don't beleive in those ideas, then you wont find truth with this theory.

 

So I heard someone describe gravity as the tendancy for objects to go "downhill" in space. Matter warps space, and objects tend to fall to the object at the center of the warping. Just like if two people pulled a blanket tight between them and then placed a moderatly heavy object on it. It will make a divot in the blanket and any ball sent rolling across the blanket will fall in the direction of the object.

 

Given this, using the big bang theory, at the beginning of the universe there was a very small object with all the mass of the universe in it. This object would have done some very dramatic warping of space. So much, that I think when it exploded the space would "bounce back" Just like if you pulled a rubber band tight and then released it. This bounce back would create a "hill" in three-dimensional space. So everything would go away from this "hill" top with an increasing speed until it hit the bottom of this "hill" (if there is one), or the universe flexes back to it's old state. Which given the size of this "hill" might take a very long time. The universe could also flex backwards eventually bringing everything back to the center for a while, then bounce out again.

 

Anyone have any thoughts about this theory?

 

[csmyth3025]

Anyone have any thoughts about this theory?

 

I would say that you're taking the "rubber sheet" analogy of gravity a bit too literally. You might want to compare your model to the Big Bang model described in the Wikipedia article here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Bang

 

This article (and the links it contains) tells me that there is a lot more to the Big Bang Standard Model of Cosmology than you've included in your idea.

 

One thing to consider is that the "very small object" you describe might, in fact, have been an infinitely large object if the universe itself is infinite. Our observable universe is usually described as a sphere surrounding Earth with a current co-moving radius of about 46 billion light years. We don't know how much universe lies outside our observable universe, though.

 

Another thing to consider is that it's generally believed that the expansion of the universe started to accelerate when the universe was about 1/2 it's present size. The "hill in space" you mention seems to be getting higher. This poses a problem for not only your description, but also for the Standard Model. Right now this acceleration is attributed to "dark energy" - which is just a place-holder term for saying "the expansion of the universe seems to be accelerating, but we don't know what's causing it to accelerate".

 

Chris