Is The Universe really expanding?

[Bjarne]

Is the Interpretation of Cosmological redshift misunderstood?

A growing number of professional doubt the Big Bang theory.

 

This video deserves a closer watch, - It shows that the problem the prevailing understanding is up against CAN be manmade.

Notices there are 9 parts. -

 

If the so called expanding property of the universe is nothing but an unnecessary human invention, a consequence is that the universe must collapse.

 

How would a collapsing Universe really looks like?

Could that happen right now, without we know?

What would happen with background gravity (space-time) during a big crunch?

Would a collapsing Universe, or collapsing clusters of galaxies finally explode, due to larger density / tension on space, - and therefore be like a supernova on a larger scale? – And is this what Big Bang really is about?

Are Big bang and Big Crunch always repeating each other?

Is true interpretation of so-called cosmological redshift, - in fact gravitational redshift?

Is redshift from distance stars in reality only the history about that background gravity always is either increasing during a Big Crunch? – or decreasing after a Big Bang ?

Is so called Dark Energy therefore only evidence that shows that the Universe is a "gravitational wave" caused by a previous exploding universe?

Could a collapse of our Universe happen right now, before the release of gravity (so called dark energy) have been completely released?

Edited September 16, 2012 by Bjarne

[ajb]

A growing number of professional doubt the Big Bang theory.

 

I am not aware of this. Do you have specific individuals in mind?

 

The evidence for the Big Bang is now well established and hard to dispute. Every observation, including rather detailed examinations of the CMBR support the Lambda CDM model. Few creditable cosmologists will dispute the good agreement with nature of this model.

 

The areas not well-understood here are dark matter and dark energy.

 

If the so called expanding property of the universe is nothing but an unnecessary human invention, a consequence is that the universe must collapse.

 

All the evidence right now tells us that the Universe is not just expanding, but that this expansion is accelerating. It looks like the collapse of the Universe is not going to happen.

 

You have asked a whole series of questions. I suggest you break those down otherwise responses are going to get confused.

[Bjarne]

I am not aware of this. Do you have specific individuals in mind?

After about 67 second you will hear that statement when watching the Video.

 

NRK ( The Norwegian State Television) are involved in the production

(I expect they have reason for such statement. )

 

The evidence for the Big Bang is now well established and hard to dispute.

Every observation, including rather detailed examinations of the CMBR support the Lambda CDM model.

CMBR can have several other reasons, you can watch that too , -

 

 

After the 3rd minute , 20 second

 

 

I believe it is a serious weakness that we have no idea what caused Big bang, - what was before, which law of nature was responsible etc.

It is really hard to believe in a half done theory - this is what that really is.

 

Few creditable cosmologists will dispute the good agreement with nature of this model.

They can easy lose their jobs, - you can watch that as well.

 

The areas not well-understood here are dark matter and dark energy.

Right, and exactly that could very well be the trace out of the dead end.

 

All the evidence right now tells us that the Universe is not just expanding, but that this expansion is accelerating.

It looks like the collapse of the Universe is not going to happen.

It is hard to agree to that.

The interpretation, - that cosmological redshift = expansion, - is in fact the foundation in the BigBang theory, - but I geuss you too must agree that this statement never have passed the scientific method.

Which mean that the whole of our picture of the universe in its very basic is build on pure speculation.

 

You have asked a whole series of questions. I suggest you break those down otherwise responses are going to get confused.

Ok

Lets start to assume that the idea that the Universe not is expanding, - I believe we both then will agree that the Universe (instead) must collapse (?).

Everything would approach each other right ?

Now, what do you think would happen with "back ground gravity" (space-time) here where we are ?

Would time tick slower day be day , due to change in back ground gravity ?

What would happen in the end of the day ?

Would the Universe explode, (do to extreme mass/density gravity) ?

Edited September 16, 2012 by Bjarne

[Nobrainer]

I am not aware of this. Do you have specific individuals in mind?

 

The evidence for the Big Bang is now well established and hard to dispute. Every observation, including rather detailed examinations of the CMBR support the Lambda CDM model. Few creditable cosmologists will dispute the good agreement with nature of this model.

 

The areas not well-understood here are dark matter and dark energy.

 

 

 

All the evidence right now tells us that the Universe is not just expanding, but that this expansion is accelerating. It looks like the collapse of the Universe is not going to happen.

 

You have asked a whole series of questions. I suggest you break those down otherwise responses are going to get confused.

I would like to show you that there is a way that really answers all the missing puzzle pieces of the universe and allows the universe to expand at a constant velocity without going against any evidense.

 

Stating this up front and once, this is my opinion which I have derived through deep thought over a long period of time..

General relativity is incomplete because it does not take into account dark energy, dark matter and quantum entanglment. This Ghost wave theory conceptually does exactly that and yet it also takes away the problem of inflation.

 

The ultimate original idea will simply be a thought that combines all distinct ways things seem to be into one clear picture of reality simply encompassing all things. -CMT

 

History of insight

In 1993 a Physics Nobel Prize was given for showing indirect gravitational energy loss in a isolated system. So part one is to postulate that gravitational waves are given off from all mass and energy but it takes looking at an isolated system to detect the loss of energy.

 

Question1. Could gravitational energy loss in an isolated system be a measure of time? I think the answer is obvious, yes, any process can be an arbitrary measure of time. Here is an original thought, could all systems give off wavefronts of monopole gravitational waves creating the foundational action of time, and space?

 

Answer 1. Time and space, according to Einstein, are relative. Is there any examples of a generated wave having properties of relativity? Yes, a vehicle traveling to you and then away from you at a constant velocity continuously generating sounds that hypothetically pass directly through you will cause you to hear the sound frequency to increase and the wavelength to decrease proportionally to the speed of the vehicle plus the speed of the generated wave as the vehicle approaches you and as the vehicle leaves you, you perceive the vehicle's sound frequency decreases and the wavelength to lengthens. One generated sound is precieved differently by the observer in relationship to the origin of the generated sound wave. Sound is relative. The fundamental reason that sound is relative is that there is a generated wave via energy transfer from mass/energy to a wave with a constant speed, frequency and wavelength. Could time and space be connected through actions of a generated wave?

[ajb]

I don't get my science education from youtube.

 

BOOMERanG and WMAP have given us plenty of evidence to support the lambda CDM model. The angular power spectrum of the CMB anisotropy is what really supports the dark matter dominated Big Bang with an inflationary epoch.

 

 

Other things that support the model include the abundance of light elements, large scale structure, the distribution and evolution of galaxies.

 

This model is the simplest that agrees well with nature.

[zapatos]

If the so called expanding property of the universe is nothing but an unnecessary human invention, a consequence is that the universe must collapse.

If the universe was not expanding then I would not say that the univeverse must collapse, but that the univers is collapsing. Unless you are suggesting that some force is keeping the universe in a steady state?

 

Do you have any evidence that the universe is collapsing?

 

How would a collapsing Universe really looks like?

Look around. It would appear as you now see it.

[Bjarne]

I don't get my science education from youtube.

Youtupe is a OK way of communicating. It is used for education as well.

 

BOOMERanG and WMAP have given us plenty of evidence to support the lambda CDM model. The angular power spectrum of the CMB anisotropy is what really supports the dark matter dominated Big Bang with an inflationary epoch.

Other things that support the model include the abundance of light elements, large scale structure, the distribution and evolution of galaxies.

We have 2 options, either a expanding universe, (that not have passed the scientific methods, and as I said , build on a speculative foundation), or if that expanding idea only is fantasy, - the Universe must collapse.

It seems to me that "we" even have not (serious) thought about what would be the consequences of a BigCrunch.

Consequences of a a Big Crunch could make probable what trigger a Big Bang. I mean it is already known that that gravity collapse can leads to huge explosion.

 

This model is the simplest that agrees well with nature.

There are too many unsolved problems with the prevailing understanding, and as I said, I don't like the everything came from nothing, and also not that there are no laws of nature we can blame for gathering or keeping all the entire energy of the Universe together or for triggering that energy.

As you can see from the video, there was a pope that liked the idea. - I believe that many religious people easier can except it, because then everything did not come from nothing, - but must have come from Good.

According to rational thinking, there must have been something before the Big Bang. Laws of nature must have been responsible for the whole process.

 

The largest part of the the Universe is believed to be so-called dark matter and dark energy.

We have no evidence what that really is.

We also don't know how matter and space (gravity) interact or what caused BigBang, or the cause of several other cosmological mysteries.

 

We have never had anything that even look like a coherent picture of the Universe.

 

A logical and coherent understanding must be endeavoured, - if that could be possible.

 

I don't see any reason to be satisfied with the very limit incoherent prevailing "understanding", and especially not due to the fact that the picture of the Universe in its foundation only is build on pure speculation.

 

If the universe was not expanding then I would not say that the univeverse must collapse, but that the univers is collapsing. Unless you are suggesting that some force is keeping the universe in a steady state?

 

Do you have any evidence that the universe is collapsing?

I think it is more fair to take all this in the order it was introduced.

Therefore , - you tell me what is the evidence that proves that Cosmological redshift = a Expanding Universe ?

 

The truth is that the Universe must collapse, unless there really are such an expanding force / energy.

 

I don't buy the idea that such force / energy at all really exist, simply because there were in the first place no evidence for exactly that.

 

Ergo without that evidence the universe must collapse.

 

From that down to Earth perspective, - off course the reason for so called Cosmological redshift is simply unsolved.

I believe it is fair to ask, - which possibility do we really have to understand what Cosmological redshift really is about?

 

To me there is only one answer, simply because logical there are only one shot, - and this is that gravity must have been mad, once in the past, and since then decreasing.

This picture is based on the scientific method, because we know gravity do have such influence on the EM spectre, and we shall expect that a collapsing universe must end its day as a huge explosion ,- we have seen enough supernovas to that we for certain can say, Yes this must result in a HUGE Big Bang.

 

Collapsing matter = Bang

 

I am not inventing new physics, - it is not necessary, - it is so simple as it can be.

Edited September 16, 2012 by Bjarne

[ajb]

I don't see any reason to be satisfied with the very limit incoherent prevailing "understanding", and especially not due to the fact that the picture of the Universe in its foundation only is build on pure speculation.

 

But this false. The lambda CDM model makes predictions that have been tested. There are no current theories that come close to this in explaining what we see in the Universe. If you think you have such a theory then you need to address not only any failings in the standard model of cosmology, but also reproduce its strengths.

 

Nothing so far has anything like the evidence supporting it as the lambda CDM model.

 

This does not mean that the model cannot be improved or that it does not have aspects that are "work in progress". What is does mean is that we have a good model, with lots of supporting evidence and not just "speculation".

[Bjarne]

But this false. The lambda CDM model makes predictions that have been tested. There are no current theories that come close to this in explaining what we see in the Universe. If you think you have such a theory then you need to address not only any failings in the standard model of cosmology, but also reproduce its strengths.

 

Nothing so far has anything like the evidence supporting it as the lambda CDM model.

 

This does not mean that the model cannot be improved or that it does not have aspects that are "work in progress". What is does mean is that we have a good model, with lots of supporting evidence and not just "speculation".

 

Before disagreeing to much lets figure out what we really disagree about.

I agree that a Big Bang once did happen, but not that it was a dot of nothing that exploded, and out of that everything came from nothing.

This is just too much for my imagination.

 

I'll not say I have a different theory.

I just don't accept the prevailing unnecessary speculation.

Without that everything is almost self-explanatory.

As I said the idea that the Universe is expanding is not necessary.

Without it the universe must collapse.

 

Without I have done anything a collapsing Universe must automatically mean that gravity will go mad.

And furthermore i cannot see a big problem, to imaging that a big amount of collapsing matter = Big Bang, - exactly like a small amount of collapsing matter ( a supernova) also = "Big"Bang ( or let say Small bang).

 

Well and yes this must mean that cosmological redshift shows us that gravity was more and more "mad" the younger the "Universe" was.

I am only collecting a puzzle that have 3 pieces.

I mean how differ-cult can that be ?

 

In the prevailing picture, is an extra piece invented , - I cannot see that pieces fit anywhere.

The result is therefore a great mystery = dark energy.

Why do we disparate need that , - I mean that is almost a bigger mystery ?

 

So in fact we probably agree about a lot, - but just not "what" really was exploding, - why, - and the unnecessary idea that the Universe really is expanding.

Edited September 16, 2012 by Bjarne

[zapatos]

I think it is more fair to take all this in the order it was introduced.

Therefore , - you tell me what is the evidence that proves that Cosmological redshift = a Expanding Universe ?

First of all, I never made the claim that the cosmological redshift = an expanding universe. Therefore I'm under no obligation to back up that claim.

 

You on the other hand have suggested the universe is not expanding. That leaves steady state or contraction. The obligation belongs to you to support that position. You cannot simply say "here is my theory, prove I am wrong".

 

To me there is only one answer, simply because logical there are only one shot, - and this is that gravity must have been mad, once in the past, and since then decreasing.

Can you explain what you mean by "gravity must have been mad, once in the past, and since then decreasing"? What do you mean by 'mad' and what do you mean by 'since then decreasing'?

[Bjarne]

First of all, I never made the claim that the cosmological redshift = an expanding universe. Therefore I'm under no obligation to back up that claim.

I mean if you defend the prevailing theory I guess you also must agree to the idea that Cosmological Redshift is interpreted = And expanding Universe.

 

You on the other hand have suggested the universe is not expanding. That leaves steady state or contraction. The obligation belongs to you to support that position. You cannot simply say "here is my theory, prove I am wrong".

No no

This is not the way it works.

I shall not prove the prevailing speculation is wrong.

You shall not prove you are innocent.

 

Can you explain what you mean by "gravity must have been mad, once in the past, and since then decreasing"?

I mean at a certain point, when the density of matter get too extreme a supernova is a result.

We don't know what happens in that process, but it is also not decisive. We know it happens, and that is what counts.

 

Off course I have an opinion about what exactly happens, but maybe it would be better to safe you for it, because that is "only" speculation.

Anyway here we go, -

When matter in a previous Universe has been many times closer, gravity would off course have been different.

Both speed and the closer approach between matter have off course been to blame.

I believe that gravity at a certain point simply was outplaying the strong nuclear force, - the result was that both the strong force and gravity was lost, (because these 2 are united) - and then BAANG.

In the moment when the Big Bang went off, - strong deformation of space was released.

With the speed of light gravitational waves, (not from a certain point) - but from everywhere, was moving in all direction.

Because the Universe is so big it have still not reach "the end of the world".

After a while plasma did again begin to create matter and the forces was re created.

 

What do you mean by 'mad' and what do you mean by 'since then decreasing'

I mean the same principle that apply to collapsing stars, - which mean the increase of their density per volume.

Something "similar" will off course happen to a collapsing Universe.

How do you think that would affects space-time, inside a collapsing star ? - or inside the Universe ?

 

Let us say tomorrow morning, when you wake up, - clusters of the Universe has approaches each other to only the 10% of the distance between each other compared to yesterday.

How slow would time tick compared to yesterday?

How would background gravity (space time) be, compared to yesterday? ?

How would distances be compared to yesterday ?

How would redshift be compared to yesterday ?

 

Such kind of speculation make much more sense to me.

Edited September 16, 2012 by Bjarne

[Nobrainer]

Isn't this a crazy world we live in...

 

I believe I can explain the universe. First I will claim the mass and energy in the universe are showing the red shift expansion which we found out that current thought indicates that this is the same as an increasingly accelerating universe but there is no sign that the universe itself is increasing in acceleration, just the measured mass and energy. Isn't that the same? No and here is another way to look at the problem.

Take two balls of yarn and place them on the floor 10 feet apart and take each string and place them together. The ball of yarn represents mass and the strings attached to the balls represent gravitational waves given off. It is known that two or more in phase waves form wavefronts. So as the strings travel at together like overlaping spokes on wheels, the balls of yarn, representing two masses more toward the yarn, faster and faster , a constant force = a decreasing mass x an increasing acceleration. Could the universe be transitioning from mass and energy to space itself? In this yarn example the ball of yarn not only increases in acceleration moment to moment while the speed of the universe, the strings stay at a constant velocity but also the balls of yarn are not 10 feet away anymore but touching as the reaction to the action of Rhe two strings coming together. This simple ball of yarn demo shows the very fundamental nature of the universe, such as why time has only a grand scale forward movement, the mechanism (constructive wave interference) with a kickback that is gravity.

 

I mean if you defend the prevailing theory I guess you also must agree to the idea that Cosmological Redshift is interpreted = And expanding Universe.

 

 

No no

This is not the way it works.

I shall not prove the prevailing speculation is wrong.

You shall not prove you are innocent.

 

 

I mean at a certain point, when the density of matter get too extreme a supernova is a result.

We don't know what happens in that process, but it is also not decisive. We know it happens, and that is what counts.

 

Off course I have an opinion about what exactly happens, but maybe it would be better to safe you for it, because that is "only" speculation.

Anyway here we go, -

When matter in a previous Universe has been many times closer, gravity would off course have been different.

Both speed and the closer approach between matter have off course been to blame.

I believe that gravity at a certain point simply was outplaying the strong nuclear force, - the result was that both the strong force and gravity was lost, (because these 2 are united) - and then BAANG.

In the moment when the Big Bang went off, - strong deformation of space was released.

With the speed of light gravitational waves, (not from a certain point) - but from everywhere, was moving in all direction.

Because the Universe is so big it have still not reach "the end of the world".

After a while plasma did again begin to create matter and the forces was re created.

 

 

I mean the same principle that apply to collapsing stars, - which mean the increase of their density per volume.

Something "similar" will off course happen to a collapsing Universe.

How do you think that would affects space-time, inside a collapsing star ? - or inside the Universe ?

 

Let us say tomorrow morning, when you wake up, - clusters of the Universe has approaches each other to only the 10% of the distance between each other compared to yesterday.

How slow would time tick compared to yesterday?

How would background gravity (space time) be, compared to yesterday? ?

How would distances be compared to yesterday ?

How would redshift be compared to yesterday ?

 

Such kind of speculation make much more sense to me.

If you do not ask the correct question you can not pretend to know the answer. The correct question is, "By what proposed mechanism does time exist and does that proposed mechainism account for the observations that confirm relative time?

Edited September 16, 2012 by Nobrainer

[zapatos]

I mean if you defend the prevailing theory I guess you also must agree to the idea that Cosmological Redshift is interpreted = And expanding Universe.

I am not defending the prevailing theory. I am told that the prevailing theory is correct and am given evidence by others to support that position.

You are now stating that the prevailing theory is wrong, that the universe is not expanding. If the universe is not expanding, it is either static or contracting (unless you are suggesting another possibility).

All I am asking is that you do the same as those who support expansion, and give me some evidence.

 

No no

This is not the way it works.

I shall not prove the prevailing speculation is wrong.

You shall not prove you are innocent.

I am not asking you to prove the prevailing theory is wrong. I am asking you to prove that you are right.

 

Off course I have an opinion about what exactly happens, but maybe it would be better to will safe you for it, because that is "only" speculation.

Anyway here we go, -

When matter in a previous Universe has been many times closer, gravity would off course have been different.

Both speed and the closer approach between matter have off course been to blame.

I believe that gravity at a certain point simply was outplaying the strong nuclear force, - the result was that both the strong force and gravity was lost, (because these 2 are united) - and then BAANG.

In the moment when the Big Bang went off, - strong deformation of space was released.

With the speed of light gravity waves, (not from a certain point) - but from everywhere, was moving in all direction.

Because the Universe is so big it have still not reach "the end of the world".

After a while plasma did again begin to create matter and the forces was re created.

Not the same in detail, but in many ways similar to the big bang.

I realize this is just your speculation at this point, but have you compared your ideas yet to BBT and found problems with it that your theory corrects?

 

Let us say tomorrow morning, when you wake up, - clusters of the Universe has approaches each other to only the 10% of the distance between each other compared to yesterday.

How slow would time tick compared to yesterday?

How would background gravity (space time) be, compared to yesterday? ?

How would distances be compared to yesterday ?

How would redshift be compared to yesterday ?

 

Such kind of speculation make much more sense to me.

Time would tick the same tomorrow morning as it does today.

I'm not sure what background gravity is, but if mass is closer then it would of course have a greater impact on me.

Distance itself doesn't change, but obviously things would be closer.

Are you saying the universe is collapsing at this point? I guess I'd then expect to see a blueshift instead of a redshift.

[Nobrainer]

Guys, the evidense is very persuasive that the universe is increasing in acceleration. It is also known that gravity is directly related to amount, density, of mass and time slows do to increase in gravitational fields, ie increase in mass.

Edited September 16, 2012 by Nobrainer

[MigL]

The universe is not expanding. It is just distancing itself from the hare-brained ideas and illogical leaps-of-faith presented as arguments in the speculations forum.

[Bjarne]

If you do not ask the correct question you can not pretend to know the answer. The correct question is, "By what proposed mechanism does time exist and does that proposed mechainism account for the observations that confirm relative time?

 

It would be good to know, but this is not decisive in this context.

When distances between clusters is changing, that too would change space-time

 

You are now stating that the prevailing theory is wrong, that the universe is not expanding.

If the universe is not expanding, it is either static or contracting (unless you are suggesting another possibility).

All I am asking is that you do the same as those who support expansion, and give me some evidence.

 

If I did I would invent new properties and mysteries.

I am not going to do that.

Such doesn't seem to be necessary.

 

I am asking you to prove that you are right.

I do not need to prove that the Universe not is expanding, simply because it is never proven that it does.

Because there is no evidence that the Universe really expands it simply must collapse.

 

Exactly this is what most likely must happen, and is good supported by mathematics and by knowledge about gravity.

So a collapsing Universe right now, is just a naturally consequence, of not accepting that any repulsive force / energy exist, and therefore not a new theory either.

But only a statement based on simple logical consequences and existing knowledge.

This is as simple as claiming that if there is no force or energy that prevents a stone from falling down on the Earth, then the stone must fall down on the Earth.

 

The next logical point is;

What do you expect would happen when all mass of the Universe would gather together?

I mean it is difficult (for me at least) to imaging that such Universe not (sooner or later) would explode, due to its extreme density, - wouldn't it be the same to you ?.

 

Not the same in detail, but in many ways similar to the big bang.

I realize this is just your speculation at this point, but have you compared your ideas yet to BBT and found problems with it that your theory corrects?

 

The main problem is that the expanding space concept is not necessary.

Space / gravity already have a build in "stretching property" – think about the stretching rubber sheet from the science lab.

If we take this property literally, it must mean that the property of the expanding space concept , must be on collision course, - with the already existing stretching property of space (GR).

 

The possibility exist that not only time, but everything else, also the ruler is stretching proportional with time, due to different gravity magnitude.

The problem is that there are no direct way to confirm or disprove it..

Anyway we should be carefully not to invent a property of space, that already exist, - that already is occupied by gravity.

 

Time would tick the same tomorrow morning as it does today.

Distance itself doesn't change, but obviously things would be closer.

Don't be so sure.

As I wrote you cannot test how distances are affected (or not affected) due to strong gravity, because how would you compare.

Either the ruler is by you or it is a different place.

 

Are you saying the universe is collapsing at this point?

I am saying that a collapse of the Universe and release of gravity (so called dark energy)must happens simultaneously.

But the consequences of gravity release from a previous Universe is overshadowing that a Big Crunch happens almost all the time.

The influence of gravity release is simply stronger, than the opposite process.

 

Are you saying the universe is collapsing at this point? I guess I'd then expect to see a blueshift instead of a redshift.

Think about that when 1 second today is double so fast as one from yesterday, what would happen when you would receive a photon created yesterday.

You would say, this photon must have lost half of its energy

But what really had happen is that you today live in a faster ticking reality.

Your reality have become blueshift, it is not the photon that have become redshift.

This would be a consequence, if it is true that gravity in the past was extreme.

Edited September 17, 2012 by Bjarne

[zapatos]

I am not going to do that.

Ok, so you aren't going to supply evidence to support your position...

 

I do not need to prove that the Universe not is expanding, simply because it is never proven that it does.

...and you aren't going to refute existing evidence of expansion, but instead just pretend it isn't there.

 

I think I'll move on to other topics.

[ACG52]

All I am asking is that you do the same as those who support expansion, and give me some evidence.

 

 

I am not going to do that.

Such doesn't seem to be necessary.

 

 

Not necessary? You mean not possible.

 

We're just supposed to accept your ignorant, simplistic assertions?

[Nobrainer]

Here is your misconception. Gravity is NOT a directly pulling effect it is an emitted wave synchronizing effect. This means that as waves are realease and going through a constructive wave interference there are two actions,

1). The waves pull the sources with them and since the big bang started their journey the waves aligning are creating a constant force and a decreasing mass. This is dark energy.

2). As wave synchronization happens and since the waves are aligning, they also align the masses that generate the waves, this is gravity. Time and space are generated actions of this particle to wave conversion. This is the correct way to understand how gravity and an expanding universe work that makes sense with the current laws of physics.

So in conclusion, if the nature of Gravity is a wave aligning action from wave generating sources, then gravity will not pull the universe together but it will align masses along Rhe path of least resistance and the universe will become more and more aligned or flattered NOT collapse. Your misconception is tha you think Gravity is a direct pulling force. It is a wave aligning force.

Edited September 17, 2012 by Nobrainer

[Bjarne]

Not necessary? You mean not possible.

 

We're just supposed to accept your ignorant, simplistic assertions?

 

Many have the right to say exactly the same, about the speculative idea that cosmological redhift = expansion, - and many does.

I believe that there are increasing resistance against that paradigm.

 

Many have the right even to be very angry, because speculation in several cases has taken over the scientific method.

Here is for example such person

I fully agree with him.

 

Without people like him we could all very easy end up in fantasy land.

It is only good that some still can keep it cool, - also even though it can be difficult not to be angry.

 

The pieces I am putting together, - is not a theory, and also not "my theory"

It is rather only consequences, that automatically follows, when the speculation , - that redshift = expansion is wrong.

 

In exactly that moment you deny to accept the speculative basic of the idea, - the universe is automatically changing, - to a completely different one.

I think many have almost forgot that simple fact..

 

It have nothing to do with what I believe or what my assertions are, - but only a question, - how would the Universe look like when there are no repulsive force..

We are so single tracked spellbound on that idea is true, - that other possibilities almost not exist.

 

If nothing prevent a stone from falling down, it must fall down., - doesn't matter what I belove or claim.

 

The possibility exist that "we" are wrong.

Don't underestimate that.

Edited September 17, 2012 by Bjarne

[Nobrainer]

Hey Bjrne,

Both sides are ignorant because in order to be correct, the mechanism has to be understood. I have reviewed everything and found two missing pieces. Here is the summary.

1). All mass and energy decay into gravitational waves. Proof is the 1983 Nobel prize in physics.

2). When waves of equal energy generated from different sources collide the form a wavefront as the primary action, this is proven fact. What is not yet known is that the reaction to wavefront formation is Gravity, and I have proved that one myself.

 

All your other stuff is hogwash and baloney

Edited September 17, 2012 by Nobrainer

[Iggy]

Is the Interpretation of Cosmological redshift misunderstood?

the reality of expansion is confirmed by things like the Tolman test and the time dilation of supernova.

 

Would a collapsing Universe, or collapsing clusters of galaxies finally explode, due to larger density / tension on space, - and therefore be like a supernova on a larger scale?

Radiation pressure (which causes a star to explode during a supernova) has an attractive gravitational effect when modeling the universe as a whole. It increases gravitational attraction and makes the universe want to collapse. In other words, a universe made entirely of radiation would be more interested in collapsing than a universe made entirely of matter.

[Nobrainer]

Radiation radiates by definition and therefore is antigravity

You are ignoring facts to shape a failing argument. There is only denial which traditionally is a trait of the weak minded.

 

 

I could not tell a flat earth person that the earth is round any more than I could tell a "gravity always pulls" person that gravity is the reaction to a radiating wave interaction.

 

This is where you are 100%, no way out, wrong.....

I speculate you are too entrenched in your theory to appreciate your mistakes, or are you stronger minded than I think?

Or another way to say it is that there is no perpetual motion machine and any Theoritical Physicists that thinks there is can never prove it, only live in pretend land where you can get something from nothing..

Edited September 18, 2012 by Nobrainer

[Iggy]

Radiation radiates by definition and therefore is antigravity

source

 

In case you need that translated: radiation causes a universe to collapse (big crunch style) quicker than matter.

 

You are ignoring facts to shape a failing argument.

the fact I gave has been around for a good while (from the chapter linked above),

 

Richard Tolman in the early 1930’s found that a universe containing only radiation behaves much like a universe containing only matter of low pressure, but with one important difference: a radiation universe of the same density as a matter universe has a greater deceleration. This is because the large radiation pressure acts as an additional source of gravity and the expansion slows down more quickly than in the matter universe...

 

Thus pressure has an effect opposite to what we might expect. Common sense suggests that pressure in an expanding universe should hasten the expansion. And in a collapsing universe pressure should slow the collapse, and even arrest the collapse when sufficiently great. But instead, pressure does the opposite; it causes slower expansion and faster collapse.

 

This unexpected result is because a uniform universe has no pressure gradients; furthermore, unlike a boiler, the universe has no walls against which pressure can push, and the only remaining dynamic effect of pressure is its contribution to the gravitational forces that control the universe.

I didn't invent it in the 1930s so that I could shape an argument with you.

Edited September 18, 2012 by Iggy

[Nobrainer]

Jane you ignorant slut- Dan Akaroid SNL

Let's change the name of the second universe to invisible pink bunny. Pretend examples mean nothing. There are no other universes. You are playing with invisible pink bunnies again...

Have you heard of the 1600's and the Huygens Principle, or Maxwell's equations in which the Hiygwns principle can be derived. Sorry but you are talking about waves other than monopole, again radiation by definition radiates from a source. I can not help that you think the grass is any greener in the 1930's it just has more BS to confuse and bait and switch .. There is only one proven universe thus the "uni".

 

I can explain everything in one universe that contains three dimensions because I understand the mechanism of time and space and gravity and how it all fits in with the smallest thing, the largest thing and everything in between.

And it is simple. The universe was a singularity then became mass and energy and space but the remaining mass and energy still decay into space, via generating a monopole wave fas a by-product of mass and energy naturally decaying creating generated local laws.

Edited September 18, 2012 by Nobrainer