Is The Universe really expanding?

[Nobrainer]

The big bang set it all in motion

 

A critical mass explosion of the singularity from particle to wave, space itself, the monopole gravitational wave

(this solves the missing monopole problem) creating three forms of matter, space, mass and energy. Space, the lease potential form of energy, the gravitational wave is the aether. Mass and energy, potential energy still decay creating more space. As mass and energy decrease, space increases. As mass and energy decay onto waves forming wavefronts continuing from the event horizon of the big bang where separationand stabilization of the forces started time of mass and energy decay started. As you measure how long it takes to bake a cake after the ingredients have been mixed so to the clock we use to measure the universe started when the forces separated and stabilized and continued to decay.( inflation solved)

As the force of the big bang continued it became constant because the mass and energy carried along also create space, via the decay into the gravitational wave adding to the direction of force feom the original bog bang. Time and space and dark energy and dark matter are actions of this

process. Time and space have characteristics of relativity, sound, the Doppler effect, has characteristics of relativity because the same fundamental process is in place. Generated waves with constant speed, frequency and wavelength are fundamental characteristics of all format of source to observer relativity. A monopole wave being generated into it's own medium has density dependent qualities and therefore affected by the change in density of the medium.. This is not hard to follow and everything fits the current universe. An unknown phenomenon which may bw discovered in our lifetime is that the universe is flattening, decreasing in dimensional degrees of freedom.

 

Just an idea that is the core of the framework to the theory of everything.

Yes to me it is a NoBrainer, migL I reciprocate and dedicate my name in your honor haha, crack myself up. Not really not worth this words...sorry

[MigL]

Got as far as the first line...

 

'monopole gravitational wave solves the missing monopole problem'

 

The missing monopole problem concerns the absence of MAGNETIC monopoles.

 

You are right in your last sentence though, wear your name with pride !

[Phi for All]

!

Moderator Note

The personal attacks need to stop NOW, please. Attack the ideas, NOT the person who has them.

[Nobrainer]

!

Moderator Note

The personal attacks need to stop NOW, please. Attack the ideas, NOT the person who has them.

Thank you.

In general, I do believe someone who initiates a personally attack on another has a deep seated problem with personal self esteem issues. Informed consent is possibly a different story...lol I appoligize for any role I have played in personal attacks, sorry MigL

 

The missing Monopole problem is the absence of magnetic monopole yes. In my opinion, I stand by both statement.s I 100% agree with you but I am not contridicting your statment but rather claiming space is the action solves the missing monopole problem. From a monopole a monopole wave is generated. It's action is a measure of energy transfer into a monopole gravitational wave eith measurable relative acrtions of time, space and gravity.. You see, any dipole with decays into gravitational monopole waves at both ends solves the missing monopole problem. If the dipoles continually act as decaying monopoles also then that the primary reason why the stronger magnetic fields have the effect of a stronger gravitational effect, i.e. time delay. Before you argue that there is no proof of that remember this connection. A stronger magnet has a has an increased energy and e=mc2 therefore an increase in mass. I am suggesting that mass is mass as a result of this relationship, not the way the Higgs field operates. There is no higgs field, instead there is a monopole wave field created at the big bang and continually created by each quanta of mass and energy. As space increases overall mass and energy decrease. I could be totally wrong but I can not figure out where becaue it solves everything so far.

So to recap, I believe the framework of the theory of everything is fundamental at the point of magnetic dipoles which act in two categories, one magnetic dipoles and two gravitational wave monopoles, a process of decay or energy transfer creating the basis of time, space and gravity.

Thank you for the opportunity to clarify.

Edited September 22, 2012 by Nobrainer

[pantheory]

Bjarne,

 

 

This video, your link, is now 10-15 years old. I agree that many of these arguments are still valid and that the video is still good.

 

One theorist that remains active, pro other models and against the BB model, is the mathematician and cosmologist Jayant Narlikar. Also Erik Lerner, in the video, is an active plasma physicist and theorist contrary to the BB model.

 

Jayant Narlikar, Vijay Mohan, European Southern Observatory

 

http://www.indianexp...-stars/756519/2

 

What are the problems with the BB model? (rhetorical).

 

 

The first problem is that it has a few ad hoc hypothesis hung onto it, which are needed by the model for it to survive.

 

The first is the Inflation hypothesis.

 

There seems to be no possible way to confirm this hypothesis. It is a ad hoc hypothesis proposing seemingly forever unobservable new physics. Without it such perceived problems like the Horizon problem and the Flatness problems, seem insurmountable.

 

The next ad hoc hypothesis is called dark matter. Without this hypothesis Einstein's theory of gravity and cosmological equations fail to a very large degree at the galactic and larger scales. There is thought to be both evidence that supports the existence of dark matter, and evidence which contradicts its existence.

 

http://www.ras.org.u...for-dark-matter

 

 

The dark energy hypothesis is not needed by the BB model since its primary purpose is simply ad hoc to explain observations. It is not predicted by most other models as well and its existence denied by some. In my opinion there is very little evidence to support the dark energy hypothesis, but for the same reason I think it will be difficult to disprove.

 

Is the universe expanding as the explanation of galactic redshifts? The BB model and Hoyle's SS models say yes, some other models propose a non-expanding SS universe concerning the observable universe.

 

Unlike many questions in physics this one concerning the age of the universe could be solved in the foreseeable future. The James Webb infrared space telescope is going up about 2018. The BB proposes that vary distant galaxies will be dense in numbers, relatively small, and very young. Most other cosmological models believe such distant galaxies will run the gamut of appearances just like local galaxies. They accordingly will appear to be both old and young, large and small. There colors and densities accordingly will be the same as for local galaxy clusters.

 

So by about 2024 either the BB will be firmly entrenched with its only competition being different versions of itself, or I think it will be on its way to the graveyard of discredited/ disproved theories.

 

Of course if the universe is not expanding at all, the conjecture of this thread, It might not be realized until after the Big Bang's demise.

 

 

//

Edited September 22, 2012 by pantheory

[Iggy]

The BB proposes that vary distant galaxies will be dense in numbers, relatively small, and very young.

Very distant galaxies should appear large in the current model.

 

However, in the currently favoured geometric model of our Universe, the relation is more complicated. In this model, objects at redshifts greater than about 1.5 appear larger on the sky with increasing redshift.

 

angular size redshift relation

[pantheory]

Very distant galaxies should appear large in the current model.

You are right. But I believe this is unrelated to the present BB model. I believe it is simply a fact that is based upon the Hubble formula needing reformulation, which gives the false impression of dark energy.

 

I was referring to the real size and forms of galaxies in the past being exactly the same as in the present. This would be based upon some galaxies exactly like the Milky Way existing as far back in time that we will ever be able to look.

[Iggy]

You are right. But I believe this is unrelated to the present BB model.

In the present (Lambda-CDM) model the angular size increases beyond z=1.5. The wikipedia quote I gave is correct, any cosmology calculator that includes angular diameter would show.

 

I was referring to the real size and forms of galaxies in the past being exactly the same as in the present. This would be based upon some galaxies exactly like the Milky Way existing as far back in time that we will ever be able to look.

and if the James Webb space telescope doesn't disprove everything we've learned about expansion there will always be things that remain unobserved. Bias does live in the margins of knowledge after all.

[pantheory]

In the present (Lambda-CDM) model the angular size increases beyond z=1.5. The wikipedia quote I gave is correct, any cosmology calculator that includes angular diameter would show.

I believe this simply can be explained by errors in the Hubble formula. That galaxies are actually 11% closer at these distances than the Hubble formula indicates.

 

...and if the James Webb space telescope doesn't disprove everything we've learned about expansion there will always be things that remain unobserved. Bias does live in the margins of knowledge after all.

I don't expect the James Webb to disprove everything , just the primary premise of the BB model that the universe started expanding about 13.7 B years ago, but instead is many times older than that.

//

Edited September 23, 2012 by pantheory

[Iggy]

In the present (Lambda-CDM) model the angular size increases beyond z=1.5. The wikipedia quote I gave is correct, any cosmology calculator that includes angular diameter would show.

I believe this simply can be explained by errors in the Hubble formula.

What can be explained? The model's prediction can be explained? In no sense does the prediction of a model lack an explanation. I can't understand what you're on about.

 

That galaxies are actually 11% closer at these distances than the Hubble formula indicates.

Nice of you to correct cosmologists. What is the correct formula for angular diameter distance?

[pantheory]

What can be explained? The model's prediction can be explained? In no sense does the prediction of a model lack an explanation. I can't understand what you're on about.

 

Nice of you to correct cosmologists. What is the correct formula for angular diameter distance?

Iggy, we've been here for a wee bit of time. This is the problem. I can agree with the OP, or explain that the universe is not really expanding, but to explain an answer is again something different. I have talked to you for a long time now. If you cannot recall previous conversations please PM me. Once you answer my PM then probably we could continue on this thread

 

//

 

What can be explained? The model's prediction can be explained? In no sense does the prediction of a model lack an explanation. I can't understand what you're on about.

 

 

Nice of you to correct cosmologists. What is the correct formula for angular diameter distance?

 

This has to be put on a different thread, please ask again and I will provide. I have a different formulation. OK

 

best regards Forrest

Edited September 23, 2012 by pantheory

[Iggy]

That's right. I do recall now the previous conversation we had regarding Hubble's law where you asserted something rather telling. Let me see...

 

The original BB expansion of the universe was believed to be constant after beginning times, hence the words Hubble constant means a constant rate of expansion as formulated as a constant recession velocity designated as H₀ in the Hubble distance formula. It you can understand the Hubble formula then you can understand what I am saying.

 

http://hyperphysics....tro/hubble.html

 

Some thought that this expansion rate might be slowing down over time (which would have necessarily changed the Hubble Formula if valid) but there was no accepted evidence to support this proposal.

Ok... so, I'm sorry to say it is impossible to know the basics of relativistic cosmology while mischaracterizing it such. Had I remembered where you were coming from I wouldn't have pressed you for details about how it was in error. I should just have said,

 

Of course if the universe is not expanding at all

You are entitled to your opinion.

[Nobrainer]

There is another answer that allows the big bang to be correct and yet the light we see from the most distant galaxies to be dimmer than one would expect.

As long as the photon generating star is producing electromagnetic radiation the photons electromagnetic field is being continually replaced as the electromagnetic field is decaying into monopole gravitational waves. Once the

System is gone, the photons no longer have a way to replace their field and it decays noticeably as evidenced by the descripency in the brightness. This observational difference can lead, in the future to be able to mathematically predict when a galaxy will be no more.

 

 

If you want to pay attention for a paragraph or two, it is possible that the expansion rate is constant and has always been constant but the measured mass and energy in the system is increasing in acceleration.

At the big bang, the singularity transitioned into mass energy and space( via the monopole gravitational wave ), as mass and energy stabolized into the forces and continued to decay into the gravitational wave, measurable time began. This solves the inflation problem and keeps the laws of physics unchanging. As mass and energy still decay adding to space via the release of the gravitational wave space, expanding at the speed of light continues constantly as mass and energy Lose overall energy and continue to increase in acceleration until all of mass and energy convert to space itself continually shaping the universe.

By understanding this simple concept of matter decaying to it's least potential state, space, everything fits and things become very predictable... Black hole evaporation, dark matter, dark flow, star dimming etc....

 

In my opinion.....

All of Theoritical physics made two wrong turns.

1). There is an aether, space itself, continually given off from all mass and energy.

2). There is a reaction of the sources generated wave production which creates a feedback to wavefront or field formation which causes gravity,

 

This simple path of forward time explains the very nature of the universe from the beginning to the end. Time, space and gravity are actions and reactions to this process.

 

It's makes me wonder why we as humans like stationary ideas so much? Time moves forward because it represents a forward and changing process, why is that so hard to understand?

The solution is right in front of everyone and and yet they ignore it out of the same stubborn thinking that tries to find something stable in life, either a stationary universe as yesteryear or fundamental particles being fundamental as today.

If, initially, the singulartity was close to solidly dense then everyrhing was one particle, now it is decaying becoming one interconnected wavefront. If you look at the objections to mechanical aspects to gravitation in the 1800's and look at what we know now the objections are no more, outdated. The dismissing conclusions were bases on false premisses that are no longer valid in a closed universe with a beginning. Without the universe being a continuing perpetual motion machine, this is the only correct answer that fits all observations.

 

The density of the humidity, saturation point, of water in air modulates the evaporation rate of a puddle of water on the ground in a conceptual way like the density of space modulates the decay rate of mass and energy. Traveling faster in space increases the density rate per unit time of the object traveling and relative to the density of the original object before it traveled, it's decay rate slows as a function of space density. This explains why time an space are relative, because mass and energy decay into the medium they are traveling through and modulated by the density changes of the medium. As the medium density increases decay rate slows,

Example at the beach run ton the sand hrough air from point a to point b then run again from point A to point b on the sand but through 3 feet of water. Your time from point a to point b is directly related to the density of the medium that you are traveling through. This applies to all decay rates of matter.

This leads to a proposed unknown phenomenon;

the gravitational wave should travel faster than the speed of a photon and that is the baseline speed for the universe.

Edited September 23, 2012 by Nobrainer

[pantheory]

That's right. I do recall now the previous conversation we had regarding Hubble's law where you asserted something rather telling. Let me see...

 

Ok... so, I'm sorry to say it is impossible to know the basics of relativistic cosmology while mischaracterizing it such. Had I remembered where you were coming from I wouldn't have pressed you for details about how it was in error. I should just have said,

 

You are entitled to your opinion.

Pretty cool that you could find those postings Yeah, I simply think that the Hubble formula miscalculates by about 11% for all redshifts greater than z = 1.5, based upon my analysis -- that such distances are somewhat closer causing galaxies to appear bigger and brighter at those distances.

//

Edited September 23, 2012 by pantheory

[Nobrainer]

I believe I understand the accepted theory, just like I understand the reasoning as to why many scientists thought the world was flat. I do not believe that the speed of space should be an exception to the laws if physics. There is a better explanation. I believe that I have painstakingly found it. It involves two newly understood actions of matter and an easy way to show me wrong is to show that one of these two actions are false. Show this and I am wrong. I can so that there is evidense that I am correct.

1). A system does not lose gravitational energy over time as the 1993 Novel Pruze in physics has shown or

2). Wave interaction is a non contact interaction. That is it.

If you can show any of those to be valid then I am wrong. I can show that they ate valid and that a system does lose energy over time and that wave interaction is a contact force.

I don't think I'm being an ass Nobrainer, and it isn't only Bjarne that refuses to understand physics. You yourself haven' t got a clue as to how pressure affects gravity, even after Iggy has tried explaning. By the way negative pressure is the postulated cause for the inflationary period shortly after the big bang.

 

Instead of pushing your pet theory, try understanding the accepted theory first, and work on the inconsistencies of that theory. Don't rush to replace the accepted theory by one which is even more inconsistent. All the hundreds, if not thousands of physicists who have worked on GR, the big bang and universal expansion were not idiots waiting for a genius like you to come along and correct them.

It's not about personal attacks, it about understanding what exist. I don't have any holes in my theory if you care to look. I have discounted negative pressure and that bothers you, sorry. I have simple found two mistakes in current and past thinking and corrected, explains it all.

Mistake 1- assuming no aether

Mistake 1 - assuming wave interaction is a non- contact force.

By understanding the relationship between the actual process of the universe Everyrhing fits. I can not help it if blindsided people what to pretend to critics me superficially I have corrected there misunderstanding each time. I can not be responsible for others being wrong, I an just pointing out the mistakes that have been made in the past and how it has affected, slanted, current thinking.

I did not see one error pointed out that I had not addressed. Magnetic monopole- answered that easily.

You see, until you understand that all currently unknown phenomenon are explained as I have, I do not see a better explanation. If you really want to know what is going on in the universe you should pay attention because science really did miss two fundamental interactions in operation of the universe. Negative pressure is your only way to understand the universe and that is too bad. Yiou are missing what is right there UN fornt of you. And if other scientists that were so great, they would have seen what the added evidence has led me to see. It is easy but it does wipe out all other theories on gravity. I can't help that, the correct theory is supposed to do just that.

 

-CMT.

 

I have found that when someone is Stuborn and self absorbed in there own little world of thinking and a new idea, a new person cones along, they, as you do, create a aura of personal attacks. Please stop.

 

Again,

In order for me to be wrong, one of two things would gave to ve shown to be incorrect.

1). A system does not lose gravitational energy over time as the 1993 Novel Pruze in physics has shown or

2). Wave interaction is a non contact interaction. That is it.

Edited September 24, 2012 by Nobrainer

[imatfaal]

!

Moderator Note

You are wrong, you are being a dismissive ass.

I have found that when someone is Stuborn and self absorbed in there own little world of thinking and a new idea, a new person cones along, they, as you do, create a aura of personal attacks. Please stop.

Nobrainer - the personal characterisation and insults stop right now.

[Nobrainer]

And that is exactly what I am asking I was using his word not mine, so get me for plagerizing if you think it is appropriate but the "ass" word was his- go back and read his text

Edited September 24, 2012 by Nobrainer

[imatfaal]

!

Moderator Note

Nobrainer - MIGL hasn't posted in this thread for days, not since Phi's previous warning in this thread. You do not get to blame anyone else, your post - your decision to revisit that contretemps. Please stop derailing the thread by insulting other members and by arguing with modnotes. You can report this post if you feel it is inappropriate

[Nobrainer]

On Sept. 20th he wrote, "I don't think I am being an ass. I was responding to that post and I even copied it. I used his words and stated that I thought he was being deliberate.

The reason I stated such is because of no apology after saying I have no brain and not retracting after your warning. I do think that because he maked an out if the blue accusation for no reason. I hope you are seeing this as I saw it at the time. So Sept 20. Was the incident where he used the ASS word in referring to be having no brain. I believe you are picking on the wrong guy. But either way new people are baited here I have noticed and then you seem to unnecessarily chose sides instead of blaming the instigator. Either way I will only talk physics etc and I am not interested in anything else, especially the personal attacks. So the problem arose when you did not handle the initial personal attack, out of the blue with no reason to attack me, MigL did and you did nothing. YOU waited until I responded and then made your stand. Maybe, you should review the initial comment by MIgL and realize that it is your miscued response that is also at fault as much as MigL. When someone personally attacks you and the moderator does not respond adequately and then when you defend yourself he then says play nice, that is a small injustice.

Edited September 25, 2012 by Nobrainer

[MigL]

Well since you quoted me, nobrainer...

 

No, you do NOT understand accepted theory. You believe electromagnetic fields have a finite range, and they 'decay' into gravitational waves. Show me where Maxwell's equations predict that will happen.

 

You are the one who called me an ass saying, and I quote "you like to be an ass to people?", and I defended myself saying, and I quote " I don't think I'm being an ass". YOU go back and re-read the posts.

 

Every time you post something, you get accused of making salad. WORD SALAD !

Grow up and learn some physics.

Edited September 25, 2012 by MigL

[Nobrainer]

But I do understand accepted theory and have originally added a framework of the process of the theory of Everything behind it showing the mechanism of action.

 

 

 

Well since you quoted me, nobrainer...

 

 

 

No, you do NOT understand accepted theory. You believe electromagnetic fields have a finite range, and they 'decay' into gravitational waves. Show me where Maxwell's equations predict that will happen.

 

 

 

.

I did state that I believe electromagnetic waves decay

You are the one who called me an ass saying, and I quote "you like to be an ass to people?", and I defended myself saying, and I quote " I don't think I'm being an ass". YOU go back and re-read the posts.

 

Every time you post something, you get accused of making salad. WORD SALAD !

Grow up and learn some physics.

When or where did i state that electromagnetic fields have a finite range, I did not state that. You decide what I think and then critize your mischaracterization. You assume wrong. By speculationg that magnetic fields decay into monopole gravitational waves which form wavefronts with reactions I do just the opposite, I explain how electeomagnetic fields have universal range. Gravity becomes the mechanism that allows electeomagnetic fields to have universal range and it also explains why gravity is so much weaker than the other forces.

 

YOU need to get your story strraight and you mischaracterizing me is just an example of the crap that I have to put up with from you. Stop crediting me with your false opinions and statements.

Edited September 25, 2012 by Nobrainer

[imatfaal]

!

Moderator Note

Enough!

Both of you - in this thread and others, which bit of "the personal characterisation and insults stop right now" and "The personal attacks need to stop NOW, please. Attack the ideas, NOT the person who has them" is not understood?

And I made it quite clear that if you wish to complain about moderation it should not be done within the thread - do not continue derailing this thread or others with this squabble or by discussing the moderation. If you feel this post or any other post is inappropriate then report the post - do NOT moan or respond in the thread.

[pantheory]

What can be explained? The model's prediction can be explained? In no sense does the prediction of a model lack an explanation. I can't understand what you're on about.

The big bang model asserts the universe is expanding. For that matter, the Steady State model also thought the universe is expanding. The basis for this proposed expansion is the observed galactic redshifting of EM radiation and the expansion of space, according to the standard model. There have been a number of other explanations proposed over the years to also explain this redshifting of galactic light. One of the more well known proposals was tired light. This was shown to be wrong by supernova time dilation, but other similar proposals such as aether drag/ dark matter drag, which would lengthen EM radiation cannot be disproved, as far as I know.

 

There are other proposals such as gravitational redshifting which the OP mentioned, the diminution of matter, Dirac's expanding matter and expanding space, Compton redshifting, etc. Most of these other proposals seemingly cannot presently be disproved. If any of these are valid, instead of space expanding, then maybe the universe isn't expanding at all. This was the OP proposal or question. I, for one, believe in one of the other explanations for redshifts so therefore don't believe the universe is expanding or contracting.

 

Nice of you to correct cosmologists. What is the correct formula for angular diameter distance?

My first technical paper on this can be found at pantheory.org (see technical papers)

//

Edited September 25, 2012 by pantheory

[Iggy]

I'm sorry, Pantheory. I see you responded to my post again, but I really can't reply to the content seriously. You implied that you were a theoretical physicist while not knowing how the deceleration parameter worked. You thought the Hubble constant implied constant expansion over time. Your last post represents redshift as the sole indicator of expansion while referring to your "technical paper"... I'm sorry, but I would be incapable of responding as if we're having some kind of debate.

[pantheory]

I'm sorry, Pantheory. I see you responded to my post again, but I really can't reply to the content seriously. You implied that you were a theoretical physicist while not knowing how the deceleration parameter worked. You thought the Hubble constant implied constant expansion over time. Your last post represents redshift as the sole indicator of expansion while referring to your "technical paper"... I'm sorry, but I would be incapable of responding as if we're having some kind of debate.

If there's no expansion of the universe, in answer to the OP question, then there would be no such thing as accelerated or decelerating expansion of the universe either. My explanation is simply that they have misinterpreted observations, which was the basis for my technical paper.

 

I am suggesting that there is a different explanation for galactic redshifts other than the expansion of the universe, and that the dark energy hypothesis resulted from an incomplete Hubble distance formula -- my paper proposing an addendum to it.

//

Edited September 25, 2012 by pantheory