Is The Universe really expanding?

[Iggy]

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 ..

The relative abundances of light elements serves as a test confirming the contribution radiation pressure gives the gravitational field.

 

Big Bang Nucleosynthesis Constraints on the Self-Gravity of Pressure

 

Using big bang nucleosynthesis and present, high-precision measurements of light element abundances, we constrain the self-gravity of radiation pressure in the early universe. The self-gravity of pressure is strictly non-Newtonian, and thus the constraints we set provide a direct test of this prediction of general relativity and of the standard, Robertson-Walker-Friedmann cosmology.

 

Fascinating, eh

[Bjarne]

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

 

Let's say that matter distribution of the Universe was limit, - and that a Big Crunch was going on.

Now we will speed up the process, and therefore tomorrow morning distances between clusters would be much shorter.

This would change space time here too, with any doubt. Let's say time was now ticking only half so fast today compared to yesterday, due to larger background gravity (different space-time).

Would we discover anything was different, except that clusters was closer, and time ticking slower ?

 

Well the train trip between Barcelona and Valencia took 3 hour yesterday, - would it take 6 hour today ?

 

The distance between Barcelona and Valencia was 300 km yesterday, - therefore yesterday the average speed of the train was 100 km/h

 

Would the average speed today only be 50km/h ?

 

Or would the distance + the ruler + everything else, - have stretched proportional with time- stretch, - and therefore everything looks the same as yesterday, but not be comparable the same?

Which mean the trip still would take 3 hours, - but "3 stretched hours" (= 6 comparable hours) ?

 

Or what ?

 

 

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

 

I am afraid decreasing background gravity give you the same result.

Edited September 18, 2012 by Bjarne

[Nobrainer]

Let's say you are in denial and can not accept that you are wrong. You do not have a clue as to the real basis of the force of gravitation so you have to create multiple ideas to explain away the expansion of the universe and the fact that the expansion is speeding up. Light element distribution has nothing to do with this it is hogwash.

 

Dark energy is just F=MxA

Constant force = decreasing measured mass x increasing acceleration. A Newton law. Again see the 1993 Nobel prize in physics for loss of energy in an isolated system.

 

I see no reason to believe you... You lose with false evidence that is not correct.

 

You also do not understand the root cause of time dilation ...

"Lost I am afraid you are"- Yoda

 

It is interesting that you use the concept of radiation but never once mention any wave properties of constructive of destructive interference or wave amplitude. I see you never had a course in understanding radiation, and my second clue ....

 

Here is a question that puts it all to rest .

 

What is the mechanism which allows this

ALL RADIATION HAS THE PROPERTY TO TRAVEL AT A CONSTANT SPEED OF LIGHT INDEPENDENT OF THE SPEED OF THE SOURCE?

 

Describe the conceptual mechanism...

 

What is the mechanism that creates the inverse square law that makes gravity a function of distance?

 

What is the mechanism that makes gravity so much weaker than the other forces?

 

Why are the laws of physics local laws?

 

Why is gravity absent from aspects of the quantum world?

 

You can make stuff but there really is no answer with in your reasons as to why the universe might not be expanding.

 

You have made your mind up and now you want to convience others but too many flaws... American's talent is missing here.

Edited September 18, 2012 by Nobrainer

[Bjarne]

You do not have a clue as to the real basis of the force of gravitation

What are you talking about ?

 

so you have to create multiple ideas to explain away the expansion of the universe and the fact that the expansion is speeding up.

It is not a scientific fact that space is expanding at all.

Oxygen is not bly because the sky is blue, except when someone shows the evidence.

 

Light element distribution has nothing to do with this it is hogwash.

Oh no, light moving out of gravitation field is known to 'become' redshift.

 

Dark energy is just F=MxA

Really ?

I always thought it was space it self that was expanding, and not a force acting on matter.

 

Constant force = decreasing measured mass x increasing acceleration. A Newton law.

Again see the 1993 Nobel prize in physics for loss of energy in an isolated system.

As I just wrote, why do you want to involve a force.

Space itself I believe don't care about it.

 

I see no reason to believe you... You lose with false evidence that is not correct.

I have just taken 3 pieces of certain knowledge from the text-book and put these together step by step...

This is not a new theory, but only holistic step by step thinking.

1.) A stone will fall down on the Earth if nothing will push it up. I believe the majority will agree that something similar apply for the Universe, when the speculative repulsive property only is science fiction and therefore not exist.

2.) During a Big Crunch , - I also believe the majority would agree, that gravity (change of space-time) sooner or later will go mad.

3.) Left is only to ask, would that explode, - when matter density become extreme.

 

As I said 3 pieces of a puzzle. No evidence is necessary, nothing is speculation except that such cocktail most likely would blow up.

 

You also do not understand the root cause of time dilation ...

"Lost I am afraid you are"- Yoda

Really ?

 

It is interesting that you use the concept of radiation but never once mention any wave properties of constructive of destructive interference or wave amplitude. I see you never had a course in understanding radiation, and my second clue ....

Here is a question that puts it all to rest .

What is the mechanism which allows this

ALL RADIATION HAS THE PROPERTY TO TRAVEL AT A CONSTANT SPEED OF LIGHT IMDEPENDENT OF THE SPEED OF THE SOURCE?

Describe the conceptual mechanism...

It is irrelevant.

 

What is the mechanism that creates the inverse square law that makes gravity a function of distance?

Isaac Newton's colleagues was asked the same question 10.000 times every day. - Since Newton could not answer he must be wrong.

This is why he didn't try to publish his finding for years.

 

What is the mechanism that makes gravity so much weaker than the other forces?

I could tell you what I believe, but you would only accuse me for being a crank , and a Idiot, so why should I ?

 

Why are the laws of physics local laws?

I believe Einstein already have answered that question.

 

Why is gravity absent from aspects of the quantum world?

Properly because nobody have succeeded to quantize space.

 

You can make stuff but there really is no answer with in your reasons as to why the universe might not be expanding.

Is still have nothing with me to do, but only that that idea is speculation.

 

You have made your mind up and now you want to convenience others but too many flaws... American's talent is missing here.

No, I only believe that what goes op must come down, except if something prevent it to.

And so will the speculative idea that space is expanding.

Edited September 18, 2012 by Bjarne

[Nobrainer]

The simple fact is that Edward Hubble saw galaxies traveling away from earth and total convinced Einstein. A simple telescope convinced Einstein that his cosmological constant was wrong. His General relativity equations which have been proven correct over and over also show that the universe is expanding and George Lemoure a physicist in the 1930's realized this which lead to physicists being wrong about the universe having no beginning. Then in 1998 two labs that disliked each other found the same startling result, our universe is expanding at an accelerated rate. All the standard model predictions that are 100% proven accurate are based on the big bang.

 

No evidence-- or in denial. You are plain wrong and closed minded to criticism that is factual... End of story

[Bjarne]

The simple fact is that Edward Hubble saw galaxies traveling away from earth and total convinced Einstein.

He didn't saw that.

A simple telescope convinced Einstein that his cosmological constant was wrong.

 

And exactly this math allows a Big Crunch, when that what Hubble not saw dosen't exist,

 

His General relativity equations which have been proven correct over and over

Irrelevant

 

also show that the universe is expanding

No it shows that either it must expand or it must collapse.

Both point of view must be proven to be accepted.

So why not keep it cool ?

 

and George Lemoure a physicist in the 1930's realized this which lead to physicists being wrong about the universe having no beginning.

This was probably his biggest mistake

 

Then in 1998 two labs that disliked each other found the same startling result, our universe is expanding at an accelerated rate.

You don't know whether it is expanding at ll.

 

All the standard model predictions that are 100% proven accurate are based on the big bang.

As i said for me there is no doubt, Big Bang can happen as I wrote.

 

No evidence-- or in denial. You are plain wrong and closed minded to criticism that is factual...

I agree you have no evidence

 

End of story

 

Fine

Edited September 18, 2012 by Bjarne

[Iggy]

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

I am afraid decreasing background gravity give you the same result.

Can you show me which model "decreasing background gravity" refers to (I don't know what you mean by it), and where it is solved giving "the same result"?

[Nobrainer]

What are you talking about ?

 

 

It is not a scientific fact that space is expanding at all.

Oxygen is not bly because the sky is blue, except when someone shows the evidence.

 

 

Oh no, light moving out of gravitation field is known to 'become' redshift.

 

 

Really ?

I always thought it was space it self that was expanding, and not a force acting on matter.

 

 

As I just wrote, why do you want to involve a force.

Space itself I believe don't care about it.

 

 

I have just taken 3 pieces of certain knowledge from the text-book and put these together step by step...

This is not a new theory, but only holistic step by step thinking.

1.) A stone will fall down on the Earth if nothing will push it up. I believe the majority will agree that something similar apply for the Universe, when the speculative repulsive property only is science fiction and therefore not exist.

2.) During a Big Crunch , - I also believe the majority would agree, that gravity (change of space-time) sooner or later will go mad.

3.) Left is only to ask, would that explode, - when matter density become extreme.

 

As I said 3 pieces of a puzzle. No evidence is necessary, nothing is speculation except that such cocktail most likely would blow up.

 

 

Really ?

 

 

It is irrelevant.

 

 

Isaac Newton's colleagues was asked the same question 10.000 times every day. - Since Newton could not answer he must be wrong.

This is why he didn't try to publish his finding for years.

 

 

I could tell you what I believe, but you would only accuse me for being a crank , and a Idiot, so why should I ?

 

 

I believe Einstein already have answered that question.

 

 

Properly because nobody have succeeded to quantize space.

 

 

Is still have nothing with me to do, but only that that idea is speculation.

 

 

No, I only believe that what goes op must come down, except if something prevent it to.

And so will the speculative idea that space is expanding.

Like I said, your fundamental mistake is the concept of "what goes up must come down" is not accurate with the evidence. Now if you has the insight to understand that there is a mechanism that explains what goes up must come down is a dimensional statement as I understand, then you would have been nearly correct. Your way the universe is a perpetual motion machine and violates the fundamental laws of Physics, free energy. Try unbaking a cake and show me. Lol

[Iggy]

No it shows that either it must expand or it must collapse.

Both point of view must be proven to be accepted.

So why not keep it cool ?

 

...

 

You don't know whether it is expanding at ll.

Do you think an expanding universe and a collapsing universe look identical to an observer in that universe?

[Bjarne]

Can you show me which model "decreasing background gravity" refers to (I don't know what you mean by it), and where it is solved giving "the same result"?

 

The universe is a huge field of gravity

Space time depend on the matter distribution here, accurate as it does anywhere else.

Call it back ground space time, if you prefer.

[Nobrainer]

Instead of being in denial because you can not logically believe the universe is expanding at an increasing acceleration, or as other people do and look for a repulsive force to counter act gravity, you could ask this;

" Is there a mechanism that creates gravity and also creates an increasingly expanding universe?" That mechanism would also have to agree with GR, all observations, standard theory and show the limitations to quantum theory. If you do not understand the very nature of time, space and gravity then you just are spinning your wheels.

For example gravitational lensing in empty space is factual, I predicted that and a whole lot more because I understand the mechanism. Mathmatically, fields have been added to General Relativity recently which takes dark energy and dark matter into account as actions of Gravitation. I get it and you are not listening to the glaring holes in your arguments.

Show a prediction of an unknown phenomenon and write a paper. Your approach will not stand up.

The evidense behind the 1993 Nobel Prize in physics shows you are naive in thinking there is no evidence. Again, direct view in a telescope shows the evidence that you are wrong.

[Iggy]

The universe is a huge field of gravity

Space time depend on the matter distribution here, accurate as it does anywhere else.

Call it back ground space time, if you prefer.

Where is the 'universe is a huge field of gravity' model and where is it solved for Tolman surface brightness and time dilation of supernova? Show me the model and the solution that you informed us gives the correct results for those tests.

[Bjarne]

Do you think an expanding universe and a collapsing universe look identical to an observer in that universe?

 

No

Distances between object would increase based on a expanding model, which is a pretty simple model.

A gravitational based (GR) model, is quite different.

 

The expanding model

Have the the problem that we cannot measure local expansions.

Such doesn't exist, - they should, - ( the problem is "solved" by adding one more add hoc explanation" to the paradigm)

 

A GR Model

When we assume that the expanding concept is wrong, and that gravity in the past was extreme, and since decreasing, time today must ticks faster as yesterday.

A Big Crunch or Gravity release, or both simultaneously, - are all difference sides of the same count.

These phenomena's are changing all kind of distances, rulers, and speed proportional with change of time.

This is the only possible interpretation,- of a universal GR based model.

So that too have a small "add hoc" - but not a contradictory one as the expanding model have, - and therefore must more acceptable.

 

Globally there are huge differences , release of stretching space - and hence space-time change, - due to gravity release. - But the effect looks almost the same as a expanding model.

 

It make no sense to go further into such discussion, this is my opinion, and my private conclusion.

I am sure that I cannot convenience anybody, and I even will not try to. - But only answering the question. '

The evidences we have can be read in 2 different way, and will probably never get better.

Edited September 18, 2012 by Bjarne

[Nobrainer]

And background space-time does not explain forward time nor local laws. Back to the drawing board

 

And it will be interesting to watch time go backwards in the big crunch. Way to many holes in this speculation. It is the denial of evidence of expansion and increase in expansion that really is convincing that there is no merit here. Again, it happens, we have an idea and it's ours but it contradicts reality so we ignore reality and live amoung the invisible pink bunnies.

[Nobrainer]

And for your real bummer story of the day

"World’s Most Powerful Digital Camera Opens Eye, Records First Images in Hunt for Dark Energy

ScienceDaily (Sep. 17, 2012) — Eight billion years ago, rays of light from distant galaxies began their long journey to Earth. That ancient starlight has now found its way to a mountaintop in Chile, where the newly-constructed Dark Energy Camera, the most powerful sky-mapping machine ever created, has captured and recorded it for the first time.

Share This:

 

 

 

105

See Also:

Space & Time

Dark Matter

Astrophysics

Astronomy

Matter & Energy

Physics

Energy Technology

Nuclear Energy

Reference

European Southern Observatory

Astrophysics

Galaxy formation and evolution

Large-scale structure of the cosmos

That light may hold within it the answer to one of the biggest mysteries in physics -- why the expansion of the universe is speeding up."

[MigL]

You're wasting your time Iggy, AJB has already tried to give logical scientific reasoning for universal expansion, to no avail.

 

Nobrainer has picked a very suitable name for himself; Maybe Bjarne should change his to Alsonobrainer.

[Nobrainer]

Very funny migL, I do have a hard time with stupidity

And I have done nothing to you, you like to be an ass to people? I will follow your lead.

Edited September 18, 2012 by Nobrainer

[Iggy]

...Way to many holes in this speculation...

Like MigL says, it is the hole in Bjarne's logic that prevents him from accepting that the universe is expanding.

 

No it [general relativity] shows that either it [the universe] must expand or it must collapse.

Do you think an expanding universe and a collapsing universe look identical to an observer in that universe?

No

By your admission you should recognize that there are observations that identify expansion and rule out the only other option -- collapse. It is a straightforward logical truth that the universe expands. It isn't a conspiracy theory.

[Nobrainer]

"In the new paper, the product of nearly two years of work, the team have re-examined all the arguments against the Integrated Sachs Wolfe detection as well as improving the maps used in the original work. In their painstaking analysis, they conclude that there is a 99.996 per cent chance that dark energy is responsible for the hotter parts of the cosmic microwave background maps (or the same level of significance as the recent discovery of the Higgs boson).

"This work also tells us about possible modifications to Einstein's theory of General Relativity," notes Tommaso Giannantonio, lead author of the present study.

"The next generation of cosmic microwave background and galaxy surveys should provide the definitive measurement, either confirming general relativity, including dark energy, or even more intriguingly, demanding a completely new understanding of how gravity works."-science daily

 

I have come up with a new and easy understanding of how gravity works. Gravity is an emitted wave synchronizing reaction as wavefronts form. Time, space and gravity are by-products of mass and energy decay.

Edited September 19, 2012 by Nobrainer

[Bjarne]

Like MigL says, it is the hole in Bjarne's logic that prevents him from accepting that the universe is expanding.

 

By your admission you should recognize that there are observations that identify expansion and rule out the only other option -- collapse. It is a straightforward logical truth that the universe expands. It isn't a conspiracy theory.

 

Where are the evidence ?

I cannot prove Oxygen is blue , and I also don't believe it is ?

You will have a hard time to convince me, if you would try.

Edited September 19, 2012 by Bjarne

[Nobrainer]

Did you read my post- I gave you the article- 3 posts back

[MigL]

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.

 

 

[Nobrainer]

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.

You are making two assumptions that are not correct I believe. You believe that Gravity is a direct attractive force and dark energy is a repulsive force. There is another possibility that erases that thinking and replaces it with one process which includes wave emission and wave synchronization. For example; if two balls of yarn represent mass and the strings that can unwind represent the gravitational wave given off of mass and those strings constructively interfere then if you walk away from the balls of yarn holding both strings you will notice two actions

1). The balls of yarn travel towards you at an increasing acceleration until they match your speed which is when they are all string.

 

2). The second action is they move towards each other as they are increasing there acceleration. This is gravity. Gravity and dark energy or your attractive and repulsive forces are actually one process with wave interactions.

 

Now this concept happens to fit every observation and experiment and it clarifies GR and fits with the standard model.

 

Ps MIgL - the no brain comment seems very stupid now does it not? Denial becomes u too

[MigL]

No actually it does not seem stupid at all, and I'm not denying anything.

Gravity, as accounted for by GR, can display both attraction AND repulsion depending on pressure due to vacuum energy.

There is no need to complicate matters with your theory.

Edited September 20, 2012 by MigL

[Nobrainer]

I disagree because it doesn't explain something as simple as time moves In a forward direction

 

I assume you understand the limitations of General relativity such as it doesn't account for the actions of dark matter or an "increasingly" accelerating universe, or inflation ( it may not rule it put but it doesn't account of it)

Black hole evaporation, the reasons behind entropy, the beginning time at the big bang, the relation with quantum theory, quantum entanglement,,, and on and on... proton decay... The true reasons behind local laws and spooky action at a distance.

So by extrapolating the results of the 1993 Nobel prize research in Physics.

1). There is gravitational energy loss with everything which is the aether itself.

2). When mass and energy decay into waves, as predicted by the Huygens principle, there is a reaction to wavefront formation and that reaction is gravity.

 

Now, only one process explains everything in three dimensions agreeing with the principles of general relativity and the standard model, combining all unknown, previously unknown, actions by demonstrating wave theory is a contact force theory using Newtonian mechanics and you call that more complicated? Get real, the only other current option is M theory with 10 spactially configured dimensions.

 

I hope you realize that you can never dissect, physically, three dimensions onto anything other than three dimensions not one, not two and certainly not 6-10 dimensions. No matter how small a substance, if it exists it may have a directional force but always exists as mass or energy.

 

If I could demonstrate an unknown mechanism of force, a reaction to wavefront formation, actual physical evidence, the put up or shut up example, would that get you thinking?

 

Remember, Einstein was quoted as saying he did not know the true mechanism of gravitation but he thought it had something to do with electromagnetism. As Einstein opened up Newtonian mechanics and fine tuned it mathematically, I am just fine tuning the mechanism of how the universe works conceptually. Recently, two physicists have taken General Relativity and added a field that accounts for dark matter and energy, I am just explaining the mechanism that makes it possible.it is nothing fancy,

Edited September 21, 2012 by Nobrainer