Expansion, Light, Redshift and Dark Energy

[Prophet12]

The current hot topic Dark Energy and Dark Matter has several explainations and stated evidence/effects, namely the assistance in the expansion of the universe of viewable cosmos/matter. One of the latest research findings is that not only is the universe expanding, but expansion is accelerating.

 

Some of the expansion evidence is provided from the detection of redshift, Dark energy mapping etc which is all reliant on light-measurement etc.

 

Paul Marnet published research in spring 2000 titled Discovery of H2 in Space Explains Dark Matter and Redshift http://www.newtonphysics.on.ca/hydrogen/

where he states: ' The recent discovery of an enormous quantity of molecular hydrogen not only solves the problem of missing mass; it also solves the problem of the redshift, in a non-expanding unlimited universe. The Doppler interpretation of the redshift is a variation of the Creationist theory, since it claims that the universe was created from nothing, 15 billion years ago, with a sudden Big Bang. Since a much larger amount of molecular hydrogen than previously admitted has been observed in the universe, we can now see how this hydrogen is responsible for the redshift observed. That molecular hydrogen is responsible for the redshift which is erroneously believed to have a cosmological Doppler origin.

 

It is unfortunate that the existence of H2 has been ignored for so long. As noted by one of the recent discoverers, E.A. Valentijn, the missing mass problem might never have arisen if the Infrared Space Observatory results (or predictions of H2) had been known earlier. It is also true that the problem would not have arisen, if the arguments presented by this author and others for the necessary presence of H, had been heeded.'

 

And there have been other research that doubts the 'evidence' about redshift and Dark Matter or Dark Energy.

 

This forum topic is open for discussion regarding Dark Matter/Energy and more specifically Redshift, light measurements, relativity and all their implications on expansion in the universe.

[ACG52]

Paul Marmet's main area of expertise is atomic physics. His proposed explanation for the redshift/distance relation is based on interactions of photons with the inter-galactic medium. Such interactions should result in some angular dispersion, with a consequent blurring of distant objects. No such blurring is observed and most scientists consider that a falsification of the model.

[EdEarl]

The hypothesis proposed by Paul Marnet is one of many, and each one either has been, is being, or will be tested. The following quote from Wikipedia explains a test of the Marnet hypothesis and why it does not appear to be a complete explanation of DM.

 

In 2005, astronomers from Cardiff University claimed to have discovered a galaxy made almost entirely of dark matter, 50 million light years away in the Virgo Cluster, which was named VIRGOHI21.^[34] Unusually, VIRGOHI21 does not appear to contain any visible stars: it was seen with radio frequency observations of hydrogen. Based on rotation profiles, the scientists estimate that this object contains approximately 1000 times more dark matter than hydrogen and has a total mass of about 1/10 that of the Milky Way Galaxy we live in. For comparison, the Milky Way is estimated to have roughly 10 times as much dark matter as ordinary matter. Models of the Big Bang and structure formation have suggested that such dark galaxies should be very common in the universe^{[citation needed]}, but none had previously been detected. If the existence of this dark galaxy is confirmed, it provides strong evidence for the theory of galaxy formation and poses problems for alternative explanations of dark matter.

Edited July 3, 2013 by EdEarl

[ACG52]

It is also worthy of note that Marmet's paper is 13 years old, and there's been no subsequent validation.

[Prophet12]

Thanks. Explain more of what you understand of how redshift maybe misleading or unreliable from being effected by anything even Dark Matter/Energy. Dark energy is commonly now referred to in explanation of the universe expansion.... Is there evidence of the Dark E/M having effects on redshift/light measurements?

[ACG52]

Thanks. Explain more of what you understand of how redshift maybe misleading or unreliable from being effected by anything even Dark Matter/Energy. Dark energy is commonly now referred to in explanation of the universe expansion.... Is there evidence of the Dark E/M having effects on redshift/light measurements?

First of all, Dark Energy and Dark Matter are two totally different things. The only thing they have in common is the word Dark. It's a case of poor naming.

 

Now the way you've phrased your request presupposes the answer you want. This is typical of you. You want to know how redshift is misleading or unreliable. It's not. The only effect Dark Matter has on light is gravitationally. It does not interact with the EM spectrum, which is why it's called Dark. We see the effect of DM in gravitational lensing. It does NOT effect the cosmological redshift.

 

Dark energy increases the rate of cosmological expansion, and so we see an increase in the redshift, but this is not attributable to the DE, but to the increase in the expansion rate.

[EdEarl]

Thanks. Explain more of what you understand of how redshift maybe misleading or unreliable from being effected by anything even Dark Matter/Energy. Dark energy is commonly now referred to in explanation of the universe expansion.... Is there evidence of the Dark E/M having effects on redshift/light measurements?

I agree with AGC's post #6.

[Prophet12]

First of all, Dark Energy and Dark Matter are two totally different things. The only thing they have in common is the word Dark. It's a case of poor naming.

 

Now the way you've phrased your request presupposes the answer you want. This is typical of you. You want to know how redshift is misleading or unreliable. It's not. The only effect Dark Matter has on light is gravitationally. It does not interact with the EM spectrum, which is why it's called Dark. We see the effect of DM in gravitational lensing. It does NOT effect the cosmological redshift.

 

Dark energy increases the rate of cosmological expansion, and so we see an increase in the redshift, but this is not attributable to the DE, but to the increase in the expansion rate.

Appreciate the comments from both of you-

 

Typical? Lol, yes, but the average man thinks he is not.

 

Your observation should not prevent advancing the topic i hope. The Dark Energy referenced for expansion is what in your best guess/definition. Is it possible its similar to virgoH121 dark galaxies or a spread out version(s) of dark matter exerting dark energy explanations? Isn't dark energy simply a kind of gravity without an observable mass? Could black holes without any viewable matter cause dark energy or similar effects of it?

AGC52-

 

Pls explain these stmts 1- The only effect Dark Matter has on light is gravitationally. 2-Dark energy increases the rate of cosmological expansion, 3-First of all, Dark Energy and Dark Matter are two totally different things. The only thing they have in common is the word Dark. It's a case of poor naming.

 

From those three stmt can someone conclude perhaps both exert something common or gravitational effects from both?

[EdEarl]

Gravity and energy are in some ways opposite. Gravity holds us to the earth, we must use powerful rocket engines to escape gravity. These engines use lots of energy to overcome gravity. Thus, DE is not DM and black holes which have have immense gravity are not a reasonable explanation for DE.

 

At the moment, no one can explain much about DE. However, that is not unusual, we really cannot explain what energy or mass are. We can describe their observable effects, and since everyone is held to the Earth by gravity and can feel the heat of a fire, people have some concept of gravity and energy.

[ACG52]

Again, Dark Energy and Dark Matter have nothing in common. They are two completely different things.

 

My best guess for Dark Energy is it's the false vacuum of the Inflaton field which drove the initial burst of expansion. In Guth's and Linde's Inflation theory the Inflaton field generated the negative pressure driving the initial expansion, and when the field dropped to zero inflation slowed down, coasting from the initial impetus, but steadily slowing. If however the field didn't drop all the way to zero, it would still be generating negative pressure. As the universe expands, the gravitational density drops as matter spreads out in the expanding space. When the gravitational density dropped to the point where the remaining false vacuum was greater (six billion years ago), expansion began to accelerate.

 

But I'm NOT an astrophysicist, and this is just my guess as an educated layman.

 

Dark Matter is something completely different. Dark matter is a form of something which produces gravity, but does not interact with the electromagnetic spectrum, and thus cannot be seen and does not interact with normal matter. It does produce gravity, and can effect light in that way. We see gravitational lensing when we observe distant galaxies. We also know, from the orbital velocity of stars in the spiral arms that this gravity producing whatever is spread evenly throughout the galaxies in a sort of permeating halo. Because it doesn't interact electromagneticaly, there's nothing to cause it to clump together like regular matter does.

[krash661]

i'm just curious as to what ever happened to this snell guy.

 

i notice this attempt is not used anymore,

 

weird.

[Prophet12]

Again, Dark Energy and Dark Matter have nothing in common. They are two completely different things.

 

My best guess for Dark Energy is it's the false vacuum of the Inflaton field which drove the initial burst of expansion. In Guth's and Linde's Inflation theory the Inflaton field generated the negative pressure driving the initial expansion, and when the field dropped to zero inflation slowed down, coasting from the initial impetus, but steadily slowing. If however the field didn't drop all the way to zero, it would still be generating negative pressure. As the universe expands, the gravitational density drops as matter spreads out in the expanding space. When the gravitational density dropped to the point where the remaining false vacuum was greater (six billion years ago), expansion began to accelerate.

 

But I'm NOT an astrophysicist, and this is just my guess as an educated layman.

 

Dark Matter is something completely different. Dark matter is a form of something which produces gravity, but does not interact with the electromagnetic spectrum, and thus cannot be seen and does not interact with normal matter. It does produce gravity, and can effect light in that way. We see gravitational lensing when we observe distant galaxies. We also know, from the orbital velocity of stars in the spiral arms that this gravity producing whatever is spread evenly throughout the galaxies in a sort of permeating halo. Because it doesn't interact electromagneticaly, there's nothing to cause it to clump together like regular matter does.

Interested in how u explain the slowing of expansion until the density was low enough to then a start of expansion accelerating. The density of the universe expanding mass sphere should have some place, from its center point out to the rim of the expansion, that the density and therefore gravity of the mass in the sphere s/b greater than or great enough to cause a rift between those slowed and possibly contracting verses those dispersed enough to allow Dark energy to cause it acceleration of expansion again. Pls comment.

 

Second, if whats described fits, would those closer to the Dark energy accelerate expansion faster than those further into the universe mass sphere? Is that what is happening or is it all uniform expansion or reversed? Pls comment.

[ACG52]

Interested in how u explain the slowing of expansion until the density was low enough to then a start of expansion accelerating. The density of the universe expanding mass sphere should have some place, from its center point out to the rim of the expansion, that the density and therefore gravity of the mass in the sphere s/b greater than or great enough to cause a rift between those slowed and possibly contracting verses those dispersed enough to allow Dark energy to cause it acceleration of expansion again. Pls comment.

 

Second, if whats described fits, would those closer to the Dark energy accelerate expansion faster than those further into the universe mass sphere? Is that what is happening or is it all uniform expansion or reversed? Pls comment.

There is no center point of the universe. There is no rim of the universe. The universe is not an expanding three dimensional sphere as you seem to believe it is.

 

Further, Dark Energy is evenly distributed through out the universe, so there's nothing 'closer to the Dark energy'.

Edited July 3, 2013 by ACG52

[Prophet12]

There is no center point of the universe. There is no rim of the universe. The universe is not an expanding three dimensional sphere as you seem to believe it is.

 

Further, Dark Energy is evenly distributed through out the universe, so there's nothing 'closer to the Dark energy'.

Perhaps its not a sphere but regardless wouldnt the same effects or questions be pertinant to what dark energy does regarding expansion? Pls comment

 

For latest shape see (http://map.gsfc.nasa.gov/universe/uni_shape.html)

 

Also, if you would, comment on what shape you believe it is. If its flat, decribe how expansion in every direction is/can be justified in a flat universe.

 

Pls describe how the 'viewable sphere' as a portion of the whole universe fits within the whole.

 

And if it is not a sphere, how can evenly distributed DE be not effecting matter in all directions, essentially canceling out its effects on matter because of even distribution. Pls comment

 

Thanks

[ACG52]

"Flat" does not describe the shape of the universe, it describes the balance between gravity and expansion. The wmap findings show that the universe is very close to flat, meaning that gravity will never overcome expansion causing the universe to contract. No contracting universe.

 

No one really knows what the physical shape is, perhaps the universe is the surface of a 4 dimensional hypersphere.

 

The 'visible' universe is a sphere 48 billion lys in radius, but that just means we look in every direction and so observe in a sphere, and that's how far the comoving universe has expanded in the last 13.8 billion years.

 

Evenly distributed DE does effect matter in all directions, but only outside the gravitational bounds that hold galaxies together, at about 200 million lys.

 

This has all been told to you several times.

Edited July 3, 2013 by ACG52

[Prophet12]

"Flat" does not describe the shape of the universe, it describes the balance between gravity and expansion. The wmap findings show that the universe is very close to flat, meaning that gravity will never overcome expansion causing the universe to contract. No contracting universe.

 

No one really knows what the physical shape is, perhaps the universe is the surface of a 4 dimensional hypersphere.

 

The 'visible' universe is a sphere 48 billion lys in radius, but that just means we look in every direction and so observe in a sphere, and that's how far the comoving universe has expanded in the last 13.8 billion years.

 

Evenly distributed DE does effect matter in all directions, but only outside the gravitational bounds that hold galaxies together, at about 200 million lys.

 

This has all been told to you several times.

First the 200mil ly comment i recognize as a repeat answer, the rest is diff material.

 

Please review the previous link on geometry shape of the universe the explain how your stmt of not flat differs from their 'flat' like a piece of paper.

 

I will return later, have guests and outing to attend to.

 

Thanks again

[ACG52]

I suggest that you actually read the article, instead of just looking at pictures.

 

 

 

The density of the universe also determines its geometry. If the density of the universe exceeds the critical density, then the geometry of space is closed and positively curved like the surface of a sphere. This implies that initially parallel photon paths converge slowly, eventually cross, and return back to their starting point (if the universe lasts long enough). If the density of the universe is less than the critical density, then the geometry of space is open (infinite), and negatively curved like the surface of a saddle. If the density of the universe exactly equals the critical density, then the geometry of the universe is flat like a sheet of paper, and infinite in extent.

They're not talking about the SHAPE of the universe, they're talking about the GEOMETRY.

[Prophet12]

Agc52- in attempt to repeat what you are saying: the 'flat' relates to the geometry of the universe, that the 3D shape is diff/unknown, you suggest perhaps its a 4D hypersphere. I dont like skipping steps to hypothisis. Think about it shape and folow up with that matter as you will.

 

New approach on application of agc52 super group bound by gravity.

 

Consider this please: if we accept agc52 description of super galactic groups of galaxies/matter expansing away from each other; and therefore, because we can not observe any fixed center or rim (may have none), we say we are expanding away from each other. (side note super groups with ly limits to gravity etc have issues here; thats addressed later if need be)

 

Excellent, we have found/understand the 'rift' between contraction and expansion; expansion in the physical world that we observe presently. This 'rift' has particular significance.

 

Now, please consider this. If we accept the observations we have so far, contraction in super groups moving apart, and we cant see any center or rim (simple-assume none seen) of the universe but we can see center and rim of super groups, is it plausible that instead of 1-the supergroups being flung out into space/expansion by an unknown/DE in accelerated expansion, that it maybe,

 

2- That the super groups are accelerating into contraction in a spiral at diff rates ( giving the expansion-effects).

 

Think on it, offer comments pro or con. Think of ways to test it or predictions that might follow.

 

A interesting way to test this perhaps is: because these super groups if in a spiral contraction mode, if they are isolated by groups, should have a perceived diff shift on one side to the other; the side towards gravity center (spiral inside) should show signs diff than on other side (outside); and perhaps eventually a flattening of supergroup and universe. And if the super group is on axis And rotating the sides should be shift-changing in relation to each other or gravity/spiral center as some observed over time/rotation. Some may not rotate, and have consistant one side diff than other.

 

Possible evidence is light/gravity/observation shift on side verses side of these super groups.

 

comment on the super group of agc52 and how a different 'perspective' may present-explain the observation(s).

 

Thanks

[ACG52]

 

 

Excellent, we have found/understand the 'rift' between contraction and expansion; expansion in the physical world that we observe presently. This 'rift' has particular significance.

 

There is no rift. There is NO CONTRACTION. This is the same nonsense you raised in the other thread, and which you were specifically told not to raise again.

 

 

 

If we accept the observations we have so far, contraction in super groups moving apart

There are NO observations of any contraction. Stop lying.

 

Your questions in the previous posts in this thread were simply a set up so you could try to raise your nonsensical ideas again.

 

You've paid no attention to anything you were told, so there's no point in trying to provide any information. Information is an anathema to you.

[Prophet12]

 

There is no rift. There is NO CONTRACTION. This is the same nonsense you raised in the other thread, and which you were specifically told not to raise again.

 

There are NO observations of any contraction. Stop lying.

 

Your questions in the previous posts in this thread were simply a set up so you could try to raise your nonsensical ideas again.

 

You've paid no attention to anything you were told, so there's no point in trying to provide any information. Information is an anathema to you.

Ok, i know what you say, simple. now prove it. The rift as explained is anywhere that contraction events and expansion events exists in same area. By definition you say these super groups are bound by gravity, gravity binding them beyond the force (DE...?) that trys to expand them from one another. The parimerer of the super group (your description) between/out to the parimeter of the next super group, is what is expanding ( according to you these super groups are like bubbles floating away from each other) and i say the super groups are contracting because its self evident as in black holes, galaxies colliding and you say bound by gravity....

 

Im simply stating what you claim about super groups being bound and the expansion you explain to help you understand either or, cant have observed contraction with expansion and no differences from the two physical and effects.

 

Atty/teaching experience might question you enough to either help you understand, or make you mad because you refuse or fail to effect at all. Your choice.

[ACG52]

 

 

and i say the super groups are contracting because its self evident as in black holes

There is no observational evidence of any contraction.

 

You simply ignore this, and assert that contraction happens because it is 'self evident as in black holes'. Black holes do not contract, and objects in orbit around them do not contract.

 

There's no observational evidence in support of your position, and there is a great deal of observational evidence against your position.

 

There is no theoretical basis supporting your position, and there is a great deal of theoretical basis against your position.

 

You have supplied no evidence in support of your position, either calculated or observational. You simply make statements.

 

Your position is that of a crank.

Edited July 4, 2013 by ACG52

[Prophet12]

There is no observational evidence of any contraction.

 

You simply ignore this, and assert that contraction happens because it is 'self evident as in black holes'. Black holes do not contract, and objects in orbit around them do not contract.

 

There's no observational evidence in support of your position, and there is a great deal of observational evidence against your position.

 

There is no theoretical basis supporting your position, and there is a great deal of theoretical basis against your position.

 

You have supplied no evidence in support of your position, either calculated or observational. You simply make statements.

 

Your position is that of a crank.

When you start that kind of talk it serves no good; and it reflects the evidence your character. Nuff said

 

Your notions about no contraction is contrary to evidence, yiur own explainations of using 'bound' and any definition of black holes etc 'collapsing' , objects 'falling into' so dense nothing escapes, it starts with a mass imploding to form a denser mass, galaxies have them at the centers etc; the contraction is obvious see link : http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_hole

for reasonable description.

 

Until you can admit some contraction observations exits in a galaxy and therefore the universe, you will never understand the rift etc.

 

Is there any contraction in the viewable sphere according to you?

[ACG52]

This has now turned into the thread you were warned not to re-open.

 

I know from history that there is no point in carrying on any further dialogue.

[Prophet12]

This has now turned into the thread you were warned not to re-open.

 

I know from history that there is no point in carrying on any further dialogue.

Cant support your arguement or you refuse to admit even the obvious, typical; now blame someone else for quiting.... Bye

 

Thought so; try and think past the grey between black and white. mean while i will ask the questions that further confuse the confused, to make the evidence unavoidable to advance science.

[hypervalent_iodine]

!

Moderator Note

Prophet12,

You were told not to reintroduce your topic/ideas about a contracting universe. Thread closed.