Champagne bubble cosmology vs Big Bang (split)

[Alan McDougall]

"Flat" vs "spherical" is not a comparison being made. This is not a discussion of whether the universe is spherical or pancake-shaped. As I said earlier, "flat" refers to the underlying geometry, i.e it can be described with Euclidean geometry. A sphere can be described with Euclidean geometry. So our universe can be both spherical and flat.

 

The problem with the bubble model, again, is that you have different parts of the universe being created at different times. This needs to match up with experimental observation, so you need some sort of specific prediction, something you can measure, that would confirm this. What is it?

 

 

If this is a question about the big bang model and the current state of cosmology, I would suggest you learn the answers to these and other questions before critiquing the theory, and suggesting new models. No, we are not expanding into some other medium. There is no "outside" to the universe.

 

 

Seriously?

 

The paradigms are on par? Why, exactly? because you say so? Can I go out and read about the champagne bubble model of the universe in science articles and textbooks, because it is on par with the big bang?

 

You don't need any predictions? Why, exactly? Because you say so? You have some secret authority to skirt the protocols of science?

 

It's a fact (and an exact one at that)? Why, exactly? Because you say so?

 

 

 

 

Again: seriously?

 

You quoted

 

"If this is a question about the big bang model and the current state of cosmology, I would suggest you learn the answers to these and other questions before critiquing the theory, and suggesting new models. No, we are not expanding into some other medium. There is no "outside" to the universe."

 

I was not critiquing the Big Bang theory, you misunderstood what I was saying, it is the best theory at present?

 

However, your statement that there is no "outside" is not factual "no one knows whether there is an outside or not", that is the only factual statement we can make at this time, with any surety!

What lies beyond the edge of the observable universe?

http://www.fromquarkstoquasars.com/what-lies-beyond-the-edge-of-the-observable-universe/

 

Roughly 13.75 billion years ago, our universe came into existence. Very shortly thereafter, primordial light started shooting across the cosmos and spreading throughout the early universe. At this juncture, the universe itself was also expanding. The inflation of the universe slowed after the first initial burst, but since then, the rate of expansion has been steadily increasing due to the influence of dark energy.

 

Essentially, since its inception, the cosmos has been growing at an ever increasing rate. Cosmologists estimate that the oldest photons that we can observe have traveled a distance of 45 billion light years since the big bang. That means that our observable universe is some 90 billion light years wide (give or take a few light years). These 90 billion light years contain all of the quarks, quasars, stars, planets, nebulae, black holes…and everything else that we could possibly observe. But the observable universe only contains the light that has had time to reach us. A lot more universe exists beyond what we are able to observe.

 

That’s a lot of universe that we are missing. So, what *exactly* are we missing? What lies beyond the edge of what we can’t see? Since we can’t see it or measure it, we don’t know what lies beyond the bounds of the observable universe. However, we have several theories regarding what exists in the great unknown…

Despite its strangeness, this first theory is one of the easiest to digest. Astronomers think space outside of the observable universe might be an infinite expanse of what we see in the cosmos around us distributed pretty much the same as it is in the observable universe

Edited January 18, 2014 by Alan McDougall

[swansont]

You quoted

 

"If this is a question about the big bang model and the current state of cosmology, I would suggest you learn the answers to these and other questions before critiquing the theory, and suggesting new models. No, we are not expanding into some other medium. There is no "outside" to the universe."

 

I was not critiquing the Big Bang theory, you misunderstood what I was saying, it is the best theory at present?

Advancing an alternative is a critique of the currently accepted model.

 

However, your statement that there is no "outside" is not factual "no one knows whether there is an outside or not", that is the only factual statement we can make at this time, with any surety!

What lies beyond the edge of the observable universe?

http://www.fromquarkstoquasars.com/what-lies-beyond-the-edge-of-the-observable-universe/

You didn't say observable universe, you said universe. They aren't the same thing. This kinda reinforces my point.

Seriously? Yes. You can read it in your own books on the subject. In effect I've nicked all your observations and mathematics, and provide an other way of looking at it without infringing on them. (= a true paradigm on par)

But that's not what you've done. You've offered an analogy that doesn't match observation, which I've been trying to point out.

 

Although I then don't and the other does have mathematical testable predictions really doesn't come into play. I don't extrapolate just compare to what is observed. (Although I can of course provide testable predictions without the mathematics as yet. As said not my job to do that.)

Actually, it is. You offer up a theory, you have to back it up.

 

 

The protocols of science must adhere to the fundamental rule of Occams razor i.e. the Lex Parsimony. In that comparison my bubbles are on par with your big bang yet more simple. Occam then rules what is the only valid view in science, which you can read in this thread. And that goes before you start off doing any sort of extrapolation or prediction. The protocol of science depicted in the Lex parsimony dictates this as the ground work to be done before doing that.

Simpler can only be applied if the model correctly matches what is observed. You can only apply Occam after you have established the model as matching observation, not before.

[michel123456]

(...)

 

The problem with the bubble model, again, is that you have different parts of the universe being created at different times. This needs to match up with experimental observation, so you need some sort of specific prediction, something you can measure, that would confirm this. What is it?

 

(...)

No, the bubble analogy is just an analogy, it is not a model. In the analogy, the bubbles have to begin at different times in order to create the delay.

In the model, all objects are created at the same time. All objects have the same acceleration and all objects travel on a parallel path. The delay is observational and is caused by the constancy of SOL.

It means that an object observed at 100LY distance travels at velocity less than us when it was 100 Years ago (that is exactly a function of the distance).

Also, there are no bubbles in front of us because we cannot observe the future, the only "bubbles" that we can observe are in the past, and all those "bubbles" are delayed in direct function of the distance.

[md65536]

In general it's an area, and one can view gravitational field strength in terms of flux line concentration, i.e. number of flux lines per unit area, which has a fairly simple geometric explanation.

And the surface area of a sphere is proportional to r squared, so I'm guessing that the simple geometric explanation is that the total number of flux lines is constant through spheres at any distance from a gravitational mass, just that the concentration is lower farther out as the flux lines are spread out over a larger spherical area?

I'd say, based on the evidence, that most astrophysicists support the idea of a flat observable universe. Again whether the entire universe beyond what we can see is flat is an open question.

 

For example, in his book, A Universe from Nothing, Lawrence Krauss proposes that the entire universe may be positive curvature -- a closed universe. He says a closed universe has a total energy of zero, hence "a universe from nothing". Inflation expanded this closed universe exponentially, so what we observe in our tiny part of the universe today is nearly zero curvature or flat.

 

Krauss says he based this idea on quantum gravity theory, which, as far as I know, has no supporting evidence. So I think his idea of a universe from nothing remains speculation.

Yes, but it is consistent with measurements; so is a flat universe. New measurements that agree with flatness just put constraints on how big the universe must be or how little curvature it may have, but so far haven't ruled out a closed universe.

 

As you mentioned with your ant analogy, sufficiently small and imprecise measurements of our curved Earth are also consistent with a flat Earth. We could measure an anthill-sized area and say "measurements are consistent with a flat Earth", or we could measure a continent-sized area on a flat surface and say the same thing, or we could measure a continent-sized area on the surface of VY Canis Majoris and say the same thing. How do we know how the observable universe compares in size to the whole universe?

 

 

I don't know if this is a problem for anyone, but just to be sure: This isn't a question of whether there is spacetime curvature or not, just (I think) whether or not there is on the largest of scales. As an analogy, you can ask "Is the Earth curved or flat?" and "Is the surface smooth or are there mountains?" as separate questions. In the analogy we know there are mountains (spacetime curvature corresponding with gravitational mass), but that's not inconsistent with a flat universe.

Edited January 19, 2014 by md65536

[swansont]

No, the bubble analogy is just an analogy, it is not a model. In the analogy, the bubbles have to begin at different times in order to create the delay.

In the model, all objects are created at the same time. All objects have the same acceleration and all objects travel on a parallel path. The delay is observational and is caused by the constancy of SOL.

 

Then it's a really bad analogy, isn't it?

 

Why would you have different accelerations if the objects are created at the same time and place?

And the surface area of a sphere is proportional to r squared, so I'm guessing that the simple geometric explanation is that the total number of flux lines is constant through spheres at any distance from a gravitational mass, just that the concentration is lower farther out as the flux lines are spread out over a larger spherical area?

Yes.

[michel123456]

Then it's a really bad analogy, isn't it?

 

Why would you have different accelerations if the objects are created at the same time and place?

There are no different accelerations, there is a same acceleration "a" at different times which means different velocities.

 

Acceleration means for example

T=1, v=1

T=2, v=2

T=3, v=3

T=4, v=4

Where v=4>v=3>v=2>v=1

Where velocity is a direct function of time (it is a single acceleration value a)

Where time is direct function of distance. The farthest the object in space the farthest in time.

 

Say you are an observer at T=4 and look around you.

Everything you observe is in time less than you because you observe objects in the past: you look at T3, T2, T1

So you are observing

Object 3 at T3 with velocity v=3 (it is the closest object)

Object 2 at T2 with velocity v=2

Object 1 at T1 with velocity v=1 (it is the farthest object)

 

You are observing all objects receding from you at a faster rate that corresponds to distance. Like Hubble's law.

Edited January 19, 2014 by michel123456

[kristalris]

There are no different accelerations, there is a same acceleration "a" at different times which means different velocities.

 

Acceleration means for example

T=1, v=1

T=2, v=2

T=3, v=3

T=4, v=4

Where v=4>v=3>v=2>v=1

Where velocity is a direct function of time (it is a single acceleration value a)

Where time is direct function of distance. The farthest the object in space the farthest in time.

 

Say you are an observer at T=4 and look around you.

Everything you observe is in time less than you because you observe objects in the past: you look at T3, T2, T1

So you are observing

Object 3 at T3 with velocity v=3 (it is the closest object)

Object 2 at T2 with velocity v=2

Object 1 at T1 with velocity v=1 (it is the farthest object)

 

You are observing all objects receding from you at a faster rate that corresponds to distance. Like Hubble's law.

Exactly, the only problem with the OP is then that bubbles need also to accelerate at the same rate sideways (= Hubble). That is only feasible if they start off from a curved i.e. dome shape in the "floor" so to speak. This dome must thus have a curvature that fits the needed angular momentum. This then would fit the observed lagging behind of the "bubbles" to our sides that should of started off at the same time. (And when it has all been built up by some basic particles under a mathematical simple set of rules the fact that MN provides us with this illusion of an expanding universe isn't due to chance. I.e. built in from the start.)

 

The bubbles could come about the same way as a CME from the sun. Shooting a galaxy off every now and then (long time) like a slowly swiveling AA gun providing thus a picture like the night sky over Bagdad when the shock and awe bombing attack started, with all the tracers arcing the sky. Yet then tracers as bubbles that keep on accelerating. Thus creating the pillar like structures we readily observe.

 

This is a much more simple and elegant analogy then one with a Big Bang. It is much easier to integrate that into one model then any other way.

 

A mathematical model / models that we BTW already have if you ignore all extrapolations built in to the current models. As one should. First integrate all observations also via analogy and only then make the choice where to extrapolate and / or guess where to look next.

 

(The further analogy that it then thus resembles things we know like a cutaway of earth with a sky a crust, magma and core is then easily spotted. Albeit then as metaphysics.

Not metaphysical is then given bubbles as a fact that this is trough the crust of the Higgs field providing actual mass to the bubble providing thus more momentum and thus having it accelerate trough the crust/ Higss medium = DE. Mass out of medium = under pressure in medium = gravity. The higher v the more mass per time unit => DM.

Medium moving in at same rate as bubbles move out. No beginning no end. Simple integrated analogy picture. Providing thus an easy bases for further integrating it all such as GR & QM in a testable way. Easy to see lot of hard work to do. => quickly puts you in the right direction where to start looking. )

Edited January 19, 2014 by kristalris

[swansont]

There are no different accelerations, there is a same acceleration "a" at different times which means different velocities.

 

 

Why would they accelerate at different times?

[michel123456]

Exactly, the only problem with the OP is then that bubbles need also to accelerate at the same rate sideways (= Hubble). That is only feasible if they start off from a curved i.e. dome shape in the "floor" so to speak. This dome must thus have a curvature that fits the needed angular momentum. This then would fit the observed lagging behind of the "bubbles" to our sides that should of started off at the same time. (And when it has all been built up by some basic particles under a mathematical simple set of rules the fact that MN provides us with this illusion of an expanding universe isn't due to chance. I.e. built in from the start.)

 

The bubbles could come about the same way as a CME from the sun. Shooting a galaxy off every now and then (long time) like a slowly swiveling AA gun providing thus a picture like the night sky over Bagdad when the shock and awe bombing attack started, with all the tracers arcing the sky. Yet then tracers as bubbles that keep on accelerating. Thus creating the pillar like structures we readily observe.

 

This is a much more simple and elegant analogy then one with a Big Bang. It is much easier to integrate that into one model then any other way.

 

A mathematical model / models that we BTW already have if you ignore all extrapolations built in to the current models. As one should. First integrate all observations also via analogy and only then make the choice where to extrapolate and / or guess where to look next.

No, I don't think so.

 

If the delay is caused by distance, you need nothing else.

the only way to have no effect of expansion would be to consider an hypothetical galaxy with a higher velocity than ours, IOW a galaxy from the future. Which we cannot observe.

 

 

Why would they accelerate at different times?

Isn't that what acceleration means?

The suppositions are 2:

 

1. a delay (it is given by SOL)

2. an acceleration.

Edited January 19, 2014 by michel123456

[swansont]

This is a much more simple and elegant analogy then one with a Big Bang. It is much easier to integrate that into one model then any other way.

 

 

Multiple creation events is somehow simpler than one is? By what reckoning is that so?

Isn't that what acceleration means?

The suppositions are 2:

 

1. a delay (it is given by SOL)

2. an acceleration.

 

No, acceleration is simply a change in velocity over some time interval. You are saying that there is a delay in the initiation of the acceleration. It would seem that this would require a continuous creation, but since no model is proposed (just an analogy) it's hard to say. Which is why a model is needed, so one can look at all of the implications and not just focus on one, because to supplant a model you have to explain all that it currently explains, and do something better.

[michel123456]

acceleration is simply a change in velocity over some time interval.

yes.

 

 

You are saying that there is a delay in the initiation of the acceleration.

No.

 

there is a delay in observation.

Edited January 19, 2014 by michel123456

[kristalris]

 

Multiple creation events is somehow simpler than one is? By what reckoning is that so?

 

Because it can be integrated in one picture. It is the only way and thus the simplest way to do so. BTW it is a scientific / neurological fact that our brains can only make head or tales out of anything only via analogies. So the Lex parsimony forces you to first concentrate on integrating all observations that we have and making one picture out of it comparing that to what we already think we know = via analogy. Only then are you allowed to start modeling. Because much of what we have observed is contained in models we already have much of the mathematics on yet to be integrated part issues. Such as the law of Hubble. There are thus two ways of looking at Hubble 1. expansion => extrapolated to impossible to integrate yet even via analogy big bang or 2. bubbles => easily integrated analogy and readily available different mutually at odds with each other models.

 

BTW more smaller bangs per time frame is easier to deal with that one big bang in order to explain the subtleties that we subsequently observe, via one mechanism. A blunt big bang is less elegant in explaining the elegance we observe than champagne bubbles are.

 

Do that differently and predictably your not integrated modeling and extrapolating on part issues will more and more complicate the picture. Making it harder and harder to spot the integrated picture yet indeed acquiring more relevant data in the process. As we have observed the past 100 years with DM, DE et cetera. I.e. complicating in stead of simplifying matters.

No, I don't think so.

 

If the delay is caused by distance, you need nothing else.

the only way to have no effect of expansion would be to consider an hypothetical galaxy with a higher velocity than ours, IOW a galaxy from the future. Which we cannot observe.

 

This I don't understand. Where do your bubbles originate? Every where? And do they subsequently fly in all directions?

 

In my analogy I simply describe exactly that what the model of Hubble as I understand it describes: the further the galaxy is from us (in all directions) the faster it moves away from us.

 

The only observed hiccup / anomaly is that we are not stationary in reference to all galaxies around us. We are moving ahead of the ones next to us. (Edit this is thus not hypothetical but observed. Not having our galaxy accelerating faster than others that started at the same time needs a curved space, that is sufficiently flat as not to infringe the OP observation, yet sufficiently curved to get the angular momentum to fit Hubble) That observation is not only at odds with SR but also with Hubble. If I understand that correctly. It can only be integrated if all bubbles start off from the same dome like floor at different times. That is then consistent with Hubble. That can also be married with SR.

 

Angular momentum also provides the needed / observed acceleration in the way Hubble requires. The further off the more acceleration. And it provides the observed lagging behind. Providing thus the only integrated way to reconcile all observations. Subsequently that shows you where to put your time and effort in further investigating this.

Edited January 19, 2014 by kristalris

[michel123456]

This I don't understand. Where do your bubbles originate? Every where? And do they subsequently fly in all directions?

It is simple.

All objects are on a parallel path, they all move in the same direction.

They all have the same acceleration.

At a time stamp Tx, they all have velocity Vx.

Velocity increases with time (that's the definition of acceleration)

As observers, we are first in the row, because we observe the past. The future is not observable. We are the first bubble in the glass of champagne.

That's it.

As to "where do the bubbles originate", hypotheses non fingo.

[swansont]

There are no different accelerations, there is a same acceleration "a" at different times which means different velocities.

 

Acceleration means for example

T=1, v=1

T=2, v=2

T=3, v=3

T=4, v=4

Where v=4>v=3>v=2>v=1

Where velocity is a direct function of time (it is a single acceleration value a)

Where time is direct function of distance. The farthest the object in space the farthest in time.

 

Say you are an observer at T=4 and look around you.

Everything you observe is in time less than you because you observe objects in the past: you look at T3, T2, T1

So you are observing

Object 3 at T3 with velocity v=3 (it is the closest object)

Object 2 at T2 with velocity v=2

Object 1 at T1 with velocity v=1 (it is the farthest object)

 

You are observing all objects receding from you at a faster rate that corresponds to distance. Like Hubble's law.

This should be fairly easy to calculate. What's the answer?

 

It is simple.

All objects are on a parallel path, they all move in the same direction.

They all have the same acceleration.

At a time stamp Tx, they all have velocity Vx.

Velocity increases with time (that's the definition of acceleration)

As observers, we are first in the row, because we observe the past. The future is not observable. We are the first bubble in the glass of champagne.

That's it.

Parallel path but separated? That doesn't give an increasing separation unless the bubbles form at different times.

 

How does that work in 3-D? How can you have a parallel path for objects moving perpendicular to each other?

 

Because it can be integrated in one picture. It is the only way and thus the simplest way to do so.

Only way? Then why are there all of these other analogies? I don't think you are using "only way" properly.

 

 

BTW it is a scientific / neurological fact that our brains can only make head or tales out of anything only via analogies.

I call BS on this. You have no cite, of course, but it fails logically. If true, the analogy can the only be understood via anther analogy, and so on. Your claim requires turtles all the way down.

 

So the Lex parsimony forces you to first concentrate on integrating all observations that we have and making one picture out of it comparing that to what we already think we know = via analogy. Only then are you allowed to start modeling. Because much of what we have observed is contained in models we already have much of the mathematics on yet to be integrated part issues. Such as the law of Hubble. There are thus two ways of looking at Hubble 1. expansion => extrapolated to impossible to integrate yet even via analogy big bang or 2. bubbles => easily integrated analogy and readily available different mutually at odds with each other models.

 

BTW more smaller bangs per time frame is easier to deal with that one big bang in order to explain the subtleties that we subsequently observe, via one mechanism. A blunt big bang is less elegant in explaining the elegance we observe than champagne bubbles are.

You have no mechanism. You have an analogy. (And you have two people offering it that can't agree on the details. tell me again how simple and elegant it is)

 

Do that differently and predictably your not integrated modeling and extrapolating on part issues will more and more complicate the picture. Making it harder and harder to spot the integrated picture yet indeed acquiring more relevant data in the process. As we have observed the past 100 years with DM, DE et cetera. I.e. complicating in stead of simplifying matters.

We're not done yet. Too soon to make any observation about complicating vs simplifying.

[Sensei]

Yes. The right question is:

What is distance?

 

d = sqrt( ( x1- x0)^2 + ( y1-y0)^2 + ( z1-z0)^2 ) in 3 dimensions.

 

d = sqrt( ( x1- x0)^2 + ( y1-y0)^2 ) in 2 dimensions.

[michel123456]

This should be fairly easy to calculate. What's the answer?

Observed velocity is a direct function of distance:

V=kd

Where k is a constant.

 

 

Parallel path but separated? That doesn't give an increasing separation unless the bubbles form at different times.

It is a cosmological question not very different that the statement that the Big Bang happened "everywhere". It consists in accepting that everything was created at the place where it is today, and in the same state of motion. The only difference here is that the state of motion is an accelerated one. The fact that galaxies are separated is not different from the existing paradigm.

 

How does that work in 3-D? How can you have a parallel path for objects moving perpendicular to each other?

3D is not enough. Not even 4D (a video of a 3d model in motion) because you cannot render the fact that there is a delay in observation (that we are observing things in the past). The only available tool is mathematics.

------------

(edit)

I tried several times to work with a Minkoswski diagram but the result is not obvious at all.

Edited January 19, 2014 by michel123456

[kristalris]

It is strange to see the apatite for the bizarre in stead of simple common sense.

 

If we are the first bubble not being able to look into the future then I wonder why when we are in our bubble i.e. galaxy that we can interact with the past creating our future?. I..e like an international phone call via an old ocean cable. I speak to you after a while you receive my info you react to it and later I react on that. If we are the first bubble as a galaxy such an interaction with other older and younger galaxies wouldn't be possible.

 

On the way our brain works: there was a brilliant BBC documentary years ago with psychiatrist neurologist Oliver Sacks (can't find it any more) where he talked about a born blind patient that had received successful eye treatment yet couldn't see. So Sacks was asked to see what was wrong. He took the guy to the zoo and said look a gorilla. He saw nothing. Then he let him feel around a bronze gorilla for the blind. This he was used to. As soon as he got that analogy he spotted the gorilla in the cage and soon after that trees, Sachs etc..

 

At the moment there are also nice documentaries that show how our brain is tricked by illusionists. Our brain corrects the input with the wrong analogy. Which of course usually works out well correcting what we see, towards what actually is.

[michel123456]

It is strange to see the apatite for the bizarre in stead of simple common sense.

 

If we are the first bubble not being able to look into the future then I wonder why when we are in our bubble i.e. galaxy that we can interact with the past creating our future?. I..e like an international phone call via an old ocean cable. I speak to you after a while you receive my info you react to it and later I react on that. If we are the first bubble as a galaxy such an interaction with other older and younger galaxies wouldn't be possible.

 

On the way our brain works: there was a brilliant BBC documentary years ago with psychiatrist neurologist Oliver Sacks (can't find it any more) where he talked about a born blind patient that had received successful eye treatment yet couldn't see. So Sacks was asked to see what was wrong. He took the guy to the zoo and said look a gorilla. He saw nothing. Then he let him feel around a bronze gorilla for the blind. This he was used to. As soon as he got that analogy he spotted the gorilla in the cage and soon after that trees, Sachs etc..

 

At the moment there are also nice documentaries that show how our brain is tricked by illusionists. Our brain corrects the input with the wrong analogy. Which of course usually works out well correcting what we see, towards what actually is.

What does common sense say to you? That you can communicate with the future? That the future is observable?

[kristalris]

What does common sense say to you? That you can communicate with the future? That the future is observable?

It indeed says that you can't observe the future. Yet you can influence the future. And, when I'm the first bubble I can only influence the past, which is impossible. Because how does then what happened in the past catch up with me? I even accelerate away from that. So I need to trow something ahead of the bubble that comes back at me after having been changed by something after I threw it.

 

Edit: the problem lies in the concept of relativity and the fact that it works so miraculously well - in certain areas- but not in others. GR and QM not being married.

 

Time IMO is a convention and is thus what the clock you use reads. Time doesn't stop when you drop a sand clock. Nor does it slow down by accelerating an atom clock, it slows the clock down in such an accurate way that you can adjust your (atom) clock to is a far more common sense way to see that. And then it doesn't touch the mathematics involved in GR/ SR or what not. It all works when used where it applies.

 

Edit 2 Even when I was to see your parallel bubbles as an old cardiogram written with parallel needles on a paper roll that moves past then the lines must converge in order to influence one and other. Then indeed you only see the past. All change happens in the now.

 

Further more it doesn't explain the difference of what happens in the non expanding bubbles in reference to the expanding gaps between the bubbles i.e. galaxies.

Edited January 19, 2014 by kristalris

[swansont]

Observed velocity is a direct function of distance:

V=kd

Where k is a constant.

And? What is the value of the constant? Show that it agrees with observation. IOW, do a little science here in this science forum.

 

 

It is a cosmological question not very different that the statement that the Big Bang happened "everywhere". It consists in accepting that everything was created at the place where it is today, and in the same state of motion. The only difference here is that the state of motion is an accelerated one. The fact that galaxies are separated is not different from the existing paradigm.

But the acceleration claim has ramifications that need to be dealt with. The BB is consistent with the observation of overall isotropic expansion. The maths show it. If you have an alternate model, you need to show that it works, rather than a hand-wavy claim that it does. It's not enough to just state that the acceleration model is consistent with observation, you need to show that it is. I don't believe that it will work, and scientists aren't going to accept it without such a demonstration.

 

The galaxies being separated is but one observation. Your model has to fit all of them.

 

3D is not enough. Not even 4D (a video of a 3d model in motion) because you cannot render the fact that there is a delay in observation (that we are observing things in the past). The only available tool is mathematics.

My point is that your description fails even when you go to 2D. It's not possible to have parallel and orthogonal motion at the same time. But you haven't even given an actual solution to the 1D case, so perhaps concentrate on that first.

[michel123456]

Spyman told me once:

You can lead a horse to water, but you can't make it drink...

 

http://www.scienceforums.net/topic/48852-hubble-law-and-the-combination-of-acceleration-with-delay/?p=545956

[swansont]

Spyman told me once:

You can lead a horse to water, but you can't make it drink...

 

http://www.scienceforums.net/topic/48852-hubble-law-and-the-combination-of-acceleration-with-delay/?p=545956

I would venture to say it still applies. Any time you want to actually work through the model, go ahead

[StringJunky]

Spyman told me once:

You can lead a horse to water, but you can't make it drink...

 

http://www.scienceforums.net/topic/48852-hubble-law-and-the-combination-of-acceleration-with-delay/?p=545956

A similar but more appropriate saying for here would be: You can give a man a book but you can't make him think.

Whoever minused me I was only showing Michel an alternative expression ...it was not aimed at the conversation in general.

[michel123456]

 

This is a Space/Space diagram, the points are representing positions in space at T1.

 

The observer is at point A.

The observer receives information (light) from object B.

Because there is a delay between the time T2 when the information was send and T1 when it is received, the observer does not see the object at point B but at point C.

The information from point B has been authentically repositioned to point C. It is much like a photograph, all info from B is seen as appearing from C.

 

The idea is that the observed velocity v1 (in black) is a decomposition of the blue Velocity. The black arrow represents the direction of the velocity as observed if information was sent in full simultaneity.

 

The direction of the red velocity v2 is a decomposition of the "photograph" as observed in C, because the only observable part of light is the part that reaches the observer (it is the projection on the line between object and observer).

Edited January 20, 2014 by michel123456

[Strange]

Do you think that cosmologists have never thought of taking into account the time it takes for light to reach us?