Mordred Posted March 27, 2016 Posted March 27, 2016 The problem is you can't rely on verbal skills to show it. You need to show you at least understand the basics before you declare something is wrong.
Strange Posted March 27, 2016 Posted March 27, 2016 (edited) You think that changing mass can cause the red-shift that we observe. Correct? From this you deduce that the universe is not expanding. Correct? (Actually, that is the wrong way round: you have an emotional objection to the idea that the universe is expanding so you are desperately searching for some alternative explanation.) There are many problems with this. We have tried to explain some of these problems. Both in simple terms, and by reference to the (necessarily) complex maths. You have dismissed the simple explanations as handwaving with no maths. And you refuse to accept the mathematical explanations because you don't understand them. Edited March 27, 2016 by Strange
Mordred Posted March 27, 2016 Posted March 27, 2016 I fear the issue I believe I have identified is going to be difficult for me to resolve. This fear has persisted for a while. I thought I spelled it out clearly, but there appears to be a defect in my thought process. homologous: of uniform structure or composition throughout Was the universe in this state at one time? What from any given point would the force of gravity be much different from any other given point? Yes at one time the Universe was extremely uniform. Anistropy develops later. Prior to CMB, when everything is in thermal equilibrium, you could describe the Universe Strictly by its temperature. As the Universe expanded at this time the temperature cooled enough that various elementary particles dropped out of thermal equilibrium. Then inflation occurred this caused a rapid expansion which causes a supercooling. It was found that inflation must stop at some point. Measurements state it required a slow roll stop. This slow roll caused a reheating. Any anisotropy before this time would be effectively washed out by inflation. This leads up to the CMB. Which is a result of the sequence particles drop out of thermal equilibrium. Anisotropies develop any time after the slow roll stage of inflation. 1
shmengie Posted March 27, 2016 Author Posted March 27, 2016 (edited) It is not a flaw. It is not ignored. I assert I may have language skill issues and request help. The documents of reference: have been indicated to address change in mass thru the course of evolution do affect distribution of strength in field of gravity. FLRW: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Friedmann–Lemaître–Robertson–Walker_metric FLRW model assumes homogeneity (a point of view that does not change) Sachs–Wolfe effect: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sachs–Wolfe_effect#Integrated_Sachs.E2.80.93Wolfe_effect Indicates to me, a change in mass over time is inconsequential because the amount of mass therein does not change. I dont argue that the distribution of force does change, not the amount of mass. I argue that the effect/force of gravity changes. But they do not address this, they use English language to state these facts. Or so I perceive. Do my English skills need to be addressed? Or is it really a problem with my logic? I've suggested that this issue is enigmatic.... And that I've ascertained it from an abundance of ignorance. Probably should have said I asked the *WRONG* question... Edited March 27, 2016 by shmengie
Mordred Posted March 27, 2016 Posted March 27, 2016 (edited) The problem is your not seeing a key relation. Lets assume there is no expansion. Lets assume a light Ray travels into a gravity well. You have blueshift, when the light Ray climbs back out of the gravity well you get an equal amount of redshift. Meaning you won't get any net redshift. The wavelength before entering the well will be identical to the wavelength exitting the well. The reason the Sache Wolfe effect occurs is the average density of the background changed while the photons were in the well. (The universe expanded during this time) The only reason why the background spacetime will change is if the average density of matter, and radiation changes. The cosmological constant doesn't change in density. Edited March 27, 2016 by Mordred
Strange Posted March 27, 2016 Posted March 27, 2016 FLRW: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Friedmann–Lemaître–Robertson–Walker_metric FLRW model assumes homogeneity (a point of view that does not change) It assumes homogeneity as a simplifying assumption. More detailed models take the changing distribution of mass into account (see, for example, the simulations of large scale structure referred to earlier). Sachs–Wolfe effect: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sachs–Wolfe_effect#Integrated_Sachs.E2.80.93Wolfe_effectIndicates to me, a change in mass over time is inconsequential because the amount of mass therein does not change. The Sachs-Wolfe effect is a measurement of the very effect you are claiming to be ignored. Note how it says that superclusters (i.e. the presence of large mass) reduce the red shift and voids increase it. This is exactly the opposite of what your idea requires. I argue that the effect/force of gravity changes. As all the existing theory and evidence shows you are wrong, remind me again why we should take your religious/superstitious beliefs seriously? I dont argue that the distribution of force does change, not the amount of mass. I argue that the effect/force of gravity changes. But they do not address this, they use English language to state these facts. Or so I perceive. Do my English skills need to be addressed? Or is it really a problem with my logic? I've suggested that this issue is enigmatic....
shmengie Posted March 27, 2016 Author Posted March 27, 2016 I asked the wrong question! But none of us have ascertained why. The fault lies with me. I didn't tell you from the from the onset why I asked a question I thought was wrong. -1
Mordred Posted March 27, 2016 Posted March 27, 2016 One consequence of time dilation is you must have a spacetime gradiant due to mass. Gravitational redshift requires that gradient.
shmengie Posted March 27, 2016 Author Posted March 27, 2016 You figured it out, but didn't see my reasoning, you assumed I was wrong and have been trying to prove it to me. DOH, I'm slow. Not your fault.
Mordred Posted March 27, 2016 Posted March 27, 2016 I asked the wrong question! But none of us have ascertained why. The fault lies with me. I didn't tell you from the from the onset why I asked a question I thought was wrong. It's impossible for us to answer you, if you can't be clear in what your stating.
shmengie Posted March 28, 2016 Author Posted March 28, 2016 Well... I already knew I asked the wrong question, so I didn't have to justify as the right question. But it was one I choose to answer knowing there was an alternate explanation that is accepted to be abundantly clear to the community at large. It's impossible for us to answer you, if you can't be clear in what your stating. Without a doubt, you are right. I didn't say I cannot do math. Tho I have a strong grasp of it, I have done little calculus, which is a personal defect I have endeavored to rectify. I don't have a math to my problem because my problem is inherently complex. That's no fault of my own, it's just a fact, if you want to apply math to 14 billion years of universe evolution, it implies 100 billion different galaxies forming 100 billion factor more stars, from an non definitive initial mass. The math for that I cannot comprehend. Maybe it's just me, but that seems nearly an impossible task. I realized this was a problem a long time ago, and I still have no clue how to resolve if I'm ever to solve my problem.
Mordred Posted March 28, 2016 Posted March 28, 2016 Fair enough. Lets look at the simplest possible formula. Pv=nRt. P is pressure, v is volume , n is number of particles, R is radius, t is temperature. Lets say the Universe contains 10^90 particles. Exactly what composition is unimportant. Particles move, vibrate etc, they have kinetic energy. That kinetic energy exerts pressure. Kinetic energy is related to temperature. If the number of particles is constant the only way to reduce the temperature is to increase the radius. Welcome to thermodynamic evidence of expansion.
shmengie Posted March 28, 2016 Author Posted March 28, 2016 I know a lot about expansion principles, but I asked an what if it was wrong... When I formulated my thesis I assumed redshift may have another cause, and held with it. Once I reasoned out (in my minds eye) how it might look like cosmological redshift...
Mordred Posted March 28, 2016 Posted March 28, 2016 (Note I didn't need redshift to show the Universe expanded) I know a lot about expansion principles, but I asked an what if it was wrong... When I formulated my thesis I assumed redshift may have another cause, and held with it. Once I reasoned out (in my minds eye) how it might look like cosmological redshift... Yes I know, but the visualization you used has already been considered and accounted for
shmengie Posted March 28, 2016 Author Posted March 28, 2016 But I don't care if expansion can or cannnot be the cause. That's inconsequential to the question I pose. I assumed my question was wrong by asking it in the first place. I only wondered if there was another plausible explanation, not proof.
shmengie Posted March 28, 2016 Author Posted March 28, 2016 (edited) I have not found this proof. The fancy geodesic equations all appear to lead back to documents that seem to state otherwise. That's my problem. Edited March 28, 2016 by shmengie
Mordred Posted March 28, 2016 Posted March 28, 2016 The question you posed is "is there another cause of cosmological redshift other than expansion". The answer is no. I have not found this proof. The fancy geodesic equations all appear to lead back to documents that seem to state otherwise. That's my problem. How can you state that if you don't understand the math? Do you know how a geodesic relates to the principle of least action?
shmengie Posted March 28, 2016 Author Posted March 28, 2016 The way I see it 14 billion years of evolution is a lot of change over a very long period of time. Because it's dealing with numbers I can't fathom, in so many different changes in concentration I can barley imagine, I don't see how the math could be applied in a reliable fashion. The way I see it 14 billion years of evolution is a lot of change over a very long period of time. I also envision it's there may not be a straight line geodesic solution. I have a real hard time imagining initial star formation, in relation to what we see now.
Strange Posted March 28, 2016 Posted March 28, 2016 I don't have a math to my problem because my problem is inherently complex. That's no fault of my own, it's just a fact, if you want to apply math to 14 billion years of universe evolution, it implies 100 billion different galaxies forming 100 billion factor more stars, from an non definitive initial mass. The math for that I cannot comprehend. Maybe it's just me, but that seems nearly an impossible task. I realized this was a problem a long time ago, and I still have no clue how to resolve if I'm ever to solve my problem. People have tackled problems of this scale. You should study what they have done. Stop basing your opinions on what seems plausible or emotionally appealing. Because it's dealing with numbers I can't fathom, in so many different changes in concentration I can barley imagine, I don't see how the math could be applied in a reliable fashion. I have a real hard time imagining initial star formation, in relation to what we see now. Just because you can't imagine it does not mean it can't be done.
Mordred Posted March 28, 2016 Posted March 28, 2016 The way I see it 14 billion years of evolution is a lot of change over a very long period of time. Because it's dealing with numbers I can't fathom, in so many different changes in concentration I can barley imagine, I don't see how the math could be applied in a reliable fashion. That is the key point. Just because you don't see it you assume others can't. There has been thousands of papers, over the last 100 years of study on just expansion as well as redshift. For every theory there is competing theories, no one accepts any formula as gospel. EVER. LCDM is a time tested model, that had tons of competition since it first started developing. It is so far the best model that describes what we observe. Is it the only one. No of course not. LQC (loop quantum gravity is still competitive) LCDM is far easier to learn though.
shmengie Posted March 28, 2016 Author Posted March 28, 2016 (edited) I believe matter condensing into stars is a very slow process, especially from a homogeneous like beginning. After the initial formation pressures forced the issue elsewhere. But that's all very hard for me to conceive. Based on CMBR, it seems this happened fairly consistently everywhere, but even that I have difficulty conceiving. Where the consequences of the first mass contraction likely, initially only black holes of a supper massive nature? Not likely, but, how does one make any such assertion? The distances that separate galaxies seems quite vast. From a homogeneous like beginning, how long did it take for all visible matter to reach galaxy density distribution. 14 billion years? Hubble can see that far back and it looks highly reminiscent of what exists closer. How can it be possible from a homogeneous like beginning, in only 14 billion years? Seeems to me like there is a lot of math that doesn't add up quite right... Edited March 28, 2016 by shmengie
Strange Posted March 28, 2016 Posted March 28, 2016 (edited) I believe ... What you believe is irrelevant. From a homogeneous like beginning, how long did it take for all visible matter to reach galaxy density distribution. 14 billion years? A lot less. A few hundred million. Seeems to me like there is a lot of math that doesn't add up quite right... How would you know? You have admitted you have no understanding of the math. Therefore your opinion is worthless. Edited March 28, 2016 by Strange
shmengie Posted March 28, 2016 Author Posted March 28, 2016 I really would like to see a statement: This equation rules out an evolutionary distribution of mass as cause for redshift. I've searched, maybe I haven't found it because I don't want to, but all evidence thus far has proven otherwise.
Mordred Posted March 28, 2016 Posted March 28, 2016 (edited) We can't see the very beginning we can only see as far back as the CMB. Prior to the CMB, light couldn't travel more than a metre due to the opacity. Too many free particles not bound in atoms. Believe me you wouldn't understand the math involved in the particle physics aspects of nucleosynthesis. http://arxiv.org/pdf/hep-th/0503203.pdf "Particle Physics and Inflationary Cosmology" by Andrei Linde http://www.wiese.itp.unibe.ch/lectures/universe.pdf:"Particle Physics of the Early universe" by Uwe-Jens Wiese Thermodynamics, Big bang Nucleosynthesis If you want to study it these two articles are introductory. Edited March 28, 2016 by Mordred
Recommended Posts