What is all the evidence for an Expanding Universe

[shmengie]

A lot less. A few hundred million.

That can only make sense to me if all mass wasn't in a homogeneous configuration. The distribution of gravity, if mass starts still or highly energetic is going to persist homogeneous configuration because of the field of gravity as well as opposed to it. Because the baseline gravity configuration would tend to maintain the same configuration.

Edited March 28, 2016 by shmengie

[Mordred]

No your wrong again. Any anisotropy will grow over time. Regardless of how small.

Here is one related article.

 

http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0112551 "Large-Scale Structure of the Universe and Cosmological Perturbation Theory F. Bernardeau, S. Colombi, E. Gaztanaga, R. Scoccimarro

 

 

Careful though it's over 300 pages of math intensity.

[MigL]

I would like to defend Shmengie's position with a timeline.

 

Hubble discovers the red-shift problem in the 20s, well after Einstein's publication of GR.

Big Bang nucleosynthesis wasn't realized until the 50s, and found to fit observations, by Gamow, Hoyle and others.

The CMB was predicted in the early 50s ( by Gamow again ? ) and was later found/verified by Penzias and Wilson.

 

I think Smengie is making the point that in the intervening 30 yrs, no other explanation for the red-shift, other than universal expansion was explored. He makes a valid point that a varying gravitational constant COULD account for the red-shift. But it was never investigated ( that I know of ).

 

It would later turn out to be the wrong path, once corroborating evidence came in in the 50s, such as H, He, Li ratios and the CMB temperature.

But this path seems to have been largely ignored from the 20s to the 50s, even though GR indicated this as a possible explanation for the red-shift.

 

Correct me if I'm wrong in my assumptions, Smengie.

[Mordred]

he isn't arguing a varying. Gravitational constant. Another poster is doing that on another thread lol. Also there have been and is still ongoing studies on varying gravitational constant. As well as the fine structure constant.

 

At least in the other thread the OP is learning the math and trying to properly model such.

 

CMB was discovered in 1964. However the first measurements of the elements didn't come till later. Via the Cobe satellite in 1989. Prior to that we could only hear the static via radio waves.

 

As far as I know Hoyle wasn't involved. Ralph Alpherin, George Gamow and Robert Herman. First predicted Cmb nucleosynthesis in 1948.

 

Tired light was the other possible explanation for Redshift at this time. Later proven to be false

Hoyle later worked on an alternative to BB, using quasi steady state model. Which boils down to numerous regions expanding at different rates to explain the CMB. Mathematically it works but never gained popularity.

He died never agreeing with BB itself but recognized that there is expansion.

Edited March 28, 2016 by Mordred

[shmengie]

No your wrong again. Any anisotropy will grow over time. Regardless of how small.

Here is one related article.

 

http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0112551 "Large-Scale Structure of the Universe and Cosmological Perturbation Theory F. Bernardeau, S. Colombi, E. Gaztanaga, R. Scoccimarro

I rarely if ever conclude I am right, without exhausting attempt to prove wrong first.

This might seem to resemble a scientific principle, but I possess an abundance of ignorance.

 

I have issues with the abundance of Lambda-CDM principles that consistently referring to Lambda-CDM as a basis of self evidence.

I've concluded Lambda-CDM to be built on a foundation of assertions evidenced neither right nor wrong. Instead of a definitive yes or no, it seems to be it's a series of assertions of sequence where one right proves another.

 

I really like that foundation, but I made a mistake of charging myself with locating evidence for the crutch (used to be termed pillar) that might have a differing definition or cause.

 

I've stated repeatedly I like Lambda-CDM. Tho that is of no consequence, toward achieving a goal I've set fourth. I have found Lambda-CDM very frustrating because so many theories use it for a foundation. That's a consequence of it's acceptance. Not it's fault. But makes achievement of my stupid question, a likely impossibility.

 

Any anisotropy will grow over time. Sounds like a sound principle. The paper however seemed to imply Dark Matter might be source of supernova events and hurt my feeble brain.

Perturbation Theory relies heavily on Lambda-CDM. This implies a circular reference, I've sought a method to avoid. I really have only one question that I quest to answer without circular reference. It's my fault. I set out on a path of futility. This forum has made this self evident fact clear. Thank you.

 

I've contemplated dark matter to an extent. Independent of Lambda-CDM. Trying to focus only on observational evidence, I've been made aware.

I conclude it's origin is of considerable importance, to ascertain, before implication of it's existence can reach any logical consequence.

 

My conclusion is important only to me. But alas, w/out defining a the most likely source for a majority of Dark Matter, I cannot agree with its complete consequence.

 

I believe super nova events are the most likely source of Dark Matter. It's my opinion. I know that. But it is mine. However, if supernova events are the most likely source of Dark Matter. Dark Matter cannot be the source of super nova events. Any circular reference of this nature defy logic IMO. Now I don't know if I'm right or wrong.

 

But

I must admit I have a reluctance to follow any paper which refers to Lambda-CDM as a basis for topics of discussion. I don't conclude any one theory contained in Lambda-CDM is correct nor incorrect. I've reached an impasse, by asking a wrong question.

 

I've concluded I cannot make a personal justification to follow or not follow Lambda-CDM without answering one very simple question.

 

The rules for answering my simple question contain this logic. I must find an answer to cosmological redshift. Any evidence of this answer may not contain reference to principles contained in Lambda-CDM. It's a poorly phrased question, I'll admit, because it implies reference to Lambda-CDM.

 

Is there a plausible cause to redshift that is not related to expansion?

 

I've concocted a solution independent of Lambda-CDM. In order to falsify it to my satisfaction, simply cannot utilize a document that implies principles of Lambda-CDM are assumed correct. It's virtually impossible to work around the inherent flaw of my logic. The main of (or only) research that might pertain to the question I pose inevitably relies on assumptions made in Lambda-CDM.

 

 

he isn't arguing a varying. Gravitational constant. Another poster is doing that on another thread lol. Also there have been and is still ongoing studies on varying gravitational constant. As well as the fine structure constant.

 

Argh. I don't argue a varying constant G.

 

I have argued that a constant G is used in Lambda-CDM.

 

I've also argued the field of gravity's force changes. (I assumed it meant, a constant, need not apply)

 

Tho I see similarities. For I have asserted (there exists a viable) reason not to use one.

 

Other than that, I have no idea which argument, if any, I intend to support. Think my brain is fried. LOLOL

I would like to defend Shmengie's position with a timeline.

 

Hubble discovers the red-shift problem in the 20s, well after Einstein's publication of GR.

Big Bang nucleosynthesis wasn't realized until the 50s, and found to fit observations, by Gamow, Hoyle and others.

The CMB was predicted in the early 50s ( by Gamow again ? ) and was later found/verified by Penzias and Wilson.

 

I think Smengie is making the point that in the intervening 30 yrs, no other explanation for the red-shift, other than universal expansion was explored. He makes a valid point that a varying gravitational constant COULD account for the red-shift. But it was never investigated ( that I know of ).

 

It would later turn out to be the wrong path, once corroborating evidence came in in the 50s, such as H, He, Li ratios and the CMB temperature.

But this path seems to have been largely ignored from the 20s to the 50s, even though GR indicated this as a possible explanation for the red-shift.

 

Correct me if I'm wrong in my assumptions, Smengie.

 

I've iterated most of those points, in this thread, tho not in one (quite lovely IMO) summation and my use of decade specifics were equated in life spans of idea publishers.

 

Incontinence of points made were of my own flawed design. Mostly because I changed the topic of the subject w/out starting a new thread while doing so, and confusion ensued.

[Mordred]

I think you have a misunderstanding of LCDM. The Full LCDM is a huge collection of theories. It doesn't involve just the EFE, or the FLRW metric. It also involved whatever particle physics GUT theory is being used. As well as thermodynamics.

 

The thing is the BB model aka LCDM evolves in complexity and accuracy as new data is discovered.

 

It's a model that continously evolves as research becomes available.

 

Prior to WMAP and Planck prior to the Cosmological constant and dark energy the Freidmann equations had a different form.

 

The equations you see today are the extended FLRW metric.

 

This is why the model is so robust. It encompasses the body of our understanding of physics in its entirety.

Yes we can describe how the Universe evolves by 6 parameters but those 6 paraneters involve dozens of related formulas and principles.

 

Quite frankly in the 1980s LCDM was first being formulated. Alternatives were Quintessence, Wdm, CDM, LHDM LWDM, MOND, etc. Variations were due to

 

Is dark matter, hot(relativistic),warm or cold.

 

Do we include the Cosmological constant or not?

 

Is there a geometry other than positive, negative curvature of flat?

 

The numerous Blackhole universe related models such as Poplowskii spin and Torsion.

 

Are we in a deSitter or anti desitter universe?

 

The list goes on. Even inflation has well over 70+ viable models.

 

Nowadays you still have numerous variations such as Ads/cft, and LQC.

 

Ads/cft (antidesitter/conformal field theory).

 

LQC loop quantum gravity.

 

A lot of papers on F® gravity etc.

 

Alternatives still abound.

Edited March 28, 2016 by Mordred

[shmengie]

I believe if there is no cosmological parameter or it = 0 as Einstein mistake might suggest. The timeline of sight and shift correlation could coincide with an evolutionairy change in gravity field everywhere light might traverse unencumbered by mass.

 

I believe LCDM equations could be modified (minimally) if a viable evolution of mass organization parameter could be determined.

 

I believe galaxies formation is non constant rate, much like all stars are not equal mass, life span nor formation rate. Galaxy collision and black hole behaviors should also be taken into account but logical sequencing confounds me. I suspect consistence exists, but aside from using the cosmological parameter as the most likely candidate, I cannot propose a viable alternative.

 

But like Strange tends to point out... What I believe amounts to squat. I don't believe doppler shift is cosmological shift. I believe cosmological shift is gravity shift.

 

Why do I keep squating???

[Phi for All]

Why do I keep squating???

 

Because the alternative is learning like everyone else. For some reason, you resist this, and squat instead. You think it makes you interesting and unique, and you're wrong.

[Mordred]

Well the only way to fully understand why the professionals show and understand differently is to study the history and math involved.

 

Without the math I can't explain these things in proper detail.

 

It's incredibly limiting. There is no particle that has the right characteristics for dark matter. The closest is sterile neutrinos. However even then that's debatable.

 

There is no thermodynamic process that keeps the cosmological constant constant. (Other than possibly Higgs inflation). QMs quantum fluctuations had too much energy.

 

Would you even recognize SO(10) GUT.

 

Grand unification theory, or what the terms coupling constants mean?

So how can I describe the differences between SO(5) nucleosynthesis from SO(10) nucleosynthesis? Let alone baryogeneses and leptogenesis.

 

Terms like vaccuum expectation value would be meaningless to you.

 

Part of the reason I supplied the links I did.

Edited March 28, 2016 by Mordred

[shmengie]

I think you have a misunderstanding of LCDM. The Full LCDM is a huge collection of theories. It doesn't involve just the EFE, or the FLRW metric. It also involved whatever particle physics GUT theory is being used. As well as thermodynamics.

 

I don't posses a robust understanding of LCDM, such as yourself. I have a smaller collection of understandings to deal with. I accept that well. It may equate to a misunderstanding, for I am not a cosmologist.

 

I like simple. I enjoy logic.

 

I once ran into unjustifiable assertions while following my misunderstanding of Lambda-CDM.

 

It induced the urge to question one piece of evidence. Doubt it's scientific, for I am not a scientist. But it seemed a logical course of action at the time.

 

A flaw in my logic, I failed to recognize at the time, caused me to determine there is a flaw in evidence deemed cosmological shift.

 

I attempted to apply logic. (apparently because I have not done math, this is an impossibility, tho not self evident to me).

 

With out sound logical reason I deemed a flaw exists and determined a timeline from which it originated, and why it hasn't been resolved.

 

But alas, I'm not a scientist. I may only misunderstand LCDM principles.

[Mordred]

Your not alone in the majority of posters.

 

Very few ppl truly understand LCDM.

 

Those same people don't understand the math.

 

A smart person shouldn't try to fix something they don't understand.

They just make themselves look foolish. Instead it's better to ask specific questions as to why a model works the way it does.

 

The three textbooks that describes Cosmology with a low math level required is.

 

The First three minutes by Weinberg.

 

introductory to Cosmology by Barbera Ryden

 

And Introductory to Cosmology by Matt Roose.

 

Any of these three books is an excellent start that will put you ahead of 75% of the posters on this forum.

Edited March 28, 2016 by Mordred

[shmengie]

I feel little enough to post one last time. I'm done. Thanks.

[Mordred]

Your welcome, I hope the materials I provided you will study.

 

The textbooks I mentioned would be better, but I can't buy them for you lol.

 

Trust me I was once in your position. Those three books fixed a lot of my misunderstandings.

Edited March 28, 2016 by Mordred

[Strange]

I think Smengie is making the point that in the intervening 30 yrs, no other explanation for the red-shift, other than universal expansion was explored. He makes a valid point that a varying gravitational constant COULD account for the red-shift. But it was never investigated ( that I know of ).

 

I don't know if it has been explored or not. If it hasn't, I would assume that is because a 30 second back-of-the-envelope calculation shows it to be implausible.

[shmengie]

 

I don't know if it has been explored or not. If it hasn't, I would assume that is because a 30 second back-of-the-envelope calculation shows it to be implausible.

 

You guys simply do not grasp the scope of the question posed, nor the logic I've used toward deduction. I'm not going to defend my choice in angle of attack, perhaps explain.

 

LCDM is a fantastic body of work, it totally impresses me. I know I do not understand it and I've decided not to make an attempt until I can determine validity of one fundamental precept that I cannot resolve.

 

I can't say you do or don't get it. I've spelled out the sequence of events that led to its conclusion (hell LCDM does that nicely).

 

You say I'm wrong based on math or because I don't understand LCDM. I don't argue either, but seems you don't understand the implicit bias LCDM applies to redshift. Redshift MUST mean the universe is expanding. This is a pillar. It's an indisputable fact. LCDM doesn't question it any more, because every development inside of LCDM has gone toward proving exactly why it LOOKS like the universe is EXPANDING.

 

I question this precept, that is an undeniable fact that ALL of LCDM depends on. It's not my lack of understanding LCDM, it's my question. The one I can't resolve. You can say I wrong till we're both blue in the face, doesn't change the facts.

 

I've spelled out how redshift could be explained. It doesn't conclude an expanding or contracting universe. It explains why it looks like the fabric of spacetime appears to be being stretched. That's all. The conclusion breaks the "FAITH" in the EXPANDING precept, so you simply cannot conceive the possibility.

 

All evidence that I've investigated, AND I'VE POINTED OUT TO YOU. Cannot be refuted that this is the case.

 

One can only conclude. YOUR FAITH in LCDM is YOUR BELIEF SYSTEM. EVERY argument that calls it into question either ignores the facts or highlights ignorance of the one who disagrees.

 

That's not my flaw. I know what I'm ignorant of. You probably do, but cannot overcome your BIAS to contemplate the fact.

 

Like I said, I'm done. I cannot argue against one, nor many that depend on FAITH for conclusion. That's why I questioned REDSHIFT in the fist place.

 

 

FWIW, in the 30s Einstein had predicted gravity shift. In the 50s it was proven. If the proof that it's wrong was done, why is it not included in reference, in typical scientific practice, to base the concepts that's dismissed?

 

The calculation could be done with geodesic equations, I'm going to explore that avenue. It hasn't been done, or I wouldn't have to.

 

I'm using logic and education to overcome my deficiencies. You use faith to justify your choice. I see it a little different than SCIENTIFIC. which has been a flawed argument you repeatedly used. Apparently more than one cannot agree when Faith becomes part of the equation.

 

That's the problem I'd like to be able to overcome. You can't view it, because you're blinded by your faith... or at least that's how it seems.

Edited March 28, 2016 by shmengie

[Mordred]

It's not blinded by faith. Show the math not a verbatim. Physics is about mathematics. Any new model or theory requires the math to make testable predictions.

 

I supplied you the tools to learn the math. Don't expect us to do your math for you.

 

Everyone that gets their personal theory countered invariably argue that were blinded by Faith.

 

It's a foolish argument. Don't blame others for not doing the needed work to present your idea or model properly

Edited March 28, 2016 by Mordred

[Klaynos]

You're yet to define logic, which you're relying on heavily in the writings. Given you're not doing physics it would at least be interesting to know what you're calling logic.

[shmengie]

I will say thank you again. I'm going to write my paper and have it published.

 

I thank you for helping me better define the topic which I must address.

[Phi for All]

He's done some programming, and thinks the logic is equatable. And we're straying into Crackpot Bingo territory here, what with the Galileo persecution that's now coming to the surface.

 

I think we just have to write this one off to Dunning-Kruger.

[shmengie]

I've formulated a basis for a prediction. In haste I posted it here, for timestamp purpose, because I don not know if the correlation has been made to what I've tried to state, in practice it is a prediction unverified by MY research. While I will likely work toward it's verification... I've had a mental block, I've overcome I attribute to discussion within this thread.

 

 

http://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/index.php?reportsent;topic=66046.msg484446#msg484446

 

 

I may post clarification to the postulated prediction, before I continue to research conclusion. I don't know the future yet, but I'm getting there. That's worked for me so far.

 

 

 

I think you have a misunderstanding of LCDM. The Full LCDM is a huge collection of theories. It doesn't involve just the EFE, or the FLRW metric. It also involved whatever particle physics GUT theory is being used. As well as thermodynamics.

 

Argh, I don't want to stray toward philosophy, but I fear I perceive a leading argument.

 

 

I have stated on occasion I know I don't know a lot.

 

Lambda-CDM is a large body of knowledge, with which offers my ignorance many avenues to hide.

 

I haven't been entirely clear on how much I think I know and how much I know I don't. I know I know a lot of both, however, proof will evolve and there's no one correct answer worth evaluating, IMO. One issue, one must deal with, at terms that only applies to the one.

 

A philosophical tangent is one I've engaged effort to avoid, but find myself in a direct apoplexy with the effort.

 

Although I view philosophical concepts outside my favored branch of science, its application within my reasoning and conclusions are pertinent to both this thread and are directly associated with my conclusion and it's ability to be termed "accepted."

 

That can and sometimes happens when one makes a conscious decision to choose to go against the accepted "consensus."

 

Dark Energy is currently an energy of an undefined or of non-specific point of origin. Based on my understanding of Lambda-CDM as a whole. Right or wrong, its what pop-sci lead me to believe.

 

Instead of evaluating the numbers I concluded it was reasonable to search for an origin. Lambda-CDM is a large body of knowledge. I know this, I don't expect I'll ever know all of it. I accept, I move on. Lambda-CDM as a whole, to my knowledge has produced a theory that Dark Energy is a force of nature. I agree, examine, I don't understand, I don't like that, it persists..... time goes on....

 

Hear it again... again I no like. (for i=loop repeat ~ times else resolve); (execute i=loop function);

Edited March 30, 2016 by shmengie

[Strange]

It is hard to see what you are suggesting. The key line seems to be:

 

If Dark Energy is unexplained, then there is no reason to correlate Black Hole mass identification -to- redshift value fluctuation in angle of assention of otherwise similarly distant objects.

 

There seem to be all sorts of things wrong with this:

• Dark energy has nothing to do with expansion and red-shift as described by Hubble's Law, so I don't know why you keep going on about it.
• I am not aware of any correlation between black hole mass and red shift
• I don't know what you mean by "redshift value fluctuation"
• And what is the relevance of angle of ascension? There is, as far as I know, no correlation between ascension, red-shift or black holes.

Or is it this:

 

I believe there's only one correlation associated with redshift. It's associated statistical anomalies in sample size. Redshift will fluctuate more in shorter distance & time samples.

 

This seems to contradict what you said above. Here you seem to be saying that there will be more variation/uncertainty in red-shift for closer objects. That should be relatively easy to test. But it seems unlikely that these errors will be enough to produce an apparent linear relationship between distance and red-shift, where red-shift values range from 0 to several hundred (or more).

 

 

I assert, there would only be a correlation to fluctuation in blackhole mass which directly relates to angle of assention.

 

Again, this seems to contradict your opening paragraph. However, we are only able (as far as I know) to measure/estimate black hole masses in relatively local galaxies where there is no cosmological red shift. So I am not sure how this is either testable or relevant.

 

 

Hear it again... again I no like.

 

No one cares. The universe certainly doesn't.

[Phi for All]

Here's my basic problem with your approach to science.

 

You admit you never studied formally, and have an inadequate understanding of many of these principals. You're uninformed, ignorant in these areas.

 

Yet you imply parts of these theories must be wrong. Consider that if this was a court case, where you were drawing conclusions based on the evidence you possess, there would be a great deal about this case you don't understand. You'd probably make the wrong conclusions about the guilt or innocence of the defendant. Right now, you'd be condemning him to death based on your admittedly lacking knowledge about his case. You don't understand what he's telling you (damn foreigner is speaking math!), so you piece together what you can and decide the parts you don't understand must be wrong.

 

So the Big Bang hangs, unfairly judged by a prosecutor who knows he doesn't know enough to be making conclusions like this. Miscarriage of science. Very unreasonable, sloppy, inefficient approach, and that's not an opinion. I base this on pages of discussion history.

[shmengie]

It is hard to see what you are suggesting. The key line seems to be:

I regret covering matters of philosophy. I'm not an expert in that field, being a mere uneducated novice.

 

There seem to be all sorts of things wrong with this:

• Dark energy has nothing to do with expansion and red-shift as described by Hubble's Law, so I don't know why you keep going on about it.
• I am not aware of any correlation between black hole mass and red shift
• I don't know what you mean by "redshift value fluctuation"
• And what is the relevance of angle of ascension? There is, as far as I know, no correlation between ascension, red-shift or black holes.

I would state your are wrong on some points. I will reserve clarification of some for my paper. Ironically to continue in this format might server to increase topics I already believe I must cover, I don't presently wish to add to it in haste.

 

I will address perhaps a few I think I understand. I don't expect they are in sync with the "accepted." Which is a conundrum within itself that has led to complexity I cannot address in brief. I must spell out in the paper format.

 

The conception of the term "Dark Energy" has a basis to be determined. It's underlying premise is expansion. It is related to the concept that the universe may or is to be expanding because it had to have expanded in the past.

 

When one examines the body of Lambda-CDM the conclusion is obvious when one cannot nor will not consciously choose to search for the flaw in reasoning.

 

Because of the volume of information within the gamut that is Lambda-CDM the some simple choices are not always clear, nor easily defined.

 

There is no known correlation between black hole mass and redshift. I my currently vague attempt to predict what has and has not happend, I failed to realize that was a key point.

 

I perceive it to be fact. Evident only in my logic and conclusion (to date). In haste once I realized statistical analysis of the data MIGHT reveal an currently unperceived fact piece of evidence, I rushed to lay out the prediction so that I may claim to be first, with a timestamp associated with it.

 

There are so many factors involved, it is not clear that I might or might not be right. However, current theory holds, gravity waves propagate at the speed of light, thus are not instantaneous. If the anomaly in the data I predict has not been associated with the data, I must make the prediction before the facts can be aligned. This goes to verifying my thesis is correct.

 

The fluctuations in order for my prediction to be valid, I have worked with conceptualizing my understanding of my ignorance to that of the same in others according to my understanding of Lambda-CDM and all of the principles presumed to be accepted. (Which is hard to state clearly and have the correctly implied meaning (all by itself)).

 

Ignorance and confusion go hand and hand. -- least I digress to discussing philosophy, yet again.

 

 

My prediction, is hard for me to understand. If it troubles you, I do not find it surprising. I've stated it needs clarification, tho the gist will likely remain.

 

No one cares. The universe certainly doesn't.

I think I can explain the origin of Dark Energy. I've stated "changes everything and nothing at the same time" here or elsewhere. You're statement I had considered previously and led me to state it as such. Presently as I understand,

 

DE = nothing = Lambda-CDM = right....

to change everthing and nothing at the same time

DE = defined = Lambda-CDM = right...

 

Logic I Enjoy!

Edited March 30, 2016 by shmengie

[Strange]

The conception of the term "Dark Energy" has a basis to be determined. It's underlying premise is expansion.

 

No, it isn't. I have been trying to tell you that for a long time.

 

 

When one examines the body of Lambda-CDM the conclusion is obvious when one cannot nor will not consciously choose to search for the flaw in reasoning.

 

Are you suggesting that people don't consider alternative models? If so, you are wrong.

[shmengie]

I will attempt in brief to reverberate and/or reformulate my prediction, so that I may be afforded another timestamp associated with it, in digital terms of Internet forum discussion and presentation.

 

On this board I first posted it's first formulation in a different thread (a basic search should find "matter contracts" (or similar) the first thread I started on scienceforums.net (trying to keep it all straight in my head w/out verifying)). I later reformulated it and posted links in this thread to that posting on thenakedscientist.com with recent links presented in this thread.

 

According to the large body of Lambda-CDM research and human cosmological observation and Dark Matter is theorized to be large proportion of Energy not clearly defined.

 

 

A quick synapses of a few key points of my thesis seem prudent:

 

Matter condenses over time fluctuating the field of gravity.

 

Contemplating mass aggregation led me to a determine its significance is dismissed by the accepted body of Lambda-CDM.

 

Thought experiments I discerned based in development of my understanding of Lambda-CDM, I've identified flaws in reasoning that may need to be addressed. However, that is outside the scope of synapse, its prudent to note.

 

By means of logic, I have deduced that black hole formation and/or additional mass accretion into the phenomena believed to be a black hole may produce a pronounced cause.

 

I suspicion further it may likely be most pronounced at black hole formation time. This may prove to develop into another prediction or cited as such now.

 

The force of gravity has effect on light, witnessed and verified on Earth by two differing predictions of the "Theory of General Relativity" (GR)

 

Evolution of the Universe is a process we believe is and has happened through the course of time of approximately 14 billion years (according Lambda-CDM).

 

Changes in mass organization happen more slowly than the speed of light.

 

Black hole formation happens in various regions of space with some understanding.

Understanding of black hole phenomena is restricted by various limits of observation, theorized and inherent to the dark nature of such objects.

 

Because there is an abundance of ignorance about black hole entities, the bulk my prediction and thesis revolves around said ignorance.

By means of conclusion drawn over the course time, education and development of thesis which provide conclusive belief. (In other words not simply derived as a choice of where to look.) I predict:

 

 

 

 

A development in statistical anomaly will appear in cosmological redshift differing from present correlation drawn, evidenced in current understandings of such data.

To my knowledge the only correlation is that to distance in time and space has correlation to metered anomaly termed cosmological redshift.

I predict when enough evidence is observed a new correlation will be made in statistical anomalies and it will have a direct relationship to quantities of black mass.

 

Unfortunate or not identification of black mass is inherently difficult at best. Therefore this correlation will not be easy to conclude, especially when a correlation of this nature provides many challenges to presently available tools and limits such phenomena present and gathering data necessary to indicate such correlation may not ever be within reach.

 

One must assume that black hole phenomena have many differing values in size localization and time to form ratios all differ based solely on limits presently imposed on observation and thus rely heavily on theoretical understandings for the assumption(s) to be correct.

 

Based on my understanding of statistical analysis sample size matters. Larger sample size increases volumes of all data to be considered variable that affect such data smoothing. However the standard error may increase due to difficulties in increased distance redshift value formulation, this would likely not account for any angle correlation.

 

Smaller sample size in distance containing fewer black bodies at any given angle reduce standard error in shift value formulation, but present a potential to provide reason for anomaly present itself due to the smaller sample size based on angle and correlation of shorter distance metered.

 

Sheesh, I hope got all that right. I want an earlier time stamp, than a later edited one.

 

The angle of assent may be the only correlation to variation in anonymized presence of data gathered and disseminated to the anomalously but the distances need to be approximately the same.

A condensed prediction is this:

 

Black body formation will present an change in previously metered redshift value which correlates directly to the formation of said black body.

 

 

Witnessing said formation is beyond my personal capabilities. I fear if it is not, said formation may end my lifetime. As is prediction thereof, as well as gathering such information all reside outside my ability, I rely upon those whom may have such capabilities to verify such prediction.

 

However, that is the most simplified form of the prediction I can make, irregardless of said occurrence and correlation happening in the duration of my lifetime.

That's curious... I can't sit around and wait for a black body formation to happen... SN1987a happened in my lifetime. Don't know when we might witness another.

 

There's a lot I don't know... But thinking about this made me think about the speed of light and gravity being equal.

 

If black body formation might be an instantaneous change in redshift, ruling out 1987a as proof is slightly in error. If the propagation of gravity is light speed, there might be a chance it can be detected in present data, but it's highly unlikely. I don't believe any redshift data was collected before then and since the difference between now and then has passed, we can't go back and rectify that issue thru present/past correlation.

 

However, this event might present a hint of anomaly still detectable based on angle of ascent correlated to 1987a. I don't expect one blackbody formation to make a hole one whole lot of difference, but opposing angles between 1987a might present the anomaly significant enough now to still represent change in opposing angles and same distance redshift measurements. It's change has past us, but I don't know if that affects the readings on the inside of the wave significantly enough to rule out it's detection straddling distances with enough excess that would exceed the encompassing wave distinction.

 

Unfortunately the difference would likely be so small errors in calculation would likely conclude dismissal of any such anomaly.

Edited March 30, 2016 by shmengie