What is all the evidence for an Expanding Universe

[Mordred]

That's not what the Pauli exclusion principle states.

[shmengie]

I've switched off topic to a degree from what I was arguing.

There is so many mistakes in this last post I don't Even know where to start.

 

I misstated what I meant to say. I switched of topic. - accurate. During the switch I went to speculation mode. - talking about speculations.

 

Started thinking about my prediction. Which is pure speculation. I believe its right, but remains speculation.

 

 

Everything else, can be wrong. Tried to keep it technically accurate... But speculation mode provides freedom of imagination which is an internal switch I usually don't voice to others.

 

 

Want to switch to prediction mode tho.

 

I don't know much about the cosmological constant.

 

I believe it's use of the word constant is used due to a historical attachment to the constant idea.

That's not what the Pauli exclusion principle states.

argh... Then thats the wrong rule. My bad.

 

Hawking equated evaporation to one of the QM w3irdness rules. I don't remember which off the top of my head.

Pauli was the first to come to mind. I didn't look it up to verify. My bad!

I did want to ask if I'm correct in my understanding of the Cosmological constant.

I believe it changes to a lower shift the further we look (time-distance).

 

I don't know how much it fluctuates over what distances. Never looked that up.

I got to thinking we need to witness a hole collapse to verify my claim.

 

But if the cosmological variable becomes less integrated over distance.... That would correlate to a photon passing through wave boundaries as more holes have formed from when/where it started to it's final observation point in space and time.

 

The further a photon travels the more hole collapse wave boundaries it passes the more it would be shifted. Don't need to know exactly when it happend just a good estimate of number of collapeses a photon has passed to to figure out how much effect it might have each new boundary it encounters.

 

That's not going to be easy, but it would explain why there's difference in past / closer to present change in shift measurements. And would explain DE w/out waiting for another event to be witnessed. Hardest part is coming up with a good estimation of a count of boundaries.

Do you know what the smallest distances are between meterable shift values are? Those would likely be the most accurate, which would help too...

 

If we can locate a way to count holes who's distance from collapse time the photon would have to traverse and calculate the difference in shift to match that somehow, it would be an estimation of values I want to look for in other ways. I don't expect there's going to be a lot of change to account for any one hole, but I don't know all the details or postulations, to make a valid guess. Just guessing about guessing at the moment.

LOL... Even if holes everywhere all collapsed at the same time it wouldn't affect one photon's journey or any series of varying distant photons journeys in a smooth line... It would change as each photon would encounter more boundries. Ones leaving later in time start out shifted more???? hmm.. don't know. could be.

[Mordred]

You keep trying to model the cosmological constant via blackholes.

 

Your attempts with Hawking radiation won't work either.

 

The reason being is Hawking radiation only occurs when the blackbody temperature of the Universe is lower than the blackbody temperature of the blackhole.

 

you would need blackholes smaller than the mass of the moon for this to occur with the BLACKBODY temperature today of the Universe.

 

At the time of surface of last scattering that small blackhole would grow not evaporate.

 

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hawking_radiation

[Strange]

But it if it doesn't, it kinda leaves it out in the open, because there's no observable evidence except for CDM of CBMR.

 

Much of this post is totally incomprehensible; for example, I have no idea what this is supposed to mean.

 

However, I must comment on these statements:

 

There's a lot I don't like about Lambda. It starts with more precepts that don't need evidence, won't ever have evidence, don't care.....

Everyone agrees the universe expanded. From what.... we just simply believe, no evidence.

 

Because all the other stuff needs to be right, based on a faith.

 

Can't question it and ever expect to find evidence....

 

No not really but it causes the mentality of Dark Energy to need to exist and be something other that what it might actually be evidence for...

 

This is just nonsense. There is nothing that is not based on evidence. No one would have made up dark energy if it weren't for the observational evidence - which was a real surprise, which no one expected.

 

Please stop trying to make yourself feel clever by making up these lies.

[shmengie]

Don't know if I lost you guys while I let my imagination run free, or not. -Sorry for that. There are so many questions I pose, some have been answered by Lambda-CDM many, I believe I agree with accepted, have not. But so many questions about so many precepts, makes it hard to agree to accept the full body of Lambda work.

 

I had a personal struggle with the number of precepts and drawing a distinctive line between which might be solidified with evidence, and which may/may never be.

Lambda starts on a nice clearly defined set of precepts and it's "accepted" evidence of which will never be observably validated. Only postulations derived at/after CMBR point of time can be observed and once proven goes to solidify the large body from start.

 

-I don't know where any of that's stated clearly. Its my own personal view I've developed over time.

 

I STILL need to verify my understand of the VARIABLE termed CONSTANT.

I've not seen anyone address that or provide any agreement for nor against my understand, I've tried to lay out clearly and concise as my ability permits.

 

The thread was locked. I postulated a prediction. Thread was unlocked. I posted postulated prediction. -- job done, thought it might never be provable, let my imagination run wild... DOH, I can clarify prediction. DOH, let my imagination run too free. QUACK. But I still want to see if I can work toward a way to verify prediction with presently "available data". Thought we needed a definitive wave ID to verify. But statistical analysis of variations of the CONSTANT over time might prove useful toward solidifying a postulation I've made that goes against the "accepted" don't know what DE. I postulate it's evidence of rate of Black Hole development over time. The existing data might align to my postulation to reality and show reason for variations. But it does go against any concept of current expansion, not previous.

 

If I my understand of the cosmological constant is incorrect, it might still be possible. Dark Energy has been the root of the problem from the start, I think. I heard its origin was of unknown nature. I didn't like that. Don't like that. Started on a path to clarify it. Close now, to developing a postulation that could use existing data to verify.

 

Need to know specifics. w/out having data readily available via internet, I'm asking ppl I suspect might have a better understanding of some issues of need for data I've ignored to date. To better understand the CONSTANT, one must have the data available for review. That's sorta been a problem from the start. Maybe google can help...

Edited April 1, 2016 by shmengie

[Strange]

Lambda starts on a nice clearly defined set of precepts and it's "accepted" evidence of which will never be observably validated.

 

What evidence do you think is not observable? (It wouldn't be evidence if that were the case.)

 

 

I've not seen anyone address that or provide any agreement for nor against my understand, I've tried to lay out clearly and concise as my ability permits.

 

That is simply because you are ignoring the arguments that have been presented.

 

 

Dark Energy has been the root of the problem from the start, I think. I heard its origin was of unknown nature.

 

It has only been known about for 4 years. That isn't much time for people to understand it.

 

 

To better understand the CONSTANT, one must have the data available for review.

 

What "constant" are you talking about?

 

Maybe google can help...

 

I doubt it can understand your incoherent rambling.

[shmengie]

On a side note... I apologize. I believe I've kept your attention. I have a reasonable understand of a lot of things. But many are provable and many not. I get it. You get it. We sorta agree but the lines between which is which is so totally unclear (to me at least) that it makes it hard to verify which is which and who believes which are which. Waaa. I think I get that. Hope you do.

[Strange]

But many are provable and many not. I get it.

 

In science, nothing is provable.

 

But you keep claiming that parts of the current model are not supported by evidence or are based on "faith". But you consistently refuse to say what these are.

 

Please state exactly what you think is not evidence based.

 

If you once again refuse to answer this I will report you for trolling.

[shmengie]

 

I doubt it can understand your incoherent rambling.

 

The constant in question is the COSMOLOGICAL CONSTANT that Einstein said was wrong, but has managed to be proven questionable, thanks to Dark Energy.

 

I've not seen the numbers that have been complied that suggest Dark Energy exists but has no standing description other than it's evident the universe is expanding.

 

The numbers are multiple measurements in distance and compared to excepted belief the shifts should all line up, but they don't. Based on current understandings of the principles at hand. Its not easy to figure out what it means. I think I have. Might be able to prove it. But now I need to look at the numbers instead of "think" I understand POP-SCI explanations.

 

Google won't tell you if they understand. They've been good at showing the do, even when you don't... That helps.

I would like to see a specific compilation of work that indicates variation in shift rates over time-distance. Accuracy is expected to be within acceptable statistical error rates. I've not worked out any of the math on my own, heard descriptions from unreliable source: POP-SCI. Haddn't worried about the numbers because they're all complicated by means cosmological origins and lacking a clear definition of what it all means. I don't know if google can help. cosmologists that have had the numbers or know where they are, could. Others that have view the numbers might be able to point me toward where they are. But it's complicated, so I don't know if there's a publicly available repository for them or not, having not searched for them before.

 

Google might be able to help. But when it can't, there's a lot of links that show it doesn't matter to them what you need.

I really need to speak to a cosmologist. I don't think1987a is the closest hole I know of, but it has formed recently. That's a direction I want to look but I have no means to view in with the tools that may be available. I'm so outside the fringes of sciences I like to speculate about..., I'll have to write papers... After I finish one I think I need to finish first. Argh.

 

There's a lot of work involved in all of this. I don't expect to get paid for it, nor wish to pay, because I have no clue if I'm right or wrong.

Edited April 1, 2016 by shmengie

[Phi for All]

I get it. You get it. We sorta agree but the lines between which is which is so totally unclear (to me at least) that it makes it hard to verify which is which and who believes which are which.

 

This shows such a complete and fundamental lack of understanding that it's hard to believe we're all reading the same things. That you could think "we sorta agree" with your uninformed rants tells me you only listen when you think you understand. For the rest, you switch off for whatever reasons, and that's why your education in this area is so sketchy.

 

That you could acknowledge this and still think you've caught mainstream science in a mistake is really, really odd. You think you're onto some major revelation that people who studied science professionally missed. Your assessment of your own abilities is seriously flawed in this area. I don't know why it doesn't embarrass you to keep making these wild statements and assertions about a subject where you lack training.

 

I don't know what you do for a living, but imagine some guy comes in and starts telling you all kinds of crazy, untrue things about how you should do your job. It's obvious he's only guessing at what it takes to do what you do, and each time he makes these statements, he shows his lack of knowledge about your job. How do you treat this guy? Do you let him ramble on about things he's clearly misunderstood, continuing to misrepresent what you do for a living? How can you tell this guy, who insists he's right but can't really explain why, that he needs to be trained, that he needs to be educated in the right way to do the job? What do you do when he insists that his way of learning works for him, when it so clearly doesn't?

[shmengie]

Phi.

 

I've said in various terms. I program logic in computer languages. I like logic. It's something I'm good with.

[Strange]

So what you are saying is that you are ignorant of the evidence, therefore you assume it doesn't exist and further assume that people base their ideas on faith?

 

That is completely ridiculous.

 

Here: http://www.nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/physics/laureates/2011/press.html

Follow the "Scientific Background" link to see some of the data used.

[shmengie]

Not the best. No notable body of work. Just lots and lots of practice doing it.

What I'm saying is I'm familiar with recent developments, thanks to pop-sci. Figuring how what I agree with what's agreed, is a personal problem we all get to handle in our own ways.

[Strange]

Phi.

 

I've said in various terms. I program logic in computer languages. I like logic. It's something I'm good with.

 

You may be a competent programmer but you have shown that you are totally unable to apply logic. Or even present a coherent argument.

 

Your "theory" seems to be:

• I personally don't know the details of the evidence used in modern cosmology
• I am not willing to study this because I think it is wrong
• I personally don't understand the mathematics used in modern cosmology
• I am not able to understand this so it must be wrong
• Therefore people must be basing their beliefs about the big bang and dark energy on pure faith
• So I will make up some unsupportable nonsense about black holes and atoms and pretend it is science

[shmengie]

I reasoned out what a "potential" cause of variation in a "CONSTANT" termed cosmological. I think I know how to prove it, but I need access to specific numbers NOW!

 

I would really appreciate, if ANYONE could show me where they are. I've got one name in my head that I'm going to google in a moment, which is a good place for me to start, given help or not, to narrow my search.

 

Steve Darcy (sp?) his team showed the universe is expanding when we thought it might be shrinking, prior to their work. That seems like a good place to start (to me). They might have the numbers I've NOT seen. I've seen other "personalities" explain what it means. They've got some familiarity with what I need... Don't know how to strike a conversation with them.

Edited April 1, 2016 by shmengie

[Klaynos]

Phi.

 

I've said in various terms. I program logic in computer languages. I like logic. It's something I'm good with.

Yet you have persistently refused to define what you mean by logic...

[shmengie]

When one chooses to accept only a portion of the whole body of Lambda-CDM to develop a thesis... it goes against the grains of logic to a degree. I've had a personal struggle with that from the start. Tried to explain it to this thread. But I understand how it might sound QUACK.

[Strange]

I reasoned out what a "potential" cause of variation in a "CONSTANT" termed cosmological. I think I know how to prove it, but I need access to specific numbers NOW!

 

I would really appreciate, if ANYONE could show me where they are. I've got one name in my head that I'm going to google in a moment, which is a good place for me to start, given help or not, to narrow my search.

 

You could contact some of the people researching this area. See previous post for a start. Also:

http://csp.obs.carnegiescience.edu/data

http://www-supernova.lbl.gov/

http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/sne_cosmology.html

https://www.cfa.harvard.edu/supernova/home.html

https://www.cfa.harvard.edu/supernova/public.html

http://arxiv.org/find/all/1/all:+AND+data+AND+high-z+supernova/0/1/0/all/0/1

http://www.mso.anu.edu.au/~kcf/pubs_top20/67.pdf

http://www.nu.to.infn.it/exp/all/hzsnst/

http://www.darkenergysurvey.org/science/SN1A.shtml

http://web.physics.ucsb.edu/~jatila/LambdaLabs/hiz-sne.html

http://gruber.yale.edu/cosmology/2007/brian-schmidt-high-z-supernova-search-team

http://mnras.oxfordjournals.org/content/440/4/3257.abstract

http://www.slac.stanford.edu/econf/C041213/papers/1301.PDF

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supernova_Cosmology_Project

 

Don't come back until you have read and understood in detail, all of the publications by those people.

When one chooses to accept only a portion of the whole body of Lambda-CDM to develop a thesis... it goes against the grains of logic to a degree. I've had a personal struggle with that from the start.

 

It is illogical and unscientific (and arrogant) to ignore evidence and pretend it doesn't exist just because you dislike the consequences.

[shmengie]

Yet you have persistently refused to define what you mean by logic...

 

I consider logic a tool for deriving the a reasonable conclusion based on the information at hand. Mixing logic with precepts is a difficult but necessary part of the tenets of science, especially when more than ONE precept is involved. Leads toward progress. Lambda-CDM used as a generic term and use there of is difficult with logic, IMO.

[Strange]

Mixing logic with precepts is a difficult but necessary part of the tenets of science, especially when more than ONE precept is involved.

 

I assume by precept you mean premise? Logic is impossible without premises, that is what the logical argument builds on. This is how science develops models that are based on evidence (not kicking out some of the evidence because you don't like the results - that would be dishonest).

 

 

Lambda-CDM used as a generic term and use there of is difficult with logic, IMO.

 

It is not that generic. In fact it is a specific form of the big bang model that includes the amount of dark energy (Λ) and dark matter (CDM) that we observe in the universe.

 

What does that have to do with "logic"? Surely, it is logical to modify the model to fit what is observed?

 

What is not logical is claiming that you have a magic answer when you have no model and no data.

[shmengie]

Don't come back until you have read and understood in detail, all of the publications by those people.

 

You have not been laxed toward urging me to feel insignificant. I started out near enough a point of feeling that way.....

 

It's been hard for any distance to change from my personal view of "self". So I've been able to resist any urging I've perceived.

 

Now you have provided a nice compilation of work. For which I am grateful or hope to be.... However, it will take me a while to disseminate which are applicable and how.

 

There is one other question I haven't posed which is highly pertinent to my quest. But if I leave now and discover something useful in the mean time which is pertinent to the question I haven't yet posed.... Can I come back and ask even though I haven't finished COMPLETELY complying with orders as stated? I have suggested I need some information about black holes, but may not be clear (to me, or you the reader), exactly what information I need, nor how it might be plausible to attain such information.

 

In other words, you have me fearing to leave for I might not be welcomed back. (thy might just fear to QUACK, yet question thy wish to ATTACK).

[Klaynos]

That's not really made it any clearer what you mean by logic.

 

Logic to me means... This can be a reference to a third party definition, but it feels like you use "logic" to mean it makes sense to you.

[Strange]

I have suggested I need some information about black holes, but may not be clear (to me, or you the reader), exactly what information I need, nor how it might be plausible to attain such information.

 

I would start a new thread if you have questions about black holes.

[shmengie]

I have asserted some effort to construct readers opinions toward plausibility of my arguments (tho mostly personal I believe readers might share). Establishing shared trust in agreement is difficult when the concepts or gamut thereof within Lambda-CDM are difficult to grasp for any individual. For a while I believe I gained such trust. Anxieties for ones self often arise when one considers the consequences of what one's views might be as viewed from the eyes of another.

 

I've relied on such trust, for establishing answers for which I might rely upon. Strange has offered an interesting yet strange prospective for me to analyze these concepts. That's been somewhat of a unique experience for me. Thanks for being there Strange!

[Strange]

I have asserted some effort to construct readers opinions toward plausibility of my arguments (tho mostly personal I believe readers might share). Establishing shared trust in agreement is difficult when the concepts or gamut thereof within Lambda-CDM are difficult to grasp for any individual.

 

It has nothing to do with trust. It is the complete absence of any evidence or quantitative data supporting your idea that is the problem.