What is all the evidence for an Expanding Universe

[Mordred]

Here this paper discusses redshift and distance measures.

 

http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/?9905116 "Distance measures in cosmology" David W. Hogg

 

The paper discusses the inherent problem due to the Hubble Horizon.

 

For example at z=1100 a galaxy has an apparent recessive velocity of 3.2 c.

 

We know nothing moves faster than c yet we can have recessive velocities faster than c. If you tried using Doppler formula you will get the wrong answer.

 

For that matter the simple cosmological redshift formula requires corrections beyond the Hubble Horizon.

Edited March 27, 2016 by Mordred

[Strange]

If I said I agree those are two completely different explanations and can be ascertained logically by changing two different variables in GR.

 

You don't need GR to explain Doppler shift so I'm not sure what variables you are referring to.

[shmengie]

Eureka I've got it! Actually I conceived it a long time ago, but neglected to simplify it. My bad. Guess I'm not a scientist after all.

 

A simple thought experiment, with limited assumptions.

 

For the moment, assume SS is correct in that space/distance do not change. -we'll modify this in a bit, but lets set the stage first.

 

This will be easy if we imagine a static box full of evenly distributed matter looks something like a gas.

 

Now we want to measure light shift, so we need source and observer spaced some distance apart.

call light source point A

call observer point B

A and B locations are opposite corner corners and light constantly traveles from A to B

distance between A & B happens to be about 14 billion light years.

Mass of A & B do not change and oddly never change.

Now measure shift between two points. (we have some w3ird apparatus that can do this)

No, shift nothing moved (yet).

pretty consistent with steady state so far

 

Now we don't believe the universe is SS. Funny thing about mass, it gravitates. A&B have no mass, so mass doesn't gravitate toward them. w3ird I know, but this is a thought experiment.

 

We believe the universe has evolved, so lets assert the box evolves.

Lets further assume all mass resolves into two galaxies in corners different from A & B. Don't know why, it just happens.

Space hasn't changed but mass distribution has.

 

Is it possible over the 14 billion years it takes for this change to happen the space and distribution of the field of gravity has changed shift in light.

Would that shift in light resemble cosmological redshift in any way.

Lets suppose that either Point A or B changes locality without motion so that we may meter the shift in light from varying distances, without incurring doppler effect.

I assert the field of gravity evolves at all points in the box as the galaxies resolve from gas to galaxy.

I further would assert this shifts light as it traverses from point a to point b, occurs due to change of gravity.

I don't believe space affects a photon but that gravity does.

My this is the epitome of my thesis.

 

I don't know how to prove it. But I've come to believe it has merit. If Lambda-CDM stands independent of redshift, this is inconsequential to Lambda-CDM, other than changing a pillar to a crutch. I'm a loon, I know, or better an oxymoron.

 

I've reasoned out this is plausibly correct shape of things. The box idea was a little late to the game.

 

I've applied a fair amount of logic in my reasoning, and my conclusions thus far stand. I haven't figured out the math of it, so I must not be a scientist, I agree to a degree. Using the box idea one could conceive a specific amount of mass for start to end... Maybe I finally figured out a way to do the math.

Hmm... Need to go buy a book on relativity, or use the internet.

 

I've played that experiment in my head many times and concluded it would likely resemble aspects of cosmological redshift. I hadn't previously determined a method to define a specific amount of mass to begin with, so I couldn't ascertain a means to work it out.

 

Finally found a means to accomplish my goal. I think the experiment could work out with something of a resemblance to the nature of things. It's a little different that reality, but many aspects share enough similarity. I don't know... why I keep saying that, i dont know.

Edited March 27, 2016 by shmengie

[Mordred]

No this doesn't work. What your describing is gravitational time dilation.

 

At any point in time the average mass distribution is homogeneous and isotropic.

 

You won't have any gravitational redshift. Gravitational redshift requires variation in gravitational potential at a given moment.

 

For that matter we measure gravitational potential in Cosmology data using the integrated Sache Wolfe effect.

 

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sachs%E2%80%93Wolfe_effect

In other words we are already measuring how gravitational potential wells evolve over time for large scale structure formation.

 

 

Let me ask you a question. I am measuring the 21 cm line of hydrogen at the time of the CMB. Average temperature is 3000 Kelvin. Ignoring redshift.

 

What is the wavelength ? Of the signal?

Then measure hydrogen today average temperature is 2.7 Kelvin what is the emitter wavelength.?

Edited March 27, 2016 by Mordred

[Strange]

I am still trying to get a clear answer to this question:

Do you understand that the expanding universe does NOT require dark energy?

Edited March 27, 2016 by Strange

[Mordred]

 

If the Universe is SS. Why would the temperature vary between the two measurements.? It's not due to redshift.

[Strange]

Would that shift in light resemble cosmological redshift in any way.

 

A number of problem with this (beyond the ones Mordred mentions):

 

1. The shift would be the same for all galaxies - remember we are seeing galaxies after they have formed, and so with a (relatively) constant mass.

 

2. Even if you insist the shift is because galaxies are forming, there is still no reason for this to have a strict linear relationship with distance; it would, instead, depend on the age and mass of the galaxies.

 

3. Assuming that all galaxies are roughly the same as ours (a simplification that is appropriate for your model) then there would be redshift as the light left one galaxy compensated by blue shift as it approached ours.

 

4. We see red-shift where there is no concentration of mass. (If it was due to gravitation, as you suggest, the light from such areas would be blue shifted by the gravity of our galaxy).

Edited March 27, 2016 by Strange

[Mordred]

One thing I've never understood is why is it when ppl argue redshift and expansion. They never think about what causes the emitter signal in the first place, The questions I posted above will show that problem.

[Klaynos]

I'm still wondering what the definition of logic is here.

[shmengie]

I am still trying to get a clear answer to this question:

 

I don't seek an answer to the question: is the universe expanding.

I haven't given it much thought. I got stuck while questioning redshift origin. Not expansion of the universe or what if any implications the answer to my question might have.

 

I'm trying to rule out anything that's not pertinent to my question. You keep bringing up this question, but I see as impertinent.

 

Perhaps I should ask you, because you keep going in that direction. Do you believe it does?

 

I seek to answer why redshift might vary over distance and consequently time. Expansion may have something to do with it, but I'm stuck in another avenue of exploration at the moment.

 

If the Universe is SS. Why would the temperature vary between the two measurements.? It's not due to redshift.

 

I don't wish to argue validity of SS. I don't agree with it because it directly conflicts with the notion of evolving universe, I hold self evident.

 

Sache Wolfe, resolves any notion of an evolving universe and gravity distribution and change with a blanket statement I view flawed.

 

Distribution of gravity has changed, is changing and the way things go, will keep doing it. While the total quantity of mass may be invariant, we'll assume accuracy of this assertion, to reduce further complication another variance would imply (I'll try not to throw you off by using logic, if it gets too difficult, I'll try to avoid using such non-scientific methods ). I do find flaw. Because concentration and more specifically locality of mass dramatically change the potential when one varies either of the two. Not being a scientist, I don't grasp the full potential of the inverse square law (or do I???) but when one rules a law as inconsequential, one must examine it's FULL potential, rather than ignore it. Perhaps scientists may exempt any law the like w/out such examination. Not being one, I don't know how it works.

 

Now I don't know when scientists should or shouldn't deem laws of variance inconsequential, guess because I'm not a scientist. But when I apply logic, I see flaw.

 

huh.... I don't know what I'm thinking. oh, Newton and his inverse square law, what a fool... Is that right? No, he was an ass, not a fool. hm... Its too hard for me to get it. sorry I brought it up.

 

 

A number of problem with this (beyond the ones Mordred mentions):

 

1. The shift would be the same for all galaxies - remember we are seeing galaxies after they have formed, and so with a (relatively) constant mass.

 

2. Even if you insist the shift is because galaxies are forming, there is still no reason for this to have a strict linear relationship with distance; it would, instead, depend on the age and mass of the galaxies.

 

3. Assuming that all galaxies are roughly the same as ours (a simplification that is appropriate for your model) then there would be redshift as the light left one galaxy compensated by blue shift as it approached ours.

 

4. We see red-shift where there is no concentration of mass. (If it was due to gravitation, as you suggest, the light from such areas would be blue shifted by the gravity of our galaxy).

 

I do not argue that SS is correct nor that BB is correct. Neither argument do I find simple, because there are many assertions with each that remain definitively unresolved. I don't wish to resolve such complex problems. There is one iota of a problem I would like to resolve. It may pertain to the arguments aforementioned. I don't know.

 

I find my one problem of paramount import, because I can view neither SS nor BB in any great detail until my one little iota is resolved.

 

Seems ones view of tackling ones problem scientifically in a public forum must clearly specify these constraints. I apparently have neglected to do so. I apologize for my frustration. I didn't mean to specify otherwise.

 

I find theory of gravity problematic. That doesn't mean I find theory of gravity to be something other than simple.

 

But if every gravity of every atom reaches every other atom and its reach is universal, I view that with a bit of skepticism and why I find it problematic.

However because the force diminishes based on the square of distance, even tho the net mass of the universe may in fact be static, it's distribut

 

 

One thing I've never understood is why is it when ppl argue redshift and expansion. They never think about what causes the emitter signal in the first place, The questions I posted above will show that problem.

 

I have one problem with redshift, has nothing to do with expansion, AFAICT. If you want to go there, have fun and start your own thread. This one is mine. I did associate the thread with expansion, my bad. Go with ignorance of science as reason.

Edited March 27, 2016 by shmengie

[Phi for All]

I'm still wondering what the definition of logic is here.

 

Since the supportive math = 0, logic shouldn't get a mention here at all. It's a mathematical concept of validation, but it's not really applicable if there's no math, right?

 

Mr Spock messed up the scientific definition of logic.

[Klaynos]

 

Since the supportive math = 0, logic shouldn't get a mention here at all. It's a mathematical concept of validation, but it's not really applicable if there's no math, right?

 

Mr Spock messed up the scientific definition of logic.

He's claiming he's doing physics too without maths, so all bets are off.

[Mordred]

What are you arguing Shmengei ?

 

Cosmological redshift is a consequence of expansion.

You cannot have a cosmological redshift and not have expansion.

 

we can accurately measure gravitational potential changes. Aka The Sache Wolfe effect.

 

Cosmological redshift is due to the wavelength in the path of light as it follows the null geodesics DUE TO CHANGE in distance.

You argue against cosmological redshift but when we point out your errors you ignore those details. You don't even attempt to show the math.

 

You don't need to be a physicist to understand a high school level formula.

Not do you need to be a physicist to understand Weins displacement law on the emitter frequency.

[Strange]

I'm trying to rule out anything that's not pertinent to my question. You keep bringing up this question, but I see as impertinent.

 

You mentioned dark energy and I'm trying to understand why. That's all. I can't imagine why you see it as impertinent.

 

 

Distribution of gravity has changed, is changing and the way things go, will keep doing it.

 

And that is part of the big bang model.

[shmengie]

What are you arguing Shmengei ?

 

Cosmological redshift is a consequence of expansion.

You cannot have a cosmological redshift and not have expansion.

 

we can accurately measure gravitational potential changes. Aka The Sache Wolfe effect.

 

Cosmological redshift is due to the wavelength in the path of light as it follows the null geodesics DUE TO CHANGE in distance.

You argue against cosmological redshift but when we point out your errors you ignore those details. You don't even attempt to show the math.

 

You don't need to be a physicist to understand a high school level formula.

Not do you need to be a physicist to understand Weins displacement law on the emitter frequency.

Integrated Sachs–Wolfe effect

If the Universe is dominated by matter, then large-scale gravitational potential energy wells and hills do not evolve significantly.

 

I don't know how to translate: One big large cloud of gas into billions of galaxy (slight reconfiguration/transformation)

 

how do they put it. as to "NOT EVOLVE SIGNIFICANTLY"

 

I don't know how to describe my difference in opinion. math = F_net = m•a = 0 must be right.

Edited March 27, 2016 by shmengie

[Mordred]

If you take the following equation.

 

 

[latex]d{s^2}=-{c^2}d{t^2}+a{t^2}[d{r^2}+{S,k}{r^2}d\Omega^2][/latex]

 

Then take the [latex]G^{\mu\nu}[/latex] component of the Einstein field equations (which is the spacetime geometry metric )

 

You will get the following relations for the Geodesic equations light path.

 

[latex]G_{0,0}=1[/latex]

[latex]G_{1,1}=-R^2(T)/(1-kr^2)[/latex]

[latex]G_{2,2}=-R^2(T)r^2[/latex]

[latex]G_{3,3}=-R^2(T)r^2sin^2\theta[/latex]

 

Because the Universe curvature constant is flat( which is an energy/density to critical density relation.

 

The light paths are straight. The only thing that changes is the distances between units of measurement. Ie the wavelength.

 

Your gravitational potential is described by the above spacetime metric tensor

 

[latex]G^{\mu\nu}[/latex]

 

Positive or negative curvature causes light paths to converge and diverge.

 

We don't see these distortions.

Edited March 27, 2016 by Mordred

[shmengie]

I told you I have issues with math. Affirming common knowledge, by example of ignorance... Seems childish to me.

 

 

I fear I misinterpreted english in the link you availed.

 

Aka The Sache Wolfe effect.

 

So while I know I have issues with math, I find my issues with English may trump the issue you choose to highlight by example.

 

 

Furthermore I don't recognize those equations, only a few symbols are familiar to me. Guv I can equate to relativity and transformation.

 

If you can tell me how that applies to an evolving gravity field, I would be very appreciative. I need more verbiage to know what you are presenting. Tho question my English language skill, I do find troubling as well, which induces a fear that additional verbiage may not help.

Edited March 27, 2016 by shmengie

[Mordred]

Yes you have a problem with the math. Yet you seem to ignore the opinions of those that understand the math.

 

My purpose to posting the last post was to show that the first equation which is the full FLRW metric already includes gravity influences.

 

The formulas already include variations in gravitational potential in the Geodesic equations

(I didn't bother posting the christoffel symbols, that define the null geodesic as it would be largely meaningless to most). Even the above is too complex to most lol

[shmengie]

I pointed out a flaw I identified in " The Sache Wolfe effect. "

 

You have not addressed my identification other that to mean I cannot apply logic. There for I question my language skills. - Direct cause/effect.

 

Tho it is somewhat indirect, because I made an assumption: that you call me an idiot and that was the implied such meaning.

 

Does "Sache Wolfe effect" account for a change in distribution of mass or ignore it with a blanket statement? I would like to affirm my ability to read...

 

On an a somewhat related note: (tho my ability to read does require affirmation for this one too......)

 

I didn't know what FLRW meant, so I looked up the wiki on it:

 

Because the FLRW model assumes homogeneity, some popular accounts mistakenly assert that the big bang model cannot account for the observed lumpiness of the universe. In a strictly FLRW model, there are no clusters of galaxies, stars or people, since these are objects much denser than a typical part of the universe. Nonetheless, the FLRW model is used as a first approximation for the evolution of the real, lumpy universe because it is simple to calculate, and models which calculate the lumpiness in the universe are added onto the FLRW models as extensions.

I don't know if I've asserted evolution of the universe to imply a different account of mistakes or not. Until my English capabilities are ascertained, I fear making any further comment.

I've been searching for math, that would either affirm or deny my postulation.

 

If I've viewed these documents before and dismissed them as "not applicable" one might ascertain it was not w/out reason.

 

I assert the evolution of the Universe may have caused a shift. Verbiage in these documents suggests it does not apply and is not addressed.

 

Tho they do contain math that is pertinent and will likely prove exactly what I suggest is correct... IF *and*only*if* EXPANTION IS NOT INFACT THE CAUSE.

 

The approach taken is in direct conflict of my objective.

 

Which leads me to ask why??? We know the universe has evolved. Why does this one seemingly evident fact not apply in the math?

 

Seems the documents that would prove it argue it's inconsequential... Huh, they use science... I'm not a scientist. Guess that's really why I don't get it. YOU WERE RIGHT ALL ALONG.

Edited March 27, 2016 by shmengie

[Phi for All]

Tho it is somewhat indirect, because I made an assumption: that you call me an idiot and that was the implied such meaning.

 

!

Moderator Note

NO! Please be very careful what you accuse others of. NOBODY called you an idiot, or implied it, or disparaged you personally in any way. That would be against our rules. We attack ideas ruthlessly, because that's what keep science strong, but we do NOT attack the people who have them. Attacking a person to discredit their idea is a logical fallacy.

 

Report this note if you disagree, but please don't discuss it off-topic here.

[Strange]

Does "Sache Wolfe effect" account for a change in distribution of mass

 

Yes, that is exactly what it describes.

[shmengie]

1. I assert I do not use math

2. I assert I use logic

3. I assert I find a flaw

4. I assert where I find said flaw

5. I assert flaw is ignored

 

A. You debunked my logic, iterating I do not use math.

 

6. I assert flaw in your logic

 

B. Return to A

 

run

 

Why do I perceive one of my assertions (an change in mass distribution) is ignored?

 

You've directed me to two bodies of work, that show I'm incorrect,

but when I read them, they indicate to me I am not incorrect.

 

I've pulled the statements they make. Ones that indicate change in mass distribution is not taken into account.

 

They also indicate that what I would like to prove, is resolved by applying it to expansion.

 

I can accept mass distribution has changed. I cannot accept expansion, but that's not the issue I'm trying to address, it's one I've tried to avoid.

 

 

I did develop a thought experiment. I doubt you gave it any attention, because I used steady state like properties in the example. We all know SS is wrong... Therefor (I assume) why bother.

Edited March 27, 2016 by shmengie

[Mordred]

If you try to describe a gas, do you describe the motion of every particle? Or do you approximate the system?

 

The FLRW metric is such an approximation.

 

A Homogeneous universe can only be modelled as such on a sufficiently large enough of a scale of measurement.

 

Take for example a beach full of rocks, pebbles and sand. Up close it looks lumpy and chaotic. Move further away and it looks uniform and smooth.

 

This is the same as the FLRW metric.

 

Obviously stars and Galaxies etc aren't in every position in the cosmos, it appears to lack any uniformity.

 

Yet you increase the measurement distance the distribution becomes uniform.

1. I assert I do not use math

2. I assert I use logic

3. I assert I find a flaw

4. I assert where I find said flaw

5. I assert flaw is ignored

 

A. You debunked my logic, iterating I do not use math.

 

6. I assert flaw in your logic

 

B. Return to A

 

run

The only thing you've asserted is a lack of understanding and a refusal to understand.

 

I showed you with the math many of your mistakes which you failed to try to comprehend.

 

That's not my problem if you refuse to learn. That's your limitation not mine.

I even posted you numerous links where you could LEARN the math. If you choose to ignore those that's not my issue.

 

 

What you've stated amounts to

 

A) I don't know the math

B) I don't agree with the professionals that do.

C) I must be right and everyone else is wrong. Because it doesn't fit my sense of logic.

 

 

Kind of defies a logical approach

 

Do you even understand why a gas expands? The similarities as to why the universe expands is remarkable.

 

With the sole exception of the cosmological constant. The universe follows EVERY thermodynamic law.

The only difficulty in the cosmological constant is why is it so seemingly constant.

Edited March 27, 2016 by Mordred

[Strange]

4. I assert where I find said flaw

5. I assert flaw is ignored

 

It is not a flaw. It is not ignored.

[shmengie]

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.

 

 

 

homogeneous:

 

of uniform structure or composition throughout

 

Was the universe in this state at one time? Probably

 

From any given point would the force of gravity be much different from any other given point? Not likely

 

Would that time be now? No.

 

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

 

Is the universe homogeneous now? no

 

From any given point would the force of gravity be the same? Not likely

 

Is there a law of equivalence that can be applied to fix this problem?

 

Is it a problem?

Edited March 27, 2016 by shmengie