ICEINSPACE
|
Moon Phase
CURRENT MOON
Waning Crescent 2.1%
|
|
04-08-2010, 08:24 PM
|
 |
Registered User
|
|
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Blue Mountains, Australia
Posts: 1,338
|
|
|
Most interesting!
I find the idea of static space quite believable, more so than the invention of dark energy. One must note that even if all galaxies are receding from a common point, then at any point in the observable Universe we will still measure recession of galaxies in every direction from that point.
Regards, Rob.
|
04-08-2010, 08:46 PM
|
 |
Unpredictable
|
|
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Australia
Posts: 3,023
|
|
Hmm;
I'm on a learning curve here folks. Looks like I've got more reading to do.
Steven;
Thanks for the insights. I'm not quite into the right perspective/understanding yet. I'll chase it until I get it, though. I appreciate your comments - thanks.
Carl - thanks for the links. I'm going to chase up the references at the bottom of 'Metric Expansion of Space' link tomorrow (I'm about brain-dead tonight).
Bojan - Cool - glad you got it. Cheers.
Robh: It is interesting, huh ?
Cheers to all,
Craig
|
04-08-2010, 09:22 PM
|
 |
No More Infinities
|
|
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Townsville
Posts: 9,698
|
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Robh
Most interesting!
I find the idea of static space quite believable, more so than the invention of dark energy. One must note that even if all galaxies are receding from a common point, then at any point in the observable Universe we will still measure recession of galaxies in every direction from that point.
Regards, Rob.
|
It's not so much static as it's neither decelerating or accelerating. However, if you measure recessional velocities from an origin point, then you immediately violate the cosmological principle.
|
05-08-2010, 12:46 PM
|
|
Registered User
|
|
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Blue Mountains, Australia
Posts: 1,338
|
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by renormalised
It's not so much static as it's neither decelerating or accelerating. However, if you measure recessional velocities from an origin point, then you immediately violate the cosmological principle.
|
From my reading of the proposed model it is in fact static space i.e. not expanding. But galaxies are receding from each other with unchanging velocities.
The paper talks of a common point of divergence. However, an observer at any point, not necessarily the point of origin, will still see other galaxies moving away from each other. The cosmological principle, as anything else in Science, is not immutable. However, I see no reason why the cosmological principle can't be applied to the current state of the universe. As all galaxies have moved away from the point of origin, it is no longer part of our observed universe. If galaxies extend beyond the event horizon in every direction, then our universe is what we see - seemingly the same in every direction.
|
05-08-2010, 01:37 PM
|
|
Unpredictable
|
|
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Australia
Posts: 3,023
|
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Robh
From my reading of the proposed model it is in fact static space i.e. not expanding. But galaxies are receding from each other with unchanging velocities.
The paper talks of a common point of divergence. However, an observer at any point, not necessarily the point of origin, will still see other galaxies moving away from each other. The cosmological principle, as anything else in Science, is not immutable. However, I see no reason why the cosmological principle can't be applied to the current state of the universe. As all galaxies have moved away from the point of origin, it is no longer part of our observed universe. If galaxies extend beyond the event horizon in every direction, then our universe is what we see - seemingly the same in every direction.
|
Thus restoring a homogeneous, isotropic universe ? I think I'm starting to get the hang of this ..!...?
But .. I think Carl's point is that, by definition, the concept of a 'point of origin' automatically 'violates' the cosmological principle. It's cool that science allows thinking outside of things like this principle. It seems that whenever something comes hard up against it, (or violates it), something really interesting comes out of it.
Last edited by CraigS; 05-08-2010 at 04:15 PM.
|
05-08-2010, 05:04 PM
|
|
No More Infinities
|
|
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Townsville
Posts: 9,698
|
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Robh
From my reading of the proposed model it is in fact static space i.e. not expanding. But galaxies are receding from each other with unchanging velocities.
The paper talks of a common point of divergence. However, an observer at any point, not necessarily the point of origin, will still see other galaxies moving away from each other. The cosmological principle, as anything else in Science, is not immutable. However, I see no reason why the cosmological principle can't be applied to the current state of the universe. As all galaxies have moved away from the point of origin, it is no longer part of our observed universe. If galaxies extend beyond the event horizon in every direction, then our universe is what we see - seemingly the same in every direction.
|
The only time there can be a common point of origin and all the galaxies experience moving away from each other is if that point of origin lies outside the universe, completely. This is including the observable universe and the universe as a whole. Otherwise, you have a preferred frame of reference and this immediately violates the cosmological principle. All the observation that have been made point to the universe being isotropic and homogeneous on the largest of scales. For that to be the case, there cannot be a preferred frame of reference to the matter-energy density within the universe, otherwise it would've been detected.
The first premise of a static universe in which all the galaxies are moving away from one another makes no sense. You have a finite sized container with all its contents racing away to...where??. Eventually the galaxies will crowd to a point, or several points near the edge of the universe because at some stage, they will have to change their direction of motion tangential to their original motion vector....there's no more space to move in even if the universe is finite but unbound. This would already be occurring for the farthest galaxies, yet we see no evidence for this type of motion in the observations. Occam's Razor, ergo, it's not occurring. It would also mean that the redshift being detected is solely a Doppler shift and not a Hubble redshift....then you would have to explain those galaxies which exhibit a blueshift to their spectrum.
Then you have the problem that not all galaxies are, in fact, moving away from one another in the way that's been observed. If you have a preferred frame of reference because of a defined point of origin within the universe, you cannot have all the galaxies moving away from one another in all directions because some will have to be moving at a tangent to your motion. There's no way around it. Yes, you may be able to say that all the galaxies are in fact moving away from one another, with careful observation, but you would also be detecting galaxies whose motion would have a partial vector of movement across your line of sight. It would be akin to proper motion. This hasn't been observed.
|
05-08-2010, 05:22 PM
|
|
No More Infinities
|
|
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Townsville
Posts: 9,698
|
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by CraigS
Thus restoring a homogeneous, isotropic universe ? I think I'm starting to get the hang of this ..!...?
But .. I think Carl's point is that, by definition, the concept of a 'point of origin' automatically 'violates' the cosmological principle. It's cool that science allows thinking outside of things like this principle. It seems that whenever something comes hard up against it, (or violates it), something really interesting comes out of it.
|
But, it doesn't. There's no isotropy or homogeneity...you always have that preferred reference frame, the origin point (which is observable). Not only that, explosions (or a conflagration, which this would be better described as) don't happen in the manner of having everything moving away from the point of origin in a nice orderly manner. The physics just doesn't work like that. In order to have all the galaxies move away at constant velocities dependent on distance (which is not what is seen), you would have to have such a ridiculously smooth and ordered explosion, the chances of it ever happening would be even less than for a BB style of expansion. There would have to be zero turbulence to the explosion and the matter distribution would have to be even smoother than what we do find. It doesn't add up. Explosions are turbulent and lumpy affairs at the best of times. Anything that mixed up would show up in the CMB even now, after all this time. It would also show up in the distribution of matter and energy across the universe. It'd be incredibly lumpy, even on the largest of scales, but that's not what we find.
|
05-08-2010, 05:38 PM
|
|
Unpredictable
|
|
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Australia
Posts: 3,023
|
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by renormalised
But, it doesn't. There's no isotropy or homogeneity...you always have that preferred reference frame, the origin point (which is observable). Not only that, explosions (or a conflagration, which this would be better described as) don't happen in the manner of having everything moving away from the point of origin in a nice orderly manner. The physics just doesn't work like that. In order to have all the galaxies move away at constant velocities dependent on distance (which is not what is seen), you would have to have such a ridiculously smooth and ordered explosion, the chances of it ever happening would be even less than for a BB style of expansion. There would have to be zero turbulence to the explosion and the matter distribution would have to be even smoother than what we do find. It doesn't add up. Explosions are turbulent and lumpy affairs at the best of times. Anything that mixed up would show up in the CMB even now, after all this time. It would also show up in the distribution of matter and energy across the universe. It'd be incredibly lumpy, even on the largest of scales, but that's not what we find.
|
I was just reading your previous response to Rob. I think I understand.
It seems to be the same reasoning as to why the big bang origin is defined as "that point of infinite density and zero size occurred everywhere. All of space and time expanded out of that condition, so in effect everywhere was experiencing that condition. There was nothing outside of that "everywhere" which could be defined as a destination point and no vector to define a trajectory." (Your words). Is the Cosmo principle one of the reasons why the origin in BBTs is defined in such a way ?
Also, the paper which started this thread did point out that:
"This model may be incompatible with other cosmological data, such as the cosmic microwave back-ground and the distribution of galaxies. Most phenomena, however, depend on the distribution and movement of matter, not on the expansion of space itself. These questions remain to be examined."
Interrrressting !!!
Cheers
|
05-08-2010, 05:45 PM
|
|
No More Infinities
|
|
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Townsville
Posts: 9,698
|
|
|
Yes, for the observations we see in the present universe's physical conditions to be upheld, then the BB must be defined as an isotropic and homogeneous expansion on the largest of scales. It's what we see. The universe can be as lumpy as it likes on smaller scales, which it is, but when you average out the matter-energy density of the universe over it's entire volume, the answer come extremely close to zero. Therefore it is isotropic (everything looks the same no matter where you look) and homogeneous (there's no areas which have any more matter-energy than any of the others).
|
05-08-2010, 05:57 PM
|
|
Unpredictable
|
|
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Australia
Posts: 3,023
|
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by renormalised
Yes, for the observations we see in the present universe's physical conditions to be upheld, then the BB must be defined as an isotropic and homogeneous expansion on the largest of scales. It's what we see. The universe can be as lumpy as it likes on smaller scales, which it is, but when you average out the matter-energy density of the universe over it's entire volume, the answer come extremely close to zero. Therefore it is isotropic (everything looks the same no matter where you look) and homogeneous (there's no areas which have any more matter-energy than any of the others).
|
Cool !!
Man, the guy that wrote this paper has a lifetime of digging himself out of this pile ie: => against the Cosmo principle, against the CMBR evidence, against Hubble's Law, against SNIA analysis, ...
I look forward to his next chapter !!!
cheers
|
05-08-2010, 06:01 PM
|
 |
Registered User
|
|
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 2,926
|
|
Quote:
Man, the guy that wrote this paper has a lifetime of digging himself out of this pile ie: => against the Cosmo principle, against the CMBR evidence, against Hubble's Law, against SNIA analysis, ...
I look forward to his next chapter !!!
|
It's also informative that you can publish such material and not be burnt at the stake as suggested by some psuedoscientists.
Steven
|
05-08-2010, 06:03 PM
|
|
No More Infinities
|
|
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Townsville
Posts: 9,698
|
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by sjastro
It's also informative that you can publish such material and not be burnt at the stake as suggested by some psuedoscientists.
Steven
|
Shades of the Inquisition even
|
05-08-2010, 06:14 PM
|
|
No More Infinities
|
|
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Townsville
Posts: 9,698
|
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by CraigS
Cool !!
Man, the guy that wrote this paper has a lifetime of digging himself out of this pile ie: => against the Cosmo principle, against the CMBR evidence, against Hubble's Law, against SNIA analysis, ...
I look forward to his next chapter !!!
cheers |
There's nothing wrong with questioning the prevailing paradigm. Where it does become wrong is when you take your line of reasoning from wholly unsubstantiated and entirely speculative premises. You should at least know what you're on about (that means, knowing the prevailing school of thought well enough to be able to comment on it) and then come at it from a well reasoned direction. Not from some fantasy crazed ego trip just because you like the sound of something or it's your belief it's right and everyone else has it wrong. If you have something to say and are questioning the results or interpretations of another thing, then make sure it makes sense and doesn't just dismiss or ignore everyone else offhand.
That makes for good science.
|
05-08-2010, 06:18 PM
|
|
Unpredictable
|
|
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Australia
Posts: 3,023
|
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by sjastro
It's also informative that you can publish such material and not be burnt at the stake as suggested by some psuedoscientists.
Steven
|
Ahh ..ah dunno 'bout that one ..
He's gotta be pretty singed - if this forum is a micro-cosm of his world.
Love to tap into the feedback loop .. maybe Ned might be in it ??
|
05-08-2010, 07:43 PM
|
|
Registered User
|
|
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 2,926
|
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by CraigS
Ahh ..ah dunno 'bout that one ..
He's gotta be pretty singed - if this forum is a micro-cosm of his world.
Love to tap into the feedback loop .. maybe Ned might be in it ??
|
I'm sure Ned would have a few comments. Afterall a theory that would invalidate his work with COBE and WMAP............
Steven
|
05-08-2010, 08:04 PM
|
|
Registered User
|
|
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 2,926
|
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by renormalised
There's nothing wrong with questioning the prevailing paradigm. Where it does become wrong is when you take your line of reasoning from wholly unsubstantiated and entirely speculative premises. You should at least know what you're on about (that means, knowing the prevailing school of thought well enough to be able to comment on it) and then come at it from a well reasoned direction. Not from some fantasy crazed ego trip just because you like the sound of something or it's your belief it's right and everyone else has it wrong. If you have something to say and are questioning the results or interpretations of another thing, then make sure it makes sense and doesn't just dismiss or ignore everyone else offhand.
|
Or as practiced by pseudoscience.
(1) If you can't refute mainstream science directly then create a fictionalized version and refute that.
(2) Argue the science is wrong because it is dogmatic.
(3) Conspiracy theories of pseudoscientists mysteriously disappearing after challenging mainstream science.
(4) Accuse theoretical scientists (mathematicians in particular) of being in league with the devil.
(5) Suggest that scientists such as Einstein or Feynman were closet supporters of the pseudoscience in question.
(6) Claiming the pseudoscience is testable in the laboratory despite the fact the technology as yet is unavailable and possibly won't be for the next 2 or 3 centuries.
Etc, Etc ,etc.........
Steven
|
05-08-2010, 08:13 PM
|
|
No More Infinities
|
|
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Townsville
Posts: 9,698
|
|
You forgot #7...Cherry pick as many articles you can find and use everything you do find completely out of context...and #8 Accusing others of being dogmatic and critical, when they themselves are being exactly the same. Although "etc etc etc" just about covers it anyway
|
05-08-2010, 08:49 PM
|
|
Unpredictable
|
|
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Australia
Posts: 3,023
|
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by sjastro
I'm sure Ned would have a few comments. Afterall a theory that would invalidate his work with COBE and WMAP............
Steven
|
I would happily defer to you to write the questions ...
Rgds.
|
05-08-2010, 08:54 PM
|
 |
Supernova Searcher
|
|
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Cambroon Queensland Australia
Posts: 9,326
|
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by sjastro
I'm sure Ned would have a few comments. Afterall a theory that would invalidate his work with COBE and WMAP............
Steven
|
I have been following this thread with interest
But now I am going to ask a maybe stupid question, who is Ned 
|
Posting Rules
|
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
HTML code is Off
|
|
|
All times are GMT +10. The time is now 10:45 PM.
|
|
