Cosmological expansion of everything

[Helio]

The question that has been bugging me, and others here, is one that says everything in the universe is expanding, not just the space in-between stuff. But this is illogical for if, say, a proton popped into existence when the universe was only the size of, say, a grapefruit, it would be easy to see protons today if they expanded as much as the universe has (to ~ 96 billion lyrs in dia.), right? This would, of course, present all kinds of issues.

But there is the issue of particle duality. It's both a wave and a particle, sometimes called a waveicle. So, in Laura Mersini-Houton's book, "Before the Big Bang", she mentions that it is the wave portion that gets stretched not the particle aspect of it. This has the effect of cooling everything as well.

I'm not sure I truly understand it since wavelength determines energy, so are, say, electrons much wimpier today than they used to be since their wavelengths have been incredibly stretched since they formed during those first 7 minutes? This kinda works if we set one energy amount for the particle, and another for its wave properties. Why wouldn't they be cooler today?

 

[Montezuma]

I tend to agree. If space is (mostly) an empty void, what is it expanding into - an EMPTIER void? There is a logical alternative.
All matter did not form in a single Big Bang event. Instead, matter continuously forms on the outer edges of spiral galaxies, and matter gets continually recycled in the galactic centers.
The centers of galaxies feed on the inbound material, and eject elementary particles back into space; a perpetual cycle of creation and destruction. Since the centers eject matter, by definition they cannot be black holes.
Global Warming is a direct result of increasing proximity to the center of the Milky Way. Once the polar ice caps disappear, the oceans and air will quickly become inhospitable to all Life.

 

[Unclear Engineer]

Helio, Why would you assume that a proton that formed at something like 0.000001 second after the Bang was the same size then that it is now?

The radius of the whole universe is supposed to be only 10^10 meters at that time. Now it is supposed to be something like 10^35 meters. (Trying to read a crappy graph.) So, "space" has expanded by something like 10^25 times its size when the first protons are supposed to have condensed from quarks. Why could those protons not have been 10^-25 the dimension that they are today?

For me, the whole problem with this "Inflation" concept is that the theorists seem to assume that there is some absolute standard of measurement that did not change with the inflation of space. And, they also assume that time did not get affected by expansion. Nor the speed of light as measured by that absolute dimension scale and absolute time scale.

I seriously doubt that these theories have scratched the surface of how space/time might have changed over the past. Consider how an "observer" 13.8 billion years ago would have measured the speed of light and found it to be the same as we measure it today, while expanding at superluminal rates.

 

[Montezuma]

Helio, Why would you assume that a proton that formed at something like 0.000001 second after the Bang was the same size then that it is now?

The radius of the whole universe is supposed to be only 10^10 meters at that time. Now it is supposed to be something like 10^35 meters. (Trying to read a crappy graph.) So, "space" has expanded by something like 10^25 times its size when the first protons are supposed to have condensed from quarks. Why could those protons not have been 10^-25 the dimension that they are today?

For me, the whole problem with this "Inflation" concept is that the theorists seem to assume that there is some absolute standard of measurement that did not change with the inflation of space. And, they also assume that time did not get affected by expansion. Nor the speed of light as measured by that absolute dimension scale and absolute time scale.

I seriously doubt that these theories have scratched the surface of how space/time might have changed over the past. Consider how an "observer" 13.8 billion years ago would have measured the speed of light and found it to be the same as we measure it today, while expanding at superluminal rates.

I agree. Space is (mostly) an empty void. So what is it expanding into - an EMPTIER void? There is a logical alternative.
All matter did not form in a single Big Bang event. Instead, matter continuously forms on the outer edges of spiral galaxies, and matter gets continually recycled in the galactic centers.
The centers of galaxies are eternal - only the matter spiraling inward is less than 14 billion years old.
Global Warming is a direct result of increasing proximity to the center of the Milky Way. Once the polar ice caps disappear, the oceans and air will quickly become inhospitable to all Life.
One hundred years of Science chasing bogus theories may cost Mankind it's very existence.

 

[COLGeek]

I agree. Space is (mostly) an empty void. So what is it expanding into - an EMPTIER void? There is a logical alternative.
All matter did not form in a single Big Bang event. Instead, matter continuously forms on the outer edges of spiral galaxies, and matter gets continually recycled in the galactic centers.
The centers of galaxies are eternal - only the matter spiraling inward is less than 14 billion years old.
Global Warming is a direct result of increasing proximity to the center of the Milky Way. Once the polar ice caps disappear, the oceans and air will quickly become inhospitable to all Life.
One hundred years of Science chasing bogus theories may cost Mankind it's very existence.

Do you have any independent sources to support this theory (except your website, of course)? Especially one that has been peer reviewed from a recognized source.

 

[Montezuma]

Do you have any independent sources to support this theory (except your website, of course)? Especially one that has been peer reviewed from a recognized source.

Alas, I do not. But not from lack of trying.
I conceived the idea to measure the Fibonacci spiral in geologic time on May 3, 2018. The first authorities I contacted were the astrophysics journals.
But they summarily reject any theory contrary to the Big Bang theory. The editor of the Astrophysics Journal, Mr. Ethan Vishniac, told me that my theory is, "inappropriate for peer review."
I was recently told by a top NOAA official that I lack any hard evidence - despite two trillion spiral galaxies clearly displaying matter spiraling inward.
I'm sure that you, like the others, treat this like some thesis to be graded. I tell you that this is a warning that Global Warming is going to end all Life on Earth.
I am merely the messenger. You must decide what to do with the information.

"You can't teach a man anything; you can only help him to find it within himself."
- Galileo Galilei

 

[COLGeek]

Alas, I do not. But not from lack of trying.
I conceived the idea to measure the Fibonacci spiral in geologic time on May 3, 2018. The first authorities I contacted were the astrophysics journals.
But they summarily reject any theory contrary to the Big Bang theory. The editor of the Astrophysics Journal, Mr. Ethan Vishniac, told me that my theory is, "inappropriate for peer review."
I was recently told by a top NOAA official that I lack any hard evidence - despite two trillion spiral galaxies clearly displaying matter spiraling inward.
I'm sure that you, like the others, treat this like some thesis to be graded. I tell you that this is a warning that Global Warming is going to end all Life on Earth.
I am merely the messenger. You must decide what to do with the information.

"You can't teach a man anything; you can only help him to find it within himself."
- Galileo Galilei

But surely if the theory had some merit, it would be taken more seriously. Without some measurable evidence, it is not difficult to see why it would be dismissed.

 

[Montezuma]

If

People choose not to see what I consider the obvious. They believe in a Big Bang, which I see no measurable evidence. They believe that space is curved, although there is no evidence anywhere in the Cosmos.
Long before the Big Bang theory, astronomers observed all the Milky Way stars travel at 220 km/sec, or 491,832 mph. This is what I base my theory on. Our Sun formed a MILLION LIGHT YEARS from the Galactic center, and we have spiraled inward to our current position.
I firmly believe that we are doomed to remain here on Earth and perish. By the time people get it, it will be too late.

"There are none so blind as those who will not see."
- Matthew 9:26

"You can lead a horse to water, but you can't make him THINK."
- Anonymous

If you open your mind and consider the logic of my theory, you will quickly understand that it explains most of what the Big Bang theory cannot.
It explains why the furthest visible galaxies are fully developed; because the centers of galaxies are eternal. It explains the faint specks of light in the background of the JWST data; where there is gravity, there are galaxies.
It explains galactic mergers; have you heard the explanation given by cosmologists? Hardly scientific.
It also explains why the polar ice caps began to diminish 55 million years ago, at the same time mammals rose to prominence.
The Moon and Mars are not viable options, because they lack water and atmosphere. Mankind must make a conscious evolutionary step, and begin Low Earth Orbital Genesis - raising future generations of humans in microgravity.
Dream a little dream...

 

[COLGeek]

What would appear to be logical or intuitively obvious to one, does not make it so. Still, if you believe you are on to something that others have missed, pursue it. Seek the evidence to support your position. Someone may benefit from the experience in the end.

 

[Unclear Engineer]

When different people look at available observations, the first things that come to their minds are often different, depending a lot on their previous experiences with different things as well as their training in different technical subjects.

What sets speculation apart from theory is analysis.

Analysts make quantitative mathematical "models" that check to see if what seems like it might be happening makes quantitative sense when compared to current understanding of physical principles.

Once these models are able to match what is observed in a quantitative manner, they are used to make predictions for what additional observations could be made as tests for the reality of the underlying concepts/assumptions in the models. At the point where they are testable, we can call them "theories".

The place where this process gets foggy is that often the model makers introduce new phenomena or maybe just unexplained "tuning" parameters, to make the models match the available observations. Sometimes further inquiry into those new concepts/parameters reveals something real, which improves our understanding of our universe. But, sometimes those parameters are simply not realistic, and the models become a distraction from other concepts of the obervations that are more realistic.

One symptom of unrealistic models is that they require a lot of "tuning" parameters that cannot be verified as realistic. At this point in time, the Big Bang Theory suffers from that problem.

So, while I am open to speculation about other concepts of how our universe behaves, I need to see some quantitative analysis that supports the alternative concepts before I can get very interested in thinking about them.

But, I have to admit that having a constructive conversation about alternative models to the BBT is difficult. There are people who "believe" it to the point that seems to me to be no different from religous fervor. And they attack "disbelievers" with an arrogance and smuggness not logically supportable by the current state of their favorate theory. I have encountered this myself in just trying to ask questions about alternatives - with responses that are simply "That's not what the theory says." Even some mathematical arguments are simply ignored, not crtiqued or countered.

One thing that I find useful in this forum is that the moderators seem more tolerant than elsewhere of alternative conceptualizations of cosmology.

However, to gain any credibility with people who like to think about such subjects, you do need supporting analysis.

 

[Montezuma]

What would appear to be logical or intuitively obvious to one, does not make it so. Still, if you believe you are on to something that others have missed, pursue it. Seek the evidence to support your position. Someone may benefit from the experience in the end.

I don't know how much more evidence I can obtain. Every spiral galaxy clearly shows matter spiraling inward, all the Milky Way stars travel at the same speed, and Global Warming will continue unabated.
My hope is that someone with authority will recognize our peril, and make a command decision to act. I contact individuals each day - scientists, news agencies, climate change advocates.
But most responses are negative in nature. It's easier to believe that we have 5 billion years left, than to face reality.
I will not cease in my efforts to inform people that if we rely on carbon sequestration and geoengineering, we will surely perish here on Earth.

 

[COLGeek]

The logic of your connection to global warming (something I believe to be true and worsened by human activity) and the notion of spiraling inward being related is escaping me.

Just the scale (size) of the galaxy and our understanding of history on other climatic events would indicate no relationship.

 

[billslugg]

Stars are not moving towards the center of the galaxy along the spiral arms. Star movement is perpendicular to the arms. Some stars, inside the corevolution radius, move faster than the arms. Outside that radius, slower than the arms. The arms are gravity waves, not permanent collections of stars. This has all been verified by spectroscopy.
If you want anyone to believe your alternate hypothesis, you must put it in writing and get it published in a peer reviewed journal. If a journal refuses to peer review it, that means it is not worthy of consideration. You must get feedback from any scientist, rewrite it in scientific format and try again.

 

[Montezuma]

The logic of your connection to global warming (something I believe to be true and worsened by human activity) and the notion of spiraling inward being related is escaping me.

Just the scale (size) of the galaxy and our understanding of history on other climatic events would indicate no relationship.

That seems to be the case with most people. Here's my logic.

Long before the Big Bang theory, astronomers observed all the Milky Way stars travel at 220 km/sec, or 491,832 mph. These astronomers believed that our Sun has been orbiting the Galactic center for 5 billion years, so they attribute the constant speed of the stars to the presence of Dark Matter.
But if Dark Matter were indeed present amongst ordinary matter, the material near the center would still have to travel faster than the outer material, in order to maintain Keplerian dynamics.
However, if all the stars are spiraling into the center, like water down a drain, they would all naturally travel at the same speed.
Every spiral galaxy clearly shows matter spiraling inward from the edge to the center. If you can grasp this simple concept, then you will realize that it explains everything that the Big Bang theory cannot.
You just need to open up your mind.

 

[Montezuma]

Thank you for your

Stars are not moving towards the center of the galaxy along the spiral arms. Star movement is perpendicular to the arms. Some stars, inside the corevolution radius, move faster than the arms. Outside that radius, slower than the arms. The arms are gravity waves, not permanent collections of stars. This has all been verified by spectroscopy.
If you want anyone to believe your alternate hypothesis, you must put it in writing and get it published in a peer reviewed journal. If a journal refuses to peer review it, that means it is not worthy of consideration. You must get feedback from any scientist, rewrite it in scientific format and try again.

Thank you for your input. I have tried and failed to have my theory peer reviewed. It doesn't mean that it's not worthy, it means that the brightest minds in our species cannot grasp the most simple of concepts.
Your assumption that all the stars travel perpendicular to the spiral arms is incorrect. Since it takes all the Milky Way stars 1,364.27 years to travel one light year, you cannot be basing this on observation.
Every spiral galaxy clearly shows matter spiraling inward from the edge to the center. If you choose not to see this, like everyone else, then there is no hope for our survival. By the time you get it, it will be too late.

 

[Unclear Engineer]

Montezuma,

I realize that, to you, the picture of a spiral galaxy congers up the image of water circling a drain. But, that doesn't mean that it is the same dynamics.

We now have a pretty good database for the motions of stars in our galaxy. What you need to do is to use that data to see which directions stars are actually moving. In order for that information to actually support your concept, you would need to show a net inward spiral for the population of stars in the database.

I don't think that is what you will find when you do the analysis. So, I don't think your concept is correct. But, the data is there if you want to make the effort to test your hypothesis. That is what it takes to get the attention of people who can get your paper peer reviewed and published.

 

[billslugg]

Montezuma
I guess I'm doomed then. Do you have an exact date? That would come in handy. Please don't make it on a Thursday. Thursday is my bowling night.
Bill

 

[Unclear Engineer]

Monezuma, I think you have quoted my post and then replied to Bill's post.

My post was serious, and you need to understand it if you want us, or anybody else, to take your concept seriously.

 

[Montezuma]

Monezuma, I think you have quoted my post and then replied to Bill's post.

My post was serious, and you need to understand it if you want us, or anybody else, to take your concept seriously.

I am merely the messenger. You must decide what to do with the information.
I have presented a logical alternative to the Big Bang theory, which explains most of what the Big Bang theory cannot. My theory is based on the constant speed of the Milky Way stars, and the observation that all spiral galaxies clearly didplay this inward spiral.
You can choose to believe me, or choose to ignore me. But understand that I am trying to save humanity through awareness. I do not care about fame or honor.
I only wish the truth to be known. I have little faith that humanity will survive this natural phenomenon.

 

[COLGeek]

Folks, this thread has run its course. Closing now.

As a reminder, civility is a must for all.

Thank you to all who contributed to the conversation.