Could redshift be wrong?

[DrRocket]

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Smart alec. &nbsp;PS.&nbsp; It was 1929 (fix your typo and I'll delete this PS)&nbsp; <br />Posted by derekmcd</DIV></p><p>You are correct. I fat-fingered the keyboard.&nbsp;&nbsp;It has been fixed.<br /></p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[bobw]

Cosmology goes pretty much right over my head &nbsp; I haven't really paid much attention to it but remember reading a long time ago that there was a reason why the inflationary hypothesis was proposed. <br /><br />I thought it was postulated that the homogeneity of the observable universe implied that at some time it had to be small enough for all the different parts of it to be "observable" or "in communication" or something to events traveling the speed of light.&nbsp; Given the age and size it was impossible for that to have been true so they decided it must have had a period of superluminal expansion... hence inflationary hypothesis.<br /><br />i.e. inflation isn't&nbsp; an observation per se but an explanation&nbsp; for some aspects of other observations.&nbsp; Wondering if anybody can straighten me out about the why. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[michaelmozina]

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Well, yes you did.&nbsp; The above two quote were made prior to you reading the two links I provided.&nbsp; Clearly, you place importance on monopoles and inflation.</DIV></p><p>You aren't making a lot of sense from my perspective.&nbsp; I don't believe in inflation, so no particular argument in favor of inflation impresses me.&nbsp; I do know however from many years of debate that there are three basic arguments used to support inflation, a flat unverse, homogeneous layout of matter, and the absense of monopoles.&nbsp; Guth started this process.&nbsp; I kinda figured they'd have to touch on all of them and they would consider them to be "important".&nbsp; I didn't personally suggest that monopoles ever existed so I don't see them as "important" in supporting or falsifying inflation.&nbsp; I simply knew the subejct would be addressed if it was going to discuss inflation.&nbsp;&nbsp;</p><p>The authors however made statements that are simply absurd.&nbsp; One cannot use the absense of something that has never been emprically demonstrated to exist in nature as "evidence" to support another hypothetical entity.&nbsp; I kinda figured the argument would come up, but the "importance" of the issue was determined by Guth when he first wrote the theory, not by Michael Mozina.</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Of the two papers I cited, one didn't even mention monopoles.</DIV></p><p>Which seems logical all things considered.&nbsp; One of them did however, the first one in fact.&nbsp; That's the one I started with.</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'> The one you addressed only briefly mentioned them in a few lines in which they downplayed their significance.&nbsp; It was YOU that made them appear to be more significant than what they really are. </DIV></p><p>They eliminated one of these three issues themselves as being an unfalsifiable position.&nbsp; They suggested that there were two more issues that could be falsifie however, which makes this 50% of their argument.&nbsp; I simply pointed out that 50% of the reasons they seem to think inflation is falsifiable are not falsifiable by any physical means.&nbsp; I did not write the paper, nor did I write off one of the typical three ways that Guth himself decided to use to support inflation.&nbsp; I simply picked on the first obvious flaw that I came to, but I did not assing the importance of this issue, Guth did that, and they did that.&nbsp; They could have ignored that issue too, but instead they attempted to use it as a ""method" to help 'falsify" inflation, when clearly that is absurd and impossible.</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>And, of course, you neglect to address the more significant portions of the papers.</DIV></p><p>That's false.&nbsp; The only other significant issue in the paper is the issue of homogenenity.&nbsp; I asked you two specific questions which you never answered.&nbsp; I asked you what size of a hole in the universe would be sufficient to falsify inflation, and I asked you to explain the dark region of the WMAP data in light of the radio wave study.&nbsp; If there is no mass deficiency in this region, why is there a dark region in the WMAP data?&nbsp; You never answered either of these highly important and critically relevant issues.&nbsp; What more can I do?&nbsp;</p><p>I don't deny that in theory a non homogenous layout of matter might be useful in actualy falsifying infaltion, but homogenety is not necessarily caused by inflation (no emprical evidence suggests this is true), and you've never told me what size of a "Gap" might be grounds for falsification.&nbsp; You have also not explained the dark region of the WMAP data.&nbsp; There is actually a gap in the radio data by the way at about the 11:00 position from the one in the WMAP data.&nbsp; It seems to be somewhat "smaller" than the hole in the WMAP data, and it's not aligned with the dark region of the WMAP data, but it also shows a gap in radio spectrum. </p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'> Who's making the big deal here?</DIV></p><p>You are the one that suggested that inflation is falsifiable.&nbsp; I didn't make that claim, nor did I try to support this claim with monopoles.&nbsp; That makes you the one making it a "big deal".</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>I clearly pointed out above that you made the connection FIRST.&nbsp; You did, in fact, pull the complaint out of thin air. </DIV></p><p>Yes, I did mention it since I figured it would be addressed somewhere in your links, but I certainly did not pull the idea of out "thin air".&nbsp; I read Guth's paper. That's where I got it.&nbsp; Now admittedly I did "guess" it would be used in their arguements, but the original idea comes from Guth himself, not me.</p><p> Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Upon reading the paper that briefly mentions monopoles, you build a commentary around something the papers clearly minimizes.&nbsp; From the paper:"</p><p>"Even the monopole problem is no longer clear cut.&nbsp; There exist perfectly valid inflation models (e.g. Ref. [3]) which can predict any monopole density from zero up to the present observational upper limits (and above).&nbsp; Discovery of a monopole density some where below current observational limits would also support inflation, because low monopole number densities imply a violation of causality in the absence of inflation (a minimum number density well above the present observational limits is required by the Kibble mechanism and the known properties of monopoles [5]).&nbsp; It is clear that the observation of a hyperbolic geometry, or a non-zero monopole density, will not falsify inflation."&nbsp; (emphasis mine)"</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Clearly, the statements I emphasised are indicating that monopoles are no longer significant to inflation.&nbsp; Other than a single line in the introduction, this is the only paragraph addressing monopoles out of about 4 1/2 pages.&nbsp; Not to mention the 10 pages of the other paper that doesn't address monopoles at all.</DIV></p><p>It is however "mentioned" and they made claims that are false.&nbsp; What would like me to do, ignore that problem?</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>You made the statement previously concerning the above snippet from the paper:"The authors claim that a density below observational limits would somehow support inflation, so by their logic, since there have been no monopoles ever found, then inflation must now be supported by this finding of zero monopoles?" The authors do NOT claim what you say.&nbsp; They clearly state that a discovery below the limits would also (also being emphasised becaused in your previous post, you neglected to include the sentence prior because it wouldn't fit your claims) support inflation. Nowhere do they claim that because none have been found that inflation is valid.&nbsp; This is you using twisted logic.You should stop while you're ahead, Michael.&nbsp; <br /> Posted by derekmcd</DIV></p><p>They did in fact try to suggest that a small number of monoples would be support for inflation.&nbsp; It can't be support for inflation because none have ever been found.&nbsp;&nbsp; Let's revisit that papagraph now:</p><p>&nbsp;</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'><strong>Discovery of a monopole density some where below current observational limits would also support inflation</strong>, because <strong>low monopole number densities imply a violation of causality in the absence of inflation</strong> (a minimum number density well above the present observational limits is required by the Kibble mechanism and the known properties of monopoles [5]).&nbsp; It is clear that the observation of a hyperbolic geometry, or a non-zero monopole density, will not falsify inflation." </DIV></p><p>There is no emprically demonstrated causality link established between monopoles and inflation or the lack of inflation being responsible for monopoles to form.&nbsp; This inconvienient fact makes their statement false and compoletely misleading. &nbsp; A low number of monopoles would *not* support inflation in any way because nobody ever did what they claimed in a test, specfically show a causual link between the absense of inflation and the existence of monopoles!&nbsp; It's a completely bogus statement because both of these issues are "assumed" to be true, and there is no evidence that either thing exists in nature!</p><p>The only possible way then to falsify inflation is to find physical "holes" (gaps) that might be large enough to falsify the theory.&nbsp; How about picking a real figure for me.&nbsp;&nbsp; What size of a hole in the layout of matter would falsify the homogenity "predictions" of inflation?&nbsp; How do you explain that dark region in the WMAP data that doesn't show up in the radio data?&nbsp; How do explain that hole in the radio data?&nbsp; If there is no gap in the radio data, and yet there is a dark region in the WMAP data, what is the cause of that dark region in the WMAP data? </p><p>Note that there is absolutely no causual link established between inflation and homogenity, this prediction is simply "assumed" as well.&nbsp; We are now "assuming" something about inflation that was never demonstrated, and there is no guarantee that homogentiy is in any way associated with inflation or that the universe would not be relatively homogenous without it.&nbsp; This too is all just "assumed", just like the monopole "causality".&nbsp; There is no esstablished physical link here between inflation and any of the "properties" associated with inflation.&nbsp; It's all assumed dogma, not emprically demonstrated fact. </p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> It seems to be a natural consequence of our points of view to assume that the whole of space is filled with electrons and flying electric ions of all kinds. - Kristian Birkeland </div>

 

[derekmcd]

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Cosmology goes pretty much right over my head &nbsp; I haven't really paid much attention to it but remember reading a long time ago that there was a reason why the inflationary hypothesis was proposed. I thought it was postulated that the homogeneity of the observable universe implied that at some time it had to be small enough for all the different parts of it to be "observable" or "in communication" or something to events traveling the speed of light.&nbsp; Given the age and size it was impossible for that to have been true so they decided it must have had a period of superluminal expansion... hence inflationary hypothesis.i.e. inflation isn't&nbsp; an observation per se but an explanation&nbsp; for some aspects of other observations.&nbsp; Wondering if anybody can straighten me out about the why. <br /> Posted by bobw</DIV></p><p>You are describing the Horizon Problem</p><p>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Horizon_problem</p><p>Sounds like you don't need much explaining as you pretty much nailed it.</p><p>I think the crux of the problem lies with the LambdaCDM model and the Hubble Constant (which isn't really constant) that changes over time.&nbsp; The Hubble Constant actually slows over time.&nbsp; If you work backwards using the LambdaCDM model and the Hubble Constant, distant regions of the observable universe are never in casual contact with each other given what the age of the universe is considered to be.&nbsp;</p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <div> </div><br /><div><span style="color:#0000ff" class="Apple-style-span">"If something's hard to do, then it's not worth doing." - Homer Simpson</span></div> </div>

 

[michaelmozina]

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>The point is, Inflation might be wrong, but we STILL have expansion to deal with.&nbsp; We really don't know much of anything about the first three epochs of the Big Bang expansion model.&nbsp; But we STILL have expansion to deal with.</DIV></p><p>First of all "expansion" is an "interpretation" of the redshift phenomenon.&nbsp; We don't have to 'deal with' expansion, we have to "deal with" the redshift phenomenon in some way shape or form. It can be dealt with like Ari dealt with it and expansion is not necessary.&nbsp; If we "assume" that expansion is the logical explanation for the redshift, then we still need to show how expansion can explain this redshift phenomenon.</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Again... Inflation might very well be wrong, but the Universe is STILL expanding. </DIV></p><p>IMO, inflation is wrong and the universe *might be* expanding.&nbsp;&nbsp; Your point is valid in the sense that expansion might not be related to inflation, but another sort of expansion theory might be able to explain the redshift phenomenon.&nbsp; Alfven's model for instance might also explain some kind of expansion. </p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>It's quite possible that without inflation, the Universe is STILL expanding.The expansion of the Universe is not reliant on Inflation.&nbsp; Inflation does, though, fit quite tidily into the model, but it is NOT required.&nbsp; <br /> Posted by derekmcd</DIV></p><p>Ok. &nbsp; </p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> It seems to be a natural consequence of our points of view to assume that the whole of space is filled with electrons and flying electric ions of all kinds. - Kristian Birkeland </div>

 

[michaelmozina]

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Fair enough... let's revisit your claim with the correction:</p><p>"Lambda-CDM theories tend to explain redshift as a phenomenon that is primarily related to standard Doppler redshift (movement of matter) and most of the redshift is actually caused by the expansion of "space" (i.e. Dark energy).&nbsp; This type of redshift (DE redshift) tends to be referred to as "cosmological redshift"."</p><p> Even with that correction, the statement is false.&nbsp; LambdaCDM models explain it as Cosmological redshift... no doppler.&nbsp; Each use different transformations, metrics and formulae.&nbsp;&nbsp;I claimed "Dark energy is not required for the expansion of space" I'm still confounded how you claim to understand General Relativity and yet make such confusing statements about dark energy and expansion.</DIV></p><p>We're going to have to distinguish between Einstein's definition of GR theory and variations that attempt to stuff constants into his "blunder" theory.&nbsp; You can't explain the redshift phenomenon with Einstein's definition of GR.&nbsp; You'll need to stuff constants into his blunder theory to do that. When you eventually do that, you'll be describing "Lambda" theory, not "GR" theory as Einstein taught it, and you'll be outside the realm of "GR theory" proper.</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>The metric expansion of space... something you apparently can't grasp despite your alleged knowledge of General Relativity.</DIV></p><p>"Space" does not expand in GR theory, only in Lambda theory.&nbsp; GR theory only explains the expansion of "spacetime" as the physical objects that make up spacetime move away from each other and 'expand" at subluminal speeds.&nbsp; You neglected to ever show that "space" actually expands in any emprical test, so any introduction of constants into GR are "Lambda" theories, not GR theories.&nbsp; Let's keep these ideas clear, otherwise the conversation will never make any sense to anyone.&nbsp; If you going to talk about "expanding space", please do not refer to this as "GR". &nbsp; It's not.&nbsp; It's a variation of Einstein's "blunder" theory, not GR.</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>And yet you seem to accept expansion, but not inflation... confusing. </DIV></p><p>I'm sure it's confusing for anyone who isn't old enough to remember BB theories that didn't include inflation.&nbsp; If you'r old like me, it's not confusing in the least since I was taught BB theory prior to Guth's inflation theory.&nbsp; I don't see inflation as being a requirement to accept or believe in inflation.&nbsp; Superliminal expansion however is a different issue.&nbsp; I never claimed to believe in superluminal expansion.&nbsp; Let's keep that point clear too, otherwise it will get very confusing. </p><p> I'll skip the redundant parts, but please keep in mind we don't have to "interpret" the redshift phenomenon as being related to "expansion".&nbsp; You are simply "assuming" that there is a direct correlation between redshift and movement, whereas Ari's theory does not make that assumption.&nbsp; We do have to "deal with' the redshift phenomenon in some scientific manner, but it is not necessarily true that redshift is directly related to movement of objects. </p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> It seems to be a natural consequence of our points of view to assume that the whole of space is filled with electrons and flying electric ions of all kinds. - Kristian Birkeland </div>

 

[derekmcd]

I don't wish to debate you further on this subject.&nbsp; I've made my points as clear as day.&nbsp; You can twist them to your heart's desire.&nbsp; <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <div> </div><br /><div><span style="color:#0000ff" class="Apple-style-span">"If something's hard to do, then it's not worth doing." - Homer Simpson</span></div> </div>

 

[derekmcd]

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>We're going to have to distinguish between Einstein's definition of GR theory and variations that attempt to stuff constants into his "blunder" theory.&nbsp; You can't explain the redshift phenomenon with Einstein's definition of GR.&nbsp; You'll need to stuff constants into his blunder theory to do that. When you eventually do that, you'll be describing "Lambda" theory, not "GR" theory as Einstein taught it, and you'll be outside the realm of "GR theory" proper."Space" does not expand in GR theory, only in Lambda theory.&nbsp; GR theory only explains the expansion of "spacetime" as the physical objects that make up spacetime move away from each other and 'expand" at subluminal speeds.&nbsp; You neglected to ever show that "space" actually expands in any emprical test, so any introduction of constants into GR are "Lambda" theories, not GR theories.&nbsp; Let's keep these ideas clear, otherwise the conversation will never make any sense to anyone.&nbsp; If you going to talk about "expanding space", please do not refer to this as "GR". &nbsp; It's not.&nbsp; It's a variation of Einstein's "blunder" theory, not GR.I'm sure it's confusing for anyone who isn't old enough to remember BB theories that didn't include inflation.&nbsp; If you'r old like me, it's not confusing in the least since I was taught BB theory prior to Guth's inflation theory.&nbsp; I don't see inflation as being a requirement to accept or believe in inflation.&nbsp; Superliminal expansion however is a different issue.&nbsp; I never claimed to believe in superluminal expansion.&nbsp; Let's keep that point clear too, otherwise it will get very confusing. I'll skip the redundant parts, but please keep in mind we don't have to "interpret" the redshift phenomenon as being related to "expansion".&nbsp; You are simply "assuming" that there is a direct correlation between redshift and movement, whereas Ari's theory does not make that assumption.&nbsp; We do have to "deal with' the redshift phenomenon in some scientific manner, but it is not necessarily true that redshift is directly related to movement of objects. <br /> Posted by michaelmozina</DIV></p><p>You clearly don't understand General Relativity and the field equations associated with it.&nbsp; No point is debating the subject with you.&nbsp;</p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <div> </div><br /><div><span style="color:#0000ff" class="Apple-style-span">"If something's hard to do, then it's not worth doing." - Homer Simpson</span></div> </div>

 

[michaelmozina]

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>I don't wish to debate you further on this subject.&nbsp; I've made my points as clear as day.&nbsp; You can twist them to your heart's desire.&nbsp; <br /> Posted by derekmcd</DIV></p><p>I wish you didn't think I was trying to "twist" anything.&nbsp; I'm simply trying to keep the conversation honest.&nbsp; We can't use the absense or presence of monopoles to help us falsify inflation.&nbsp; The only logical way I can think of to falsify the idea is to define the size of a hole that would in fact falsify the idea.&nbsp; To my knowledge, that "figure" has never been agreed upon, and there is not physical link between inflation and homogenity in the first place, nor is inflation the only possible explaination for homogenity. &nbsp;</p><p>All redshift theories do in fact need to 'explain' the redshift phenomenon, but they need not necessarily "assume" that only movement of objects can explain this phenomenon.&nbsp; This is an important point that I do not believe you have acknowledged yet.&nbsp; Ari's "method" is just as valid of a way to "interepret" the redshift phenomenon as "expansion", in fact I would argue it's better than expansion theories because expansion theories must resort to some sort of superluminal expansion, and according to GR, nothing moves faster than light.&nbsp; More importantly, nobody has ever demonstrated that "space" actually expands, or that stuffing constants into GR has any emprical merit.&nbsp; Ari's method of interpreting the redshift phenomenon also lack any emprical support.&nbsp; In that sense they seem "equally flimsy" from my perspective, but I must say his ideas seem to avoid a lot of unplesant (superluminal expansion) complications that exist if one tries to explain the redshfit phenomenon strictly in terms of the movement between objects. </p><p>The only thing I would add here is that MECO theory also suggests that large enough objects could have their own internal redshift, and Arps works deserves to be seriously considered as we attempt to "interpret" this data.</p><p>I really don't have a lot to add to this redshift debate and frankly I am way to busy at work right now to get dragged into a long drawn out disucssion on inflation and/or DE.&nbsp; I was simply trying to note to DrRocket that any "criticism" he applies to tired light theories, must be fairly compared to movement related theories of redshift. &nbsp; His (valid) criticism of Ari's theory (lack of emprical support) also applied to standard theory in the instance where I meantioned inflation, which is the reason I mentioned it in the first place.&nbsp; I didn't get involved in this discussion to attack current theory, only to defend Ari's redshfit theory. &nbsp; I'd still like to see DrRocket explain the mathematical mistake he percieves to exist in Ari's presentation, but I'm really not interested in debating inflation theory or or DE theory.&nbsp; We've already been there and done that and there is no point in whipping a dead horse. </p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> It seems to be a natural consequence of our points of view to assume that the whole of space is filled with electrons and flying electric ions of all kinds. - Kristian Birkeland </div>

 

[michaelmozina]

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>You clearly don't understand General Relativity and the field equations associated with it.&nbsp; No point is debating the subject with you.&nbsp; <br /> Posted by derekmcd</DIV></p><p>That's not true and it's not fair.&nbsp; You refuse to acknowledge the difference between GR theory as Einstein taught it, and the Lamba-CDM theories which contain constants and are actually variations of what Einstein called his greatest blunder.&nbsp; As long as you refuse to acknowledge the distinction between GR theory proper, and Lamba theories and the critically important difference between them, we will continue to talk past one another on this subject.</p><p>&nbsp;</p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> It seems to be a natural consequence of our points of view to assume that the whole of space is filled with electrons and flying electric ions of all kinds. - Kristian Birkeland </div>

 

[MeteorWayne]

Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>You clearly don't understand General Relativity and the field equations associated with it.&nbsp; No point is debating the subject with you.&nbsp; <br />Posted by derekmcd</DIV><br /><br />Unfortunately, once he jumps in a thread is dead. That's what I refer to as hijacking. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><font color="#000080"><em><font color="#000000">But the Krell forgot one thing John. Monsters. Monsters from the Id.</font></em> </font></p><p><font color="#000080">I really, really, really, really miss the "first unread post" function</font><font color="#000080"> </font></p> </div>

 

[derekmcd]

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>That's not true and it's not fair.&nbsp; You refuse to acknowledge the difference between GR theory as Einstein taught it, and the Lamba-CDM theories which contain constants and are actually variations of what Einstein called his greatest blunder.&nbsp; As long as you refuse to acknowledge the distinction between GR theory proper, and Lamba theories and the critically important difference between them, we will continue to talk past one another on this subject.&nbsp; <br /> Posted by michaelmozina</DIV></p><p>Using terms and phrases such as "as Einstein taught it" or "proper" to describe General Relativity indicate you are fabricating distinctions to fit your personal agenda.</p><p>You can debate the usefulness of the cosmological constant all you want.&nbsp; The term, by itself, is allowable, acceptable and consistent within mathematical solutions to the field equation... this is not debatable.&nbsp;</p><p>The cosmological constant, in and of itself, was not Einstein's blunder.&nbsp; The blunder was that he used it after it was shown that it wasn't needed.&nbsp; It's no different than having an answer of 5 and creating a solution of:</p><p>2+2+1=5</p><p>only to find out later, through observation, that the actual answer if 4.&nbsp; I remove the '1'.&nbsp; The '1' is not the blunder.&nbsp; The blunder is that I was starting out with the wrong answer and used '1' as a solution when, in fact, it should be '0'.</p><p>A distinction you refuse to acknowledge...&nbsp;</p><p>&nbsp;</p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <div> </div><br /><div><span style="color:#0000ff" class="Apple-style-span">"If something's hard to do, then it's not worth doing." - Homer Simpson</span></div> </div>

 

[DrRocket]

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>We're going to have to distinguish between Einstein's definition of GR theory and variations that attempt to stuff constants into his "blunder" theory.&nbsp; You can't explain the redshift phenomenon with Einstein's definition of GR.&nbsp; You'll need to stuff constants into his blunder theory to do that. When you eventually do that, you'll be describing "Lambda" theory, not "GR" theory as Einstein taught it, and you'll be outside the realm of "GR theory" proper."Space" does not expand in GR theory, only in Lambda theory.&nbsp; GR theory only explains the expansion of "spacetime" as the physical objects that make up spacetime move away from each other and 'expand" at subluminal speeds.&nbsp; You neglected to ever show that "space" actually expands in any emprical test, so any introduction of constants into GR are "Lambda" theories, not GR theories.&nbsp; Let's keep these ideas clear, otherwise the conversation will never make any sense to anyone.&nbsp; If you going to talk about "expanding space", please do not refer to this as "GR". &nbsp; It's not.&nbsp; It's a variation of Einstein's "blunder" theory, not GR.I'm sure it's confusing for anyone who isn't old enough to remember BB theories that didn't include inflation.&nbsp; If you'r old like me, it's not confusing in the least since I was taught BB theory prior to Guth's inflation theory.&nbsp; I don't see inflation as being a requirement to accept or believe in inflation.&nbsp; Superliminal expansion however is a different issue.&nbsp; I never claimed to believe in superluminal expansion.&nbsp; Let's keep that point clear too, otherwise it will get very confusing. I'll skip the redundant parts, but please keep in mind we don't have to "interpret" the redshift phenomenon as being related to "expansion".&nbsp; You are simply "assuming" that there is a direct correlation between redshift and movement, whereas Ari's theory does not make that assumption.&nbsp; We do have to "deal with' the redshift phenomenon in some scientific manner, but it is not necessarily true that redshift is directly related to movement of objects. <br />Posted by michaelmozina</DIV></p><p><br /><img src="http://sitelife.space.com/ver1.0/Content/images/store/3/10/53fbcb37-3419-4142-9a18-695208650d63.Medium.jpg" alt="" /><br /><br /></p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[bobw]

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>You are describing the Horizon Problem...<br /> Posted by derekmcd</DIV></p><p>Right.&nbsp; Thanks.&nbsp; Sometimes it is hard to remember what I think I have read, never took a class in this stuff&nbsp; </p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[michaelmozina]

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Using terms and phrases such as "as Einstein taught it" or "proper" to describe General Relativity indicate you are fabricating distinctions to fit your personal agenda.</DIV></p><p>Baloney.&nbsp; The fact you *refuse* to note any distinction between GR as I was taught in school and Lambda theories today indicates that you are fabricating GR to fit your preconcieved agenda.&nbsp; There is a distinct difference between GR theory as Einstein taught it to his students, and "blunder theories" which he rejected.&nbsp; The fact you won't note the GR contained no constants as Einstein taught it is a problem and it will remain a problem until you acknowledge that point.</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>You can debate the usefulness of the cosmological constant all you want. </DIV></p><p>We're not actually debating the cosmological constant, we are exploring various ways to explain the redshfift phenomenon.&nbsp; A cosmological constant is *one* possible solution to that problem.&nbsp; Ari's solution is another. </p><p> Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>The term, by itself, is allowable, acceptable and consistent within mathematical solutions to the field equation... this is not debatable.</DIV></p><p>No one ever doubted that it "works" mathematically.&nbsp; The question is whether or not it is the "right" and "correct" explanation.&nbsp; Ari's ideas also seem to look fine mathematically, but I have no idea if the represent 'reality'' or some kind of mathematical mythology.&nbsp; Only emprical evidence could determine this, one way or the other.</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>The cosmological constant, in and of itself, was not Einstein's blunder.</DIV></p><p>I never said it was.&nbsp; I said stuffing a constant into GR is something Einstein called his greatest blunder.&nbsp; That is now being done routinely by Lambda proponents.</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>The blunder was that he used it after it was shown that it wasn't needed. </DIV></p><p>And according to Ari, it's still not needed.</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>It's no different than having an answer of 5 and creating a solution of:2+2+1=5only to find out later, through observation, that the actual answer if 4.&nbsp; I remove the '1'.&nbsp; The '1' is not the blunder.&nbsp; The blunder is that I was starting out with the wrong answer and used '1' as a solution when, in fact, it should be '0'.A distinction you refuse to acknowledge...&nbsp;&nbsp; <br /> Posted by derekmcd</DIV></p><p>The actual problem is that you refuse to acknowledge that I was taught a "standard" brand of GR theory that had no constants, and Lambda theory has added several of them to "standard" GR.&nbsp; If you refuse to acknowledge this point, there is little more I can say or do.&nbsp; I can't change my past only to suit you personally.&nbsp; I can only defend GR as it was taught to me since I believe it to be scientifically sound.&nbsp; I can only reject Lambda-CDM theories because they are variations of blunder theory and are not the form of GR that I was taught, nor is there any emprical support for any of these "additions" to GR formulas.&nbsp; As long as you refuse to acknowledge that GR included no constants, and Lamda includes them, then we will never agree on what GR is, and is not.&nbsp; IMO GR theory as it was taught to me is a purely falsifiable physical theory that is elegant and beautiful.&nbsp; Lambda-CDM theory is not what I was taught in school, and I put no faith in it.&nbsp; I've never seen inflation do anything to anything so stuffing it into a GR theory is pointless IMO.&nbsp; The same is true of DE.&nbsp; These were ideas that did not exist when I was taught GR, and when I think of "GR", it has nothing whatsoever to do with inflation or DE.&nbsp; As long as you can't see this obvious distinction between GR and Lambda-CDM theory, we will continue to talk past one another.</p><p>Frankly this part of the conversation is really just a side conversation since all I was trying to do is get DrRocket to show me the mathematical error he seems to believe that Ari made within his work, and to come to terms with the fact that his beliefs suffer from the same criticisms that he leveled at Ari's theory.&nbsp; I was not trying to start a debate on inflation and/or DE, I was simply noting that the suffer from the same "criticism" that DrRocket leveled against Ari's theory.&nbsp; I openly admit that Ari's theory is not emprically verified, but you must also acknowledge that this is true of standard theories as well.&nbsp;&nbsp; From my point of view you keep trying to stuff GR full of metaphysics and then you're trying to pass it off as GR.&nbsp; Lambda-CDM theory is no longer GR, it's a loosely "GR-like" theory, where ordinary gravitational forces account for a mere fraction of the total movement patterns of ordinary material. So long as you keep ingoring the changes between what I was taught in school and what Lambda-CDM proposes we'll never get anywhere.&nbsp; You can't stuff inflation and DE into GR theory and claim it's the same thing as GR theory.&nbsp; It's not.&nbsp; it's different.&nbsp; It's demonstratebly different. &nbsp; </p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> It seems to be a natural consequence of our points of view to assume that the whole of space is filled with electrons and flying electric ions of all kinds. - Kristian Birkeland </div>

 

[michaelmozina]

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Unfortunately, once he jumps in a thread is dead. That's what I refer to as hijacking. <br /> Posted by MeteorWayne</DIV></p><p>As far as I know, other than the person that started this thread and his mention of Arps work, I'm the only other participant in this thread to actually offer/mention some viable options to redshift interpretations.&nbsp;&nbsp; I'd hardly call that hijacking the thread. &nbsp; Assuming that DrRocket actually has some mathematical ojections to Ari's paper, then the topic is not necessarily "dead", and either way, I did not kill this thread, I simply offered a legitimate alternative for consideration. </p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> It seems to be a natural consequence of our points of view to assume that the whole of space is filled with electrons and flying electric ions of all kinds. - Kristian Birkeland </div>

 

[MeteorWayne]

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>As far as I know, other than the person that started this thread and his mention of Arps work, I'm the only other participant in this thread to actually offer/mention some viable options to redshift interpretations.&nbsp;&nbsp; I'd hardly call that hijacking the thread. &nbsp; Assuming that DrRocket actually has some mathematical ojections to Ari's paper, then the topic is not necessarily "dead", and either way, I did not kill this thread, I simply offered a legitimate alternative for consideration. <br />Posted by michaelmozina</DIV><br /><br />No , as usual you repeatedly derailed the thread, ignoring all current science, refusing to accept any tenant of physics, distorting what others said to suit your agenda, and basically turned it into a dead horse beating/pissing contest.</p><p>But that's just how it looks from the outside.</p><p>If you could just discuss the issue without the distortions, overdissection, then it would be great. However, that does not seem to be your style. It's rather sad really. You have some good ideas, but your inability to discuss things with others makes any thread you enter pointless to continue. I sincerely mean it is sad, because I believe some of your ideas are good ones worth discussing. For the first&nbsp;5 or 10&nbsp;pages... After that, there's really no point.</p><p>sigh...</p><p>&nbsp;</p><p>Wayne</p><p>&nbsp;</p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><font color="#000080"><em><font color="#000000">But the Krell forgot one thing John. Monsters. Monsters from the Id.</font></em> </font></p><p><font color="#000080">I really, really, really, really miss the "first unread post" function</font><font color="#000080"> </font></p> </div>

 

[derekmcd]

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>"Space" does not expand in GR theory, only in Lambda theory.&nbsp; GR theory only explains the expansion of "spacetime" as the physical objects that make up spacetime move away from each other and 'expand" at subluminal speeds.&nbsp; You neglected to ever show that "space" actually expands in any emprical test, so any introduction of constants into GR are "Lambda" theories, not GR theories.&nbsp; Let's keep these ideas clear, otherwise the conversation will never make any sense to anyone.&nbsp; If you going to talk about "expanding space", please do not refer to this as "GR". &nbsp; It's not.&nbsp; It's a variation of Einstein's "blunder" theory, not GR.<br /> Posted by michaelmozina</DIV></p><p>We've had this discussion before.&nbsp; I forgot that you are incapable of making the distinction between objectifying space as a physical entity and referring to space as a nothing more than a distance.&nbsp; There's a reason it is called the <em><strong>metric</strong></em> expansion of space.</p><p>Generally speaking, when discussing this subject with other knowledgeable folks, it is perfectly acceptable to say space is expanding.&nbsp; It is assumed that the knowledgeable person you are discussing it with does not consider space as a physical entity.&nbsp; </p><p>If I were to introduce some 10th grade students to expansion, I would NOT initially refer to it as "space is expanding" so they would not objectify it and consider a material "thing".&nbsp; I would make it quite clear that it is the distance between two objects that are increasing.&nbsp; I would make them understand that "space" is nothing more than the distance between two objects that you measure with a ruler and it is the function of distance (metric) that is expanding.&nbsp; </p><p>I might site an example of, "How much space is there between science classroom and your english classroom?"&nbsp; You measure that space with a ruler.&nbsp; Now, if the school is analogous to space and we expand the school, the distance between the classrooms increase.</p><p>I would then ask them, "What physically expanded?"&nbsp; They might respond, "The school expanded".&nbsp; I would explain to them that the school is nothing more than a collection of classrooms (galaxies) within the school (space).&nbsp; Technically, nothing physically expanded... only the distance between the classrooms were increased.</p><p>When this becomes clear to them, only then is it safe to use the shorthand terminology of the expansion of space.&nbsp;</p><p>Space, when defined as a metric, in the case of the FLRW metric can, in fact, expand.&nbsp; To say "<strong>"<em>Space" does not expand in GR theory, only in Lambda theory</em></strong>", as you succinctly put it, shows a clear misunderstanding of what is really happening. </p><p>When you say, "<strong><em>GR theory only explains the expansion of "spacetime</em>" <em>as the physical objects that make up spacetime move away from each other and 'expand" at subluminal speeds</em></strong><strong>"</strong>, only magnifies your complete misunderstanding. </p><p>First, how can spacetime expand?&nbsp; Do you even understand what spacetime is?&nbsp; Spacetime is really nothing more than a collective way to describe events based on four coordinates... the three of space and one of time.&nbsp; Events happen in spacetime.</p><p>And, as a side note, SUPERluminal speeds are a direct consequence of the Hubble Constant and do not violate Special Relativity.&nbsp; Your injection of SUBluminal speeds is just plain silly... especially from one claiming to understand either of the Relativities.&nbsp;</p><p>&nbsp;</p><p>If any of my interpretations above are incorrect, I welcome any corrections or clarifications.&nbsp; I don't profess to know much about General Relativity and all the manifolds, tensors, metrics and such, but I've read enough that I know how to differentiate some of the terminology and think I understand the underlying basics of it.<br /> </p><p>For someone that claims to have been taught General Relativity in a University, I really question what it was that you were taught or how much of it you actually learned.&nbsp;</p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <div> </div><br /><div><span style="color:#0000ff" class="Apple-style-span">"If something's hard to do, then it's not worth doing." - Homer Simpson</span></div> </div>

 

[michaelmozina]

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>We've had this discussion before.&nbsp; I forgot that you are incapable of making the distinction between objectifying space as a physical entity and referring to space as a nothing more than a distance. </DIV></p><p>I keep forgetting that you refuse to acknowledge the difference between the idea of "objects in motion stay in motion" (GR) and "metric space expands" (DE/Inflation, etc). &nbsp; Do you understand this distiction, yes or no? </p><p> Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>I really question what it was that you were taught or how much of it you actually learned.&nbsp; <br /> Posted by derekmcd</DIV></p><p>It is very clear to me that you and I were taught "GR" in different time periods.&nbsp; You were evidently taught the idea *after* inflation and/or DE had been stuffed in as a constant that magically causes metric space to expand, whereas I was taught "GR" when it didn't defy any physical laws of energy conservation and it didn't have any space expanding constants.&nbsp; You evidently were never taught GR *without* them, whereas I was never taught GR with them included.&nbsp; As a result we keep talking past each other in post after post after post.</p><p>No amount of questioning my knowledge of GR is going to change the fact that GR did not include inflation or DE in the late 70's and early 80's when I first started studying the topic.&nbsp; As long as you ignore the history of changes that took place between GR as Einstein taught it, and what you were evidently taught (evidently some Lambda variation), you will never understand my position, and you will continue to misrepresent my position. &nbsp; When did Einstein's variation of GR include the expansion of "metric space" as you define it?&nbsp; Did he or did he not reject his insertion of a constant into GR, and is that constant responsible for what you are calling the expansion of metric space?</p><p>&nbsp;</p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> It seems to be a natural consequence of our points of view to assume that the whole of space is filled with electrons and flying electric ions of all kinds. - Kristian Birkeland </div>

 

[michaelmozina]

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>No , as usual you repeatedly derailed the thread,</DIV></p><p>How so?&nbsp; By daring to mention inflation in a thread related to redshift theories?</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>ignoring all current science,</DIV></p><p>Be specific.&nbsp; What exactly do you believe that I have ignored?</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>refusing to accept any tenant of physics,</DIV></p><p>Which tenet of physics might that be?&nbsp; I accept GR without any constants.&nbsp; I accept the physical tenant that "objects in motion stay in motion".&nbsp; I do not accept inflation or DE because there is no emprical physical evidence that these are not mathematical fudge factors of epic proportions.&nbsp; I do not accept "dark energy" as an explanation for acceleration of objects because I've never seen "dark energy" have any emprical influence on anything in any controlled test. &nbsp; What "physics" are you talking about exactly?&nbsp; Please be *very* specific.</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>distorting what others said to suit your agenda,</DIV></p><p>Which agenda?&nbsp; Speaking "truth" as I percieve it?&nbsp; Who here on this website isn't doing that?</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>and basically turned it into a dead horse beating/pissing contest.</DIV></p><p>I've tried several times now to get DrRocket to explain his mathematical criticism of Ari's theory (which was actually my only intent when I mentioned inflation) and yet he's never cited me a line number or page number to work wiith, so I'm pretty much at a loss as to how to proceed on the original issue at the moment.&nbsp; Derick seems to be the one who is intent on making this discuasion about me, my education, and/or inflation.&nbsp; I'd personally rather we get back on track and that DrRocket clerify his mathematical objections to Ari's theory.&nbsp;&nbsp; I've presented that paper to many astronomers over the years and I've never seen a legitimate criticism of his work, either from the standpoint of mathematics, or physics, other than the fact that it remains without emprical support.&nbsp; That particular criticismt is true of all redshift theories however. &nbsp; If DrRocket does have a valid mathematical objection to Ari's work, I really would love to hear it because I have never been able to find a scientific problem with his presentation, nor has anyone that I have presented his work to.&nbsp; As far as I know Ari's redshift theory remains without mathematical error, and without any physical error and it could in fact be a legitmate explainaton for redshift.&nbsp; Inquiring minds want to know. </p><p>As far as the rest of this "pissing contest" is concerned, I'm pretty much done with topic of inflation and DE and "expansion of metric space" unless Derick is willing to come clean about the fact that such constants were stuffed into Lambda theories that did not exist in GR as Einstein taught it.&nbsp; We are in fact going around in circles again and there isn't much more we can discuss on that topic until he acknowledges the changes that took place over the last 25 years.&nbsp; I'm sorry that I can't ignore history, but that is because I lived through it. </p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>But that's just how it looks from the outside.If you could just discuss the issue without the distortions, overdissection, then it would be great. However, that does not seem to be your style. It's rather sad really. You have some good ideas, but your inability to discuss things with others makes any thread you enter pointless to continue. I sincerely mean it is sad, because I believe some of your ideas are good ones worth discussing. For the first&nbsp;5 or 10&nbsp;pages... After that, there's really no point.sigh...&nbsp;Wayne </p><p>Posted by MeteorWayne</DIV></p><p>Well, we're only on page 5 (maybe 6 with this post) so maybe there's a few more pages of good conversation left in this thread.&nbsp; </p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> It seems to be a natural consequence of our points of view to assume that the whole of space is filled with electrons and flying electric ions of all kinds. - Kristian Birkeland </div>

 

[derekmcd]

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>I keep forgetting that you refuse to acknowledge the difference between the idea of "objects in motion stay in motion" (GR) and "metric space expands" (DE/Inflation, etc). &nbsp; Do you understand this distiction, yes or no?</DIV></p><p>I think I do:&nbsp; Yes.</p><p><u><strong>"objects in motion stay in motion (GR)</strong></u><u><strong>"</strong></u> </p><p>The first of three laws of motion as stated in classical Newtonian mechanics.&nbsp; This is not an accurate statement defined by General Relativity.&nbsp; Why you placed "(GR)" by it is beyond me.&nbsp; The inertial frames in Newtonian physics are not the same in General Relativity.&nbsp; Two observers might be travelling along a path whereby they appear to be in the same inertial frame, but in GR they may follow two different geodesic paths.&nbsp; One will observe the other to change velocity with no apparent force acting on them.&nbsp;&nbsp;</p><p><u><strong>"metric space expands" (DE/Inflation, etc)</strong></u> </p><p>As has been stated many, many times... the metric expansion of space is not reliant on DE or inflation.&nbsp; The concept was around long before the terms were ever muttered.&nbsp; As seen from my previous posts, I think it is fairly obvious I understand what the metric expansion of space is.</p><p>What makes you think I don't understand the distinction between the two?&nbsp; How does this relate to you not distinguishing the difference between space and spacetime (much less understanding what they are)?</p><p>Obviously, you brought this up to as some type of counterexample to avoid confronting my previous post about your lack of understanding about space and spacetime and their ralation to expansion.&nbsp;&nbsp;</p><p>I'm afraid I don't understand the point you are trying to make with this.&nbsp;</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>It is very clear to me that you and I were taught "GR" in different time periods.</DIV></p><p>It's very clear to me you haven't a clue what GR is.&nbsp; General Relativity hasn't changed since it's been publshed as far as I know.&nbsp; General Relativity incorporates Newtonian physics and Special Relativity into a geometric version of gravity.&nbsp; The Einstein Field Equations describe it.&nbsp;</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>You were evidently taught the idea *after* inflation and/or DE had been stuffed in as a constant that magically causes metric space to expand, whereas I was taught "GR" when it didn't defy any physical laws of energy conservation and it didn't have any space expanding constants.&nbsp; You evidently were never taught GR *without* them, whereas I was never taught GR with them included.&nbsp; As a result we keep talking past each other in post after post after post.</DIV></p><p>Dark Energy and Inflation are NOT parts of General Relativity.&nbsp; The FLRW metric is an exact solution (one of many different solutions) to the Einstein Field Equations.&nbsp; The Big Bang theory is based of the solution.&nbsp; The LambdaCDM model is born out of the Big Bang Theory.&nbsp; Dark Energy and Inflation are parts of the LambdaCDM Model.&nbsp; </p><p>You can build any theory you want from General Relativity and the field equations if the observations fit, but General Relativity and the Einstein Field Equations do not and have never been changed over the years.&nbsp; If General Relativity is being taught "differently", then it is the fault of the teacher.&nbsp; </p><p>I would recommend to anyone interested in General Relativity to not attend the school where you were taught a different version.&nbsp;</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>No amount of questioning my knowledge of GR is going to change the fact that GR did not include inflation or DE in the late 70's and early 80's when I first started studying the topic.&nbsp; As long as you ignore the history of changes that took place between GR as Einstein taught it, and what you were evidently taught (evidently some Lambda variation), you will never understand my position, and you will continue to misrepresent my position.</DIV></p><p>Maybe I'm completely misunderstanding what GR is.&nbsp; Could you point me to a source that show the history of changes of General Relativity between 1916 and today?&nbsp;</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>When did Einstein's variation of GR include the expansion of "metric space" as you define it?</DIV></p><p>A rather odd question.&nbsp; There are no variations to GR, much less Einstein's own personal variation.&nbsp; However, Einstein's original solution to his field equations assumed a static universe.&nbsp; I don't think it was until 1929 that he accepted without reservation the FLRW metric.&nbsp; I'm not quite sure if Eisntein ever created his own independent solution after he was shown evidence of expansion.<br /> </p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Did he or did he not reject his insertion of a constant into GR, and is that constant responsible for what you are calling the expansion of metric space?&nbsp; <br /> Posted by michaelmozina</DIV></p><p>Yes, he rejected it.&nbsp; No, that constant is not responsible for what I am calling the expansion of metric space.&nbsp;</p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <div> </div><br /><div><span style="color:#0000ff" class="Apple-style-span">"If something's hard to do, then it's not worth doing." - Homer Simpson</span></div> </div>

 

[michaelmozina]

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Yes, he rejected it.&nbsp; No, that constant is not responsible for what I am calling the expansion of metric space.&nbsp; <br /> Posted by derekmcd</DIV></p><p>Then what is responsible for it?</p><p>I think I may have a way for us to proceed having read your last response.</p><p>I will begin by granting you that *if* we began our theory in a comoving coordinate system, then the expansion of "space" as you describe it would work as you describe it.&nbsp; In other words if we considered all galaxies to be eternal and completely detached from each other and we begin with that type of an assumption, then your point would in fact be valid. </p><p>Having said that, you personally are promoting a very different kind of theory.&nbsp;&nbsp; You've begun your theory with a "singularity", or at least a theory that suggests that all physical matter was highly concentrated to a volume that is something smaller than a breadbox.&nbsp; It doesn't matter how much "smaller" you might take this singularity cocncept, but the point is that your preferred theory begins with a lump of mass that is all held bound by a common gravity.&nbsp; It's a "special relativity" scenario at the moment of the bang.&nbsp;</p><p> What you have to do for me now is explain how you got from a single point of gravity bound (special relativity) mass, to a comoving coordinate system *without* resorting to inflation and/or DE. &nbsp; </p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> It seems to be a natural consequence of our points of view to assume that the whole of space is filled with electrons and flying electric ions of all kinds. - Kristian Birkeland </div>

 

[DrRocket]

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Then what is responsible for it?I think I may have a way for us to proceed having read your last response.I will begin by granting you that *if* we began our theory in a comoving coordinate system, then the expansion of "space" as you describe it would work as you describe it.&nbsp; In other words if we considered all galaxies to be eternal and completely detached from each other and we begin with that type of an assumption, then your point would in fact be valid. Having said that, you personally are promoting a very different kind of theory.&nbsp;&nbsp; You've begun your theory with a "singularity", or at least a theory that suggests that all physical matter was highly concentrated to a volume that is something smaller than a breadbox.&nbsp; It doesn't matter how much "smaller" you might take this singularity cocncept, but the point is that your preferred theory begins with a lump of mass that is all held bound by a common gravity.&nbsp; It's a "special relativity" scenario at the moment of the bang.&nbsp; What you have to do for me now is explain how you got from a single point of gravity bound (special relativity) mass, to a comoving coordinate system *without* resorting to inflation and/or DE. &nbsp; <br />Posted by michaelmozina</DIV></p><p>As you have been repeatedly told the modern theory of cosmology does not start with the Big Bang.&nbsp; It starts with NOW.&nbsp; And NOW we see that the universe is expanding.&nbsp; One then takes that knowledge that the universe is expanding and uses general relativity, ala Hawking and Ellis, to logically and rigorously conclude that the universe originated in an extraordinarily compact form&nbsp; The general theory of relativity actually predicts a origin from a single point, a singularity.&nbsp; This may well be a&nbsp;breakdown in the general theory of relativity.&nbsp;&nbsp;We know that in&nbsp;a very compact state that quantum phenomena would be important and we know that general relativity is not compatible with quantum mechanics.&nbsp; Thus we know that WE DON"T KNOW what was going on prior to about 10^-33 seconds.&nbsp;Our knowledge of physics is simply inadequate to handle the problem as it stands at the moment.&nbsp; There is an add-on theory, called inflation, that tries to explain things a bit earlier, say 10^-35 seconds, and to explain both the large-scale homogeneity of the universe and the anisotropy that is seen on a smaller scale in the cosmic background radiation.&nbsp; It seems to be pretty well supported by recent observations, but is not yet fully confirmed and is not a crucial element in that portion of the Big Bang that simply asserts the origin of the universe in a&nbsp;very compact form.&nbsp;</p><p>The mechanism that created the conditions at 10^-33 seconds is unknown and the conditions at that time are inferred initial conditions based on general relativity.&nbsp; So your demand for an explanation of time 0, cannot be met and merely demonstrates your total lack of understanding of the logic and methods that have resulted in the current theory.</p><p>You can jump up and down, you can whine and you can make all the ignorant insinuations about the competence of cosmologists and astronomers that you have made in the past and you will still not get an answer to what happened at time 0.&nbsp; I don't know, Alfven didn't know, Einstein didn't know, Hawking doesn't know and most assuredly you don't know either.</p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[DrRocket]

<p><br />Since we are now in this thread in which you have opened up the question of general relativity I will again state my question to you, which if you have actually studied general relativity you should be able to answer quickly and precisely.&nbsp; Please explain the differences among</p><p>1.&nbsp; A Riemannian manifold</p><p>2.&nbsp; A semi-Riemannian manifold (aka a Lorentzian manifold)</p><p>3.&nbsp; An exhaust manifold</p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[derekmcd]

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'><strong>Then what is responsible for it?</strong>I think I may have a way for us to proceed having read your last response.I will begin by granting you that *if* we began our theory in a comoving coordinate system, then the expansion of "space" as you describe it would work as you describe it.&nbsp; In other words if we considered all galaxies to be eternal and completely detached from each other and we begin with that type of an assumption, then your point would in fact be valid. Having said that, you personally are promoting a very different kind of theory.&nbsp;&nbsp; You've begun your theory with a "singularity", or at least a theory that suggests that all physical matter was highly concentrated to a volume that is something smaller than a breadbox.&nbsp; It doesn't matter how much "smaller" you might take this singularity cocncept, but the point is that your preferred theory begins with a lump of mass that is all held bound by a common gravity.&nbsp; It's a "special relativity" scenario at the moment of the bang.<strong>&nbsp; What you have to do for me now is explain how you got from a single point of gravity bound (special relativity) mass, to a comoving coordinate system *without* resorting to inflation and/or DE. &nbsp; </strong><br /> Posted by michaelmozina</DIV></p><p>DrRocket more than adequately responded to the above bolded requests for me.</p><p>As for the rest of your post, I have clarified my stance on GR.&nbsp; Obviously one of us thinks the other is making absurd statements about GR. </p><p>I have called into question some of what I consider absurd statements and lines of reasoning that you have made concerning GR.&nbsp; I have defended my statements and lines of reasoning.</p><p>The only way for this debate to proceed is for you to attack my statements, defend yours, or simply concede that you don't understand relativity as much as you might claim you do.</p><p>Your post above is nothing more than an attempt at redirecting the conversation away from your obvious flaws in your reasoning and lack of understanding of GR.&nbsp; </p><p>I'm not falling for it... your tactics are blindingly obvious when you get cornered. </p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <div> </div><br /><div><span style="color:#0000ff" class="Apple-style-span">"If something's hard to do, then it's not worth doing." - Homer Simpson</span></div> </div>