Expanding Spacetime in a Contracting Universe

[nexium]

There, I returned the original thread title. I am not aware of red shift being caused by matter agrigating except to extreme density. What mechanism might "consume space time" ? Neil

 

[eric2006]

O I C

 

[nojocujo]

Matter through gravity warps and then consumes spacetime. Anywhere you have a schwartchild radius you would have spacetime consumption. Our sun, large planets would have a schwartchild radius but only well within the the mass whereas a blackhole reside with the radius.

 

[nojocujo]

I am reposting so there is not too much confusion. <br /><br />Saiph,<br />Hubbles findingsregarding redshift and the conclusions drawn from the data made me feel warm and fuzzy for years. Then came dark energy and now if i have to accept both I may want to revisit what may have been a wrong turn. The key question is can GR still produce that same results observed By Hubble and everyone that has followed in a manner that does not require Dark Energy? So the we have to find what Dark Energy represents. Hubble defined a cosmological expansion and it worked for me. Then Perlmutter utilized the same data to redefine Hubble and added that the universe was not only expanding but there was an accelerating expansion. It was a semi reasonable conclusion based on decades of findings by other cosmologists/astronomers. I don't want to get off subject but there may be an additional redshifft associated with gravitational waves which is why I said semi.<br />If Hubbles model can support an energy that at this point is undefined and undiscovered except there is alot of evidence supporting that something repulsive appears to becreating and acceleration. This caused me to question Hubbles model. Einstien supposedly goofed and created his universe as a static model and had to revise GR to fit Hubbles model and came up with the cosmological constant and now we have put Lambda back into the equation and especially with Dark Energy.<br />I began to ask what would cause an acceration of the universe at this point in time with nothing new in the alleged manner observed and I had no candidates. Robert Caldwell came up with Quintessence. He confused me. So sometime when things go awry you have to go back and see what might have gone wrong. Which means you revisit and try to rethink all those previous conclusions. If the universe were not static which Hubbles concluded and the redshift indicated that it was not static could it instead be contracting? If it were contracting how could you possibly

 

[nojocujo]

You can also edit it to keep the thread of the posts if you make a mistake.

 

[kmarinas86]

Cyclical Multiverse Theory predicts:<br />Decreasing <i>angular diameter distance</i> outside a certain sphere of observation due to warping of space time.<br />Gravitational Time Dilation at a region percieved as the beginning of time but which is according to this theory a different region of space.<br />Tera Quasars (i.e. quarks of a higher fractal level with the mass of trillions of quasars) responsible for this Gravitational Time Dilation.<br />Open curvature in our region of the universe and flat curvature above the closed curvature which is hidden behind the cloak what the mainstream refers to as the "dark age", but in this theory it is really the surface of huge black holes (six of them close to us - two per quark) Judging by the Cosmic Background Radiation, I propose that our universe is not in a hydrogen atom. <br />The possibility of discovering "universes" like ours between quarks in the form of gluons.

 

[nojocujo]

I changed the title of the post to better describe the discussion.<br /><br />Just a little thought exercise.<br /><br />Two fishing reels both representing matter aggregations or blackhole or whatever and the relationship between the two is either static, receding or contracting. Reel both at the same time and the monofilament line represents spacetime in that it also has elasticity. What happens if you reel too slow or too fast or just right? <br /><br />How would the Einstein Tensor affect this?

 

[nojocujo]

NO comments at all?

 

[kmarinas86]

<font color="yellow">The key question is can GR still produce that same results observed By Hubble and everyone that has followed in a manner that does not require Dark Energy?</font><br />Yes.<br /><font color="yellow">If the universe were not static which Hubbles concluded and the redshift indicated that it was not static could it instead be contracting?</font><br />The universe cannot be static if you assume that the blue galaxies in Hubble Deep Field are images from the beginning of time. Instead, if the universe is static, you must explain why edge of the observed part of the universe appears to be hotter than it is here. Realize that it is expensive to take Hubble Deep Field photos, so pictures of the Deep Universe are unfortunately not taken outside the Hubble Deep Field, which is a mistake like the one Alton Arp made when he did his "survey" of "proximities" with quasars and galaxies, when more statistics showed there was no proper correlation.<br /><font color="yellow">If it were contracting how could you possibly have the same results regarding the redshift that have been observed for decades?</font><br />Contraction is not uniform. In a static universe, you would expect the hotter and denser regions to be contracting where as the colder regions are emptying out, though since the hotter areas have more thermal energy, some of that energy would leak to the Milkway, including, for example, the cosmic background radiation.<br /><font color="yellow">Can GR plausibly explain a cosmological redshift due to a spacetime expansion in a contracting universe eliminating the need for Dark Energy?</font><br />Contraction is relative. If you are looking for the place with the most contraction, it must be at the fringes of our observation, where the Hubble Deep Field is, or as a matter of fact, the Cosmic Background Radiation, and beyond that. <br /><font color="yellow">To break it down further for a spacetime expansion to occur does</font>

 

[nojocujo]

Go look at the Dark Energy an Illusion post in Space and Astronomy. I think they are saying that Einstein was right and Hubble wrong!

 

[nojocujo]

Go look at the Dark Energy an Illusion post in Space and Astronomy. I think they are saying that Einstein was right and Hubble wrong!

 

[newtonian]

nojocujo - Thank you for another outside the box model for explaining red shift observations in our universe.<br /><br />I have a number of questions, but I will start with this one:<br /><br />How is space-time consumed?<br /><br />By black holes throughout the universe? Or by other or additional mechanisms?<br /><br />It reminds me of the langoliers, btw.<br /><br />Seriously, it also reminds me of wormhole models.<br /><br />And gravity leaking into other dimensions as in some String theory models.<br /><br />kmarinas & nococujo - Is redshift caused only by motion on the fabric of space? Or is it also caused by motion of the fabric of space itself?<br /><br />nococujo - OK, assume spacetime is consumed. So less spacetime exists through time.<br /><br />Note an intrinsic problem with the statement: TIME!<br /><br />I can understand perhaps how space could be consumed, since observation of virtual particles does imply that space is not really nothing but rather something else.<br /><br />I do not understand how time could be consumed - but to add a factor, specify our universe specific spacetime being consumed within a much larger universe which has its own time, call it LU (for larger universe) spacetime (to be distinguished from primordial time which exists outside the much larger universe).<br /><br />In that scenario the consumption of time can proceed by cause and effect during LU spacetime.<br /><br />Comments?

 

[nojocujo]

How do you get the color change for the text?<br /><br />nojocujo - Thank you for another outside the box model for explaining red shift observations in our universe.<br /><br />I have a number of questions, but I will start with this one:<br /><br />How is space-time consumed?<br /><br />By black holes throughout the universe? Or by other or additional mechanisms?<br /><br />Since all matter warps spacetime I would not constrain consumption to blackholes. Blackholes represent and extreme example....... <br /><br />It reminds me of the langoliers, btw.<br />Loved that book.<br /><br />Seriously, it also reminds me of wormhole models.<br />I din't intent to include wormholes!<br /><br />And gravity leaking into other dimensions as in some String theory models.<br /><br />I tried to leave out strings also. I made no mentionof them or of multidimensions. <br /><br />kmarinas & nococujo - Is redshift caused only by motion on the fabric of space? Or is it also caused by motion of the fabric of space itself?<br /><br />I think that this model would have to include the motion of spacetime itself. That is a plural! <br /><br />nococujo - OK, assume spacetime is consumed. So less spacetime exists through time.<br /><br />Lets go back to where I think reference frames started. Edisons kinetiscope (did I spellthat right). Look at he dates! <br /><br />Note an intrinsic problem with the statement: TIME!<br /><br />I made no mention of SR. Why bring it up? Just kidding!<br />Do you see that the two are intrisically related and can't be held separate? But should I have stated time slows relative to consumption? And that would infer that an expanding spacetime would require a speeding up relative to density. <br /><br />I can understand perhaps how space could be consumed, since observation of virtual particles does imply that space is not really nothing but rather something else.<br /><br />I do not understand how time could be consumed - but to add a factor, specify our universe specific spacetime being cons

 

[nojocujo]

Did anyone go look at the Dark Energy an Illusion? post?

 

[nojocujo]

Where did the acceleration go?

 

[Swampcat]

<font color="yellow">"How do you get the color change for the text?"</font><br /><br />Check out the Uplink FAQ section concerning html and UBBCode. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <font size="3" color="#ff9900"><p><font size="1" color="#993300"><strong><em>------------------------------------------------------------------- </em></strong></font></p><p><font size="1" color="#993300"><strong><em>"I hold it that a little rebellion now and then is a good thing, and as necessary in the political world as storms in the physical. Unsuccessful rebellions, indeed, generally establish the encroachments on the rights of the people which have produced them. An observation of this truth should render honest republican governors so mild in their punishment of rebellions as not to discourage them too much. It is a medicine necessary for the sound health of government."</em></strong></font></p><p><font size="1" color="#993300"><strong>Thomas Jefferson</strong></font></p></font> </div>

 

[nojocujo]

<font color="red"> got it<font color="red"> <font color="white"></font></font></font>

 

[nojocujo]

If there is now no acceleration then this whole post is really stupid. If the redshift still indicates an accelerating universe it is an option. I agree that you can do away with the need for dark energy by changing lambda. The cosmological redshift means something and if it doesn't mean what Hubble described it to be then it has to mean something. It can't be dismissed. Also there was mention in another post that there may be an inflationary aspect to supernova's. Anyone could enlighten me...........