Expanding Universe

Tjaxxo · Oct 22, 2008

Replying to: <DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Try the shape made by the line below:  The scale up the left hand side represents the rate of expansion.  Posted by SpeedFreek</DIV> Nice! Where we see deceleration, the initial outward force of the Big Bang is being slowed by the force of "Dark Gravity" pulling the universe "down," but the arc of the shape is relatively flat, not yet steep enough to provide significant  downward acceleration itself. At some point, however, the arc grows steep and the universe accelerates again. Our universe expands, accelerating and decelerating because it is a falling body, rolling downhill. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> He who isn't busy being born is busy dyin'. </div>

SpeedFreek · Oct 22, 2008

Here is your hill, but remember the curves in the red line only represent the change in the rate at which the universe is growing. If it were growing at a constant rate, the line would be straight.In your terms, it is as if everything in the universe (above the scale of galactic clusters) is rolling down a hill away from everything else in the universe, and wherever you choose to view the history of the universe from, whatever galaxy you live in, it would seem like you were at the top of the hill. <img src="http://sitelife.space.com/ver1.0/Content/images/store/8/9/78d20927-b30d-47ed-8974-933a5fbea0b5.Medium.jpg" alt="" />   <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> _______________________________________________ SpeedFreek </div>

Tjaxxo · Oct 22, 2008

Is the rate of the universe's expansion uniform? If it is a falling body, it should be roughly uniform, allowing for variables such as the pull of gravity between the universe's individual contents. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> He who isn't busy being born is busy dyin'. </div>

SpeedFreek · Oct 23, 2008

Replying to: <DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Is the rate of the universe's expansion uniform? If it is a falling body, it should be roughly uniform, allowing for variables such as the pull of gravity between the universe's individual contents. Posted by Tjaxxo</DIV>THE UNIVERSE IS NOT A FALLING BODY!You are simply using an analogy for the rate of expansion of the universe.  <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> _______________________________________________ SpeedFreek </div>

Tjaxxo · Oct 23, 2008

Replying to: <DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>THE UNIVERSE IS NOT A FALLING BODY!You are simply using an analogy for the rate of expansion of the universe.  Posted by SpeedFreek</DIV> No, I'm not using an analogy. That's my Big Theory: that the universe is a three-dimensional object placed atop, and pouring DOWN an extra-dimensional spheroid (or other-shaped) object. I'm suggesting that that slope you're graphing EXISTS.Because we are inside the universe, we can't see that it's a falling object. All we see is something very strange. The universe is expanding; interesting, but fully accountable due to the initial force of the Big Bang. But that this expansion is prone to deceleration and acceleration? From this question came the notion of Dark Energy.As I maintained at the outset, we've grown comfortable with the notion of Dark Energy, but step back a bit and it's an inelegant notion. SO is Dark Matter. The idea that the universe is falling - being poured, as it were - down the face of a hyperdimensional spheroid solves BOTH AT ONCE, without requiring us to invent all these unseen Dark entities.  <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> He who isn't busy being born is busy dyin'. </div>

SpeedFreek · Oct 23, 2008

Replying to: <DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'> No, I'm not using an analogy. That's my Big Theory: that the universe is a three-dimensional object placed atop, and pouring DOWN an extra-dimensional spheroid (or other-shaped) object. I'm suggesting that that slope you're graphing EXISTS.Because we are inside the universe, we can't see that it's a falling object. All we see is something very strange. The universe is expanding; interesting, but fully accountable due to the initial force of the Big Bang.  Posted by Tjaxxo</DIV>And the initial force of the Big Bang is... fully accountable?  Replying to: <DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>  But that this expansion is prone to deceleration and acceleration? From this question came the notion of Dark Energy.As I maintained at the outset, we've grown comfortable with the notion of Dark Energy, but step back a bit and it's an inelegant notion. SO is Dark Matter. The idea that the universe is falling - being poured, as it were - down the face of a hyperdimensional spheroid solves BOTH AT ONCE, without requiring us to invent all these unseen Dark entities.  Posted by Tjaxxo</DIV>Ahh so now your idea that the universe is "falling" down the face of a hyperdimensional spheroid (made of what?) accounts for Dark Matter too, does it? How does that work?Instead of using invented dark energy and matter, you have invented a hyperdimensional spheroid and a supposed model where the geometry of the universe somehow interacts with unseen extra dimensions. And I do not see how your model actually explains the differing rates of expansion either. A spheroid has a "face" that is homogeneous - you find translational invariance whichever direction you move across it, however many dimensions the sphere has.Nor do I see how your model can go any way to explaining why the stars at the outside of galaxies can orbit that galaxy so fast and not fly out of the galaxy (i.e. dark matter).Not that I can say what causes dark matter or energy either, mind you.   <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> _______________________________________________ SpeedFreek </div>

Tjaxxo · Oct 23, 2008

[Not that I can say what causes dark matter or energy either, mind you.] I know! We're just here on earth, swinging for the rafters.  [And I do not see how your model actually explains the differing rates of expansion either. A spheroid has a "face" that is homogeneous - you find translational invariance whichever direction you move across it, however many dimensions the sphere has.] It's not really important to my theory that the object be spheroid or even regular. I mentioned this in one of my initial posts but have probably confused the issue by referring to the object as a "spheroid" ever since. Whatever the object's regularity, differing rates of expansion would still result from the gravitational pull of galaxies upon each other. Uniformy differing rates of expansion simply indicate that the underlying object isn't a sphere - that the degree of its slope changes. Unless...    Replying to: <DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>And the initial force of the Big Bang is... fully accountable? By "accountable," I don't mean I'm accounting for its cause, but assuming we have measured its explosive power.To restate, assuming a sphere for the sake of argument. At the true north pole of the sphere, the Big Bang occurs in a compacted liquid. The liquid spreads on all sides, the spread being fueled by the power of the Big Bang. Because I am hypothesizing a gravitational force acting upon the universe (the liquid) as a whole, this initial spread will slow down in time during the early period, before the liquid universe gets very far from the North Pole. Just as explosions on Earth slow down eventually. This is the deceleration we see, looking backward into the universe's early history. The Big Ban's force abates.However, at some point, the slowly spreading liquid universe has spread so wide across the sphere that the sphere's arc becomes much steeper, and the liquid universe accelerates as it falls down toward...who knows what. Hence the acceleration we now observe, no longer driven by the force of the Big Bang, but by the "fact" that gravity has taken over, and the universe is falling. [Ahh so now your idea that the universe is "falling" down the face of a hyperdimensional spheroid (made of what?) accounts for Dark Matter too, does it? How does that work?...Nor do I see how your model can go any way to explaining why the stars at the outside of galaxies can orbit that galaxy so fast and not fly out of the galaxy (i.e. dark matter)] I have no idea what the spheroid is made of. Pigskin perhaps! More troubling, since it bears directly upon my hypothesis, I can't account for the fast-rotating stars, which do seem to suggest some sort of dark matter .However, stars aside - an awful big aside! - dark matter is easily enough explained. Our universe is the liquid. We can't perceive the object we're flowing down. But the shape - spheroid or otherwise - has 360 degrees. On Earth, no matter how good my eyes are, I in Las Vegas can't see London, because it is beneath the horizon of the curving Earth. Nor can I see Yellow Knife, nor can I see Lima, Peru, nor Hawaii. Same reason. Now, if our universe were a liquid on the surface of a sphere, at some point the sphere will arc away from us, producing horizons. The rest of our universe - 96%? - is the same sort of universe we perceive but beyond the horizons of our perception. The rest of the universe is behind us, and otherwise beyond the horizon.  [Instead of using invented dark energy and matter, you have invented a hyperdimensional spheroid and a supposed model where the geometry of the universe somehow interacts with unseen extra dimensions. .   Posted by SpeedFreek</DIV> Guilty as charged! But extra dimensions aren't news, and the spheroid is simply another heavenly body. It's still much simpler than the proposed notion of strange new types of energy and strange new types of matter. Everything is restored to geometry. Not bad for an MA in English, huh? <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> He who isn't busy being born is busy dyin'. </div>

Tjaxxo · Oct 23, 2008

OK, major correction. An amateur's error.  "Scientists calculate that dark matter makes up about 25 percent of the universe. By contrast, ordinary matter—the stuff that makes up stars, planets, and everything on Earth—makes up no more than about 5 percent of the universe. The other 70 percent of the universe, scientists believe, is made of dark energy, an even more elusive force that is pushing the universe apart at an ever increasing rate."  http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2006/08/060822-dark-matter.html Dark matter is much more validated than I'd thought. Where I've said I'm explaining "dark matter," substitute "missing mass." Not 96% of the universe, but 70%. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> He who isn't busy being born is busy dyin'. </div>

Saiph · Oct 24, 2008

At best, Tjaxxo, your model is a way of looking at, and visualizing the expansion.  It doesn't really explain why it works though, and so falls very short.  Why is there an extra-dimension?  Why is it molding the observable universes geometry?  It's easily argued that the reason it can mold our space, is because of a force exerted upon it....which is essentially just Dark Energy again. So, at this point, while it's an interesting visualization, it has little explanatory power. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> --------------------SaiphMOD@gmail.com -------------------"This is my Timey Wimey Detector. Goes "bing" when there's stuff. It also fries eggs at 30 paces, wether you want it to or not actually. I've learned to stay away from hens: It's not pretty when they blow" -- The Tenth Doctor, "Blink" </div>

alokmohan · Oct 25, 2008

Replying to: <DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>So how does it explain the observations I mentioned in my 2 posts above? I will be interested to see if it can or not.  Posted by SpeedFreek</DIV>Tell  me  why   Arp  is  illestimated?

SpeedFreek · Oct 25, 2008

Replying to: <DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Tell  me  why   Arp  is  illestimated? Posted by alokmohan</DIV>Well, to sum up the story as I see it, Halton Arp found a number of quasars with high redshifts, quasars that seemed to overlap or interact with galaxies of lower redshifts. This was in the 1960's and at that time quasars (or quasi-stellar objects - QSOs) were the most distant (as in highest redshift) objects we had seen. Whilst the mainstream view was that the high redshifts were a confirmation of the expansion if the universe, Arp argued that his QSO were interacting with the closer galaxies and therefore were close to them and so the high redshift was not due to large distance in an expanding universe, but was to do with a high velocity relative to the QSOs local galaxies.Since those times, newer experiments like the Hubble Space Telescope have found many higher redshifted QSOs that are not associated with nearby galaxies and there are other sources with high redshifts, like radio or x-ray galaxies. These QSOs, radio and x-ray galaxies all have spectra similar to galaxies local to us, when corrected for the expansion of the universe. So it would seem that QSOs are distant receding galaxies, rather than small objects ejected at high speed from nearby galaxies. Halton Arp still proposes a model with "intrinsic" redshift, which fails to predict many of the observations we have since made (like the time-dilation of distant supernovae). An expanding universe predicts these other observations.  <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> _______________________________________________ SpeedFreek </div>

KickLaBuka · Oct 28, 2008

Replying to: <DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'> So it would seem that QSOs are distant receding galaxies, rather than small objects ejected at high speed from nearby galaxies.  Posted by SpeedFreek</DIV> Can you explain NGC 4258 and its compliment quasars?  How on earth could the mainstream deny their relationship to one another?  <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> -KickLaBuka </div>

Saiph · Oct 29, 2008

A quick literature search isn't turning up much, other than people are looking at it.  THe proper motion of the quasars, if they are ejected, required to produce the observed redshift is high, but not unreachable.  I haven't found anything saying these are "classic" galaxy spectra quasars though.  These might be an exception to the rule.  I.e. it's quite possible that this is due to standard doppler shifting, not some odd intrinsic mechanism that destroys the theory of universal expansion. The main light source of a quasar is just a really big BH consuming mass quantities of material from a giant accretion disk.  The "Classic" quasars are surrounded by a healthy and active galaxy as well, often over shadowed by the Quasar's energy output.  If NGC 4258 has ejected a couple of big BH's from it's core, and they are "active" they could create this system, without any real damage to the overall idea of Quasars being very distant and high redshift due to universal expansion.  It would point out the necessity to carefully screen objects to avoid misidentification. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> --------------------SaiphMOD@gmail.com -------------------"This is my Timey Wimey Detector. Goes "bing" when there's stuff. It also fries eggs at 30 paces, wether you want it to or not actually. I've learned to stay away from hens: It's not pretty when they blow" -- The Tenth Doctor, "Blink" </div>

KickLaBuka · Oct 30, 2008

Replying to: <DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>it's quite possible that this is due to standard doppler shifting, not some odd intrinsic mechanism that destroys the theory of universal expansion.  If NGC 4258 has ejected a couple of big BH's from it's core, and they are "active" they could create this system, without any real damage to the overall idea of Quasars being very distant and high redshift due to universal expansion.  It would point out the necessity to carefully screen objects to avoid misidentification. Posted by Saiph</DIV>   If they are a product of universal expansion, and if they are ejected from their galaxy, the received redshift would imply that they were ejected nearly straight away from our perspective, but slightly perpendicular to the rotation of the galaxy, and that they are now billions of light years further away.  That just doesn't make any physical sense, and it MUST.  We cannot be fooled by claims that things in space can't be visualized rationally.   So in short, yes, it destroys universal expansion, specifically the notion that redshift must equal distance and recessional velocity.  The notions of dark energy were whooey anyway.  At what point do you decide to listen to other experts in the same game, when they present evidence that the big wigs don't like?  It's as if you (mainstream) know physics, and you took physics, but you never really got the history of physics.Quasars are found nearly on the axis of rotation of strong syfert (the ones with the bright cores) galaxies, but are also found perpendicular to the galaxies with "dark" cores.  There are connecting x-ray sources between the quasars and their companion galaxy.  Some quasars are even pulled closer to another galaxy, as is the case with NGC 4319, with a quasar pair interacting with NGC 4291. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> -KickLaBuka </div>

MeteorWayne · Oct 30, 2008

Replying to: <DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>  If they are a product of universal expansion, and if they are ejected from their galaxy, the received redshift would imply that they were ejected nearly straight away from our perspective, but slightly perpendicular to the rotation of the galaxy, and that they are now billions of light years further away.  That just doesn't make any physical sense, and it MUST.  We cannot be fooled by claims that things in space can't be visualized rationally.   So in short, yes, it destroys universal expansion, specifically the notion that redshift must equal distance and recessional velocity.  The notions of dark energy were whooey anyway.  At what point do you decide to listen to other experts in the same game, when they present evidence that the big wigs don't like?  It's as if you (mainstream) know physics, and you took physics, but you never really got the history of physics.Quasars are found nearly on the axis of rotation of strong syfert (the ones with the bright cores) galaxies, but are also found perpendicular to the galaxies with "dark" cores.  There are connecting x-ray sources between the quasars and their companion galaxy.  Some quasars are even pulled closer to another galaxy, as is the case with NGC 4319, with a quasar pair interacting with NGC 4291. Posted by KickLaBuka</DIV> There is no evidence that supports your assertions.Why would their redshift imply that they were ejected straight away? Ant data to support that?Since all evidence indicated the Universe (and there's a lot of it) is about 13 or 14 billion years old, what specifically indicates to you that they are now billions of light years away further than that?Your assertion about quasars is not supported by any evidence I am aware of. Please provide some. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> But the Krell forgot one thing John. Monsters. Monsters from the Id. I really, really, really, really miss the "first unread post" function </div>

SpeedFreek · Oct 30, 2008

What we are saying here is that, whilst some Quasi Stellar Objects might be remnants ejected at high speeds from closer galaxies, the vast majority of QSOs are actually distant galaxies with high recession speeds due to expansion. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> _______________________________________________ SpeedFreek </div>

KickLaBuka · Oct 30, 2008

Replying to: <DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>There is no evidence that supports your assertions.Why would their redshift imply that they were ejected straight away? Ant data to support that?</DIV>I'm not entirely convinced they are ejected.  That's Arp's claim, and he's the one who's been studying them.  What he HAS found is that their position is quite aligned to these galaxies in the fashion I have explained.  Please be more specific as to what statements you would like me to expand upon, and I'll try to provide as much information as I know.Replying to: <DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Since all evidence indicated the Universe (and there's a lot of it) is about 13 or 14 billion years old, what specifically indicates to you that they are now billions of light years away further than that?</DIV>Sorry if I misspoke.  I'm not suggesting they are further away than that magic number.  I'm suggesting that the mainstream concept would "suggest" they were very much further away than the galaxy, which has a much lower redshift.  According to the mainstream concept, this would suggest that they were billions of light years from that galaxy, which is suggested to be located on the order of hundreds of millions of light years away.  Now I'd much rather we talked only in redshift, and not in time or distance.  As you can see, descriptions can get misconstrued.Replying to: <DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Your assertion about quasars is not supported by any evidence I am aware of. Please provide some. Posted by MeteorWayne</DIV>Just thirty pages into Arp's book, Seeing Red.  It's probably the hardest book I've ever read, and it is quite difficult to understand his descriptions as well as his data collection and graphs.  But he's got a point, and it's being ignored.  What he needs is scope time to record x-ray data over many day stretches on those wonderful high powered scopes that are so well kept by the BOSS, whoever he or they think they are.I'm sorry to be rude, and I really appreciate these conversations.  Please direct your questions and I will address them to the best of my knowledge from my reading, which isn't in wikipedia. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> -KickLaBuka </div>

Saiph · Oct 31, 2008

Kickla:  I'm actually admitted the possibility that their redshift is NOT due to universal expansion, but because they've been ejected.  It is also possible that it's just a coincidence.  There are LOTS of quasars and galaxies out there, you're bound to find some odd arrangments. Even if they've been ejected, and their high redshift is due to that, it doesn't rule out that a portion of their redshift is also due to expansion (basically the same amount as is seen in the "parent" galaxy). The one problem I have with the "ejected" quasar theory, if they've been ejected from a moderate redshift galaxy at velocities high enough to make the quasars a "high redshift" galaxy (thus if we mis-apply hubble's law thinking it's only due to expansion we find they are very, very far from the parent galaxy) we should see the opposite in some cases.  We should see some distant parent galaxy at moderate redshifts having ejected a quasar towards us, and the resulting velocity creating a blueshift that coutneracts the universal expansion component.  I.e. we'd see it, by mis-applying hubbles law, as much closer.I don't think we've seen any of these associated, ejected quasars who's redshift indicates they are much closer than the "parent" galaxy. So ejection might not work...leaving intrinsic redshifting..and Arp hasn't provided enough of a case to support that claim from what I've heard. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> --------------------SaiphMOD@gmail.com -------------------"This is my Timey Wimey Detector. Goes "bing" when there's stuff. It also fries eggs at 30 paces, wether you want it to or not actually. I've learned to stay away from hens: It's not pretty when they blow" -- The Tenth Doctor, "Blink" </div>

Saiph · Oct 31, 2008

Oh, and it's nice that you're reading Arps work and trying to argue the point here.  It'll better help you, and us, understand it all.And I highly commend you for also keeping a critical mind about everything said in the book (and here!).  It's all to easy a trap to fall into just believing what's written down. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> --------------------SaiphMOD@gmail.com -------------------"This is my Timey Wimey Detector. Goes "bing" when there's stuff. It also fries eggs at 30 paces, wether you want it to or not actually. I've learned to stay away from hens: It's not pretty when they blow" -- The Tenth Doctor, "Blink" </div>

KickLaBuka · Oct 31, 2008

And I shouldn't throw the baby out with the bath water; however, the data should remain unperturbed without bias (for all scientists) until corellations can be made, if possible.  <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> -KickLaBuka </div>

Saiph · Nov 3, 2008

The data probably is left alone.  Especially if it was gathered with the Hubble.  Nasa policy there is that the primary research team is given something like 1 year dibs on the data.  After that, it's  open to request from any other researcher to do with as they please.  I.e. NASA keeps a record of all the raw data to disperse to other later.The reason for the 1 year grace period is to provide a little leeway for the primary research team to do their work that they got the grant for, so they don't get "scooped" by any opportunistic (or lucky) researchers. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> --------------------SaiphMOD@gmail.com -------------------"This is my Timey Wimey Detector. Goes "bing" when there's stuff. It also fries eggs at 30 paces, wether you want it to or not actually. I've learned to stay away from hens: It's not pretty when they blow" -- The Tenth Doctor, "Blink" </div>

Expanding Universe

Tjaxxo

Guest

SpeedFreek

Guest

Tjaxxo

Guest

SpeedFreek

Guest

Tjaxxo

Guest

SpeedFreek

Guest

Tjaxxo

Guest

Tjaxxo

Guest

Saiph

Guest

alokmohan

Guest

SpeedFreek

Guest

KickLaBuka

Guest

Saiph

Guest

KickLaBuka

Guest

MeteorWayne

Guest

SpeedFreek

Guest

KickLaBuka

Guest

Saiph

Guest

Saiph

Guest

KickLaBuka

Guest

Saiph

Guest

Similar threads

TRENDING THREADS

Latest posts

Moderators online

Share this page