Huge Hole Found in the Lambda-CDM and Big Bang Theories

[SpeedFreek]

<font color="yellow">IMO the redshift is a combination of the two effects - space expansion and light getting tired</font><br /><br />Both of them? How much of the redshift would be attributed to each and why? The correlation between redshift and luminosity when combined with the correlation between redshift and angular diameter can be explained purely with expansion and fits so well, so why the need for tired light too?<br /><br />Bring out that razor! <img src="/images/icons/wink.gif" /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><font color="#ff0000">_______________________________________________<br /></font><font size="2"><em>SpeedFreek</em></font> </p> </div>

 

[vandivx]

in principle both of them but the tired light factor would become significant only for very distant objects, for relatively 'near' ones the pure space expansion I suppose would make good fit but that's only because the light wouldn't get much tired traveling those relatively shorter distances<br /><br />that is the farther you look the more you would be fooled that space expansion is greater than it really is if you would operate on the basis that light doesn't get tired (that it doesn't loose energy on its travel here)<br /><br />but that's off the top of my head, I haven't been thinking about it this way too much yet, I am coming from the theoretical direction that there is reason (that is physical mechanism) why light should be getting tired and I expect that to be confirmed by observations (or not as it may turn up), not the other way around, that is I am not coming in from the direction of observation and trying to interpret it and on the basis of that interpretation concluding that something else besides space expansion is needed for the observational data to fit<br /><br />I regret I can't talk about the theory behind tired light hypothesis, writing about it as I do makes me feel ridiculous and brings smile to my face as I write it, what a cute terminology that is, like that last bit about light not getting much tired over relatively short distances, that feels like giving a lecture in kindergarten school LOL you can imagine photon like puffing packman jogging along...<br /><br />vanDivX <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[publiusr]

The hole may be a texture. A 3d cosmic string.<br /><br />I wonder what one would look like up close.

 

[michaelmozina]

<blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr /><p>can you enlighten me on the theory of tired light? I fail to see any theory there, honest, and everywhere semirespectable I look it is called hypothesis so god help me, I am not making it up, its just you want to give it some respectability to give you some level against establishment - the mainstream theories that you attack here <p><hr /></p></p></blockquote><br /><br />Tired light theories have been around for quite some time. The most interesting mathematical presentation of a tired light theory I've seen comes from Ari Brynjolfsson:<br /><br />http://arxiv.org/find/astro-ph/1/au:+Brynjolfsson_A/0/1/0/all/0/1<br /><br />The most damaging pieces of evidence against a pure expansion explanation for redshift phenomenon comes from Halton Arp, and from MECO theories. GR does "predict" objects with an intrinsic redshift component, and Arp has shown that physically connected objects can often have different redshifts.<br /><br /><br /><blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr /><p>in fact I more or less agree with you on that count but you can never bolster your theories by debunking the false ones by saying they are false no matter how loud you can be<br /><br />as I see it there always were groups of scientists with false theories when the progress in sciences stagnated as it does now, I think there is whole legion of scientists who think it is all bunk but they have no better solution to offer or see one offered by others and they keep silent and their silence doesn't mean necessarily they agree with inflation theory etc <p><hr /></p></p></blockquote><br /><br />The problem as I see it is the fact that there are always multiple ways to interpret the same data set. What I resent is the fact that the mainstream insists that one explanation is worth teaching, and all other theories are ignored.<br /><br />http://www</safety_wrapper <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]

<blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr /><p>Both of them?<p><hr /></p></p></blockquote><br /><br />Sure, why not? What makes you think that redshifting can be oversimplified and only has one cause? How do you know that it's not a complex issue?<br /><br /><blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr /><p>How much of the redshift would be attributed to each and why?<p><hr /></p></p></blockquote><br /><br />Good question. IMO nobody really knows.<br /><br /><blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr /><p> The correlation between redshift and luminosity when combined with the correlation between redshift and angular diameter can be explained purely with expansion and fits so well, so why the need for tired light too?<p><hr /></p></p></blockquote><br /><br />Well, Arp has shown that such simplistic ideas cannot explain all the observations we see in space. Shall we just ignore his life's work because it doesn't fit with our preconceived simplistic ideas?<br /><br /><blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr /><p>Bring out that razor! <p><hr /></p></p></blockquote><br /><br />Just be careful not to cut yourself. <img src="/images/icons/smile.gif" /> If you could explain Arp's observations of redshift phenomenon with only expansion theories, then it might make sense to try to cut out the superfluous aspects of redshift explanations. Since you can't (nobody can), you might just be oversimplifying the issue to the point of absurdity. MECO theories demonstrate that from a mathematical and mechanical perspective, it's entirely possible that objects have an intrinsic redshift component, and Arps work supports that idea. It's very likely that redshift phenomenon are complex, and there may be multiple causes for that particular phenomenon. It's possible that the universe is expanding, *and* objects have an intrinsic redshift component, and light gets "tired" as it travels vast distances. It's simply premature IMO to claim we understand the whole process. <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]

<blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr /><p>As regards the thread OP, the apparent misgivings of the concordance theory as regards void size and CMB temperature anomalies may be due to insufficient regard to formants and resonances of the “instrument†of the universe than an intrinsic flaw of the theories. In other words, the problem is that parts of the theory still remain unexplored rather than being wrong. <p><hr /></p></p></blockquote><br /><br />Then again, maybe it's just plain wrong.<br /><br />http://www.wired.com/science/space/news/2007/11/big_bang<br /><br />When the formants of ones theory rely on no less than three metaphysical constructs, it a bit like trying to claim that the sound from the violin is due to magic ingredients, invisible fairies and pixie dust. We might both agree that the violin is special, and it's sound is very unique, but we may never agree on why it sounds like it does. We may be able to explain the sound in terms of the type of wood that was used, the chemicals in the wood, and the shape of the wood, but we may never be able to explain the sounds of the violin in terms of inflation, dark energy or dark matter. <br /><br />Even if we could come up with a mathematical explanation of the sound in terms of inflation, dark energy and dark matter, how would that help us to build a violin that sounds like the original? <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>

 

[SpeedFreek]

So how does tired light explain the apparently large angular diameter of the dimmest, most redshifted objects then?<br /><br />How can they look like they were closer when they emitted their light, than similar objects that are brighter and less redshifted? <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><font color="#ff0000">_______________________________________________<br /></font><font size="2"><em>SpeedFreek</em></font> </p> </div>

 

[michaelmozina]

<blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr /><p>So how does tired light explain the apparently large angular diameter of the dimmest, most redshifted objects then?<br /><br />How can they look like they were closer when they emitted their light, than similar objects that are brighter and less redshifted?<p><hr /></p></p></blockquote><br /><br />Most tired light theories are based on a concept of the photons interacting with plasma between here and the emission source. A greater redshift would necessarily imply a greater amount of interaction with plasma, but it would not necessarily imply a greater distance. In other words photons with a higher redshift would have interacted with more plasma, but those photons may not necessarily have traveled a greater distance than photons coming from an object at the same distance, but traversing a less dense plasma medium. Two objects might appear to be the same angular size because they are the same size and the same distance from earth. One of the objects is dimmer and more redshifted only because it's photons have traversed more plasma. A dimer object is dim because more light has been scattered by the plasma, and more redshifting has occurred as a result of more interactions with plasma between here and the emission source. In a tired light scenario, two objects could be exactly the same distance from earth, and therefore they could be exactly the same angular size, it is simply the greater density of the plasma between here and there that causes additional dimming, and additional redshift in one of the objects. <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>

 

[SpeedFreek]

<font color="yellow">Two objects might appear to be the same angular size because they are the same size and the same distance from earth. One of the objects is dimmer and more redshifted only because it's photons have traversed more plasma.</font><br /><br />What if there is very little angular distance between those objects?<br /><br />Objects of a similar angular diameter that are very close together can have massively different luminosity and redshift. If, as you say, they are the same distance away, they must be very close together, in the same region of space...<br /><br />So why would the light from one of them have been subjected to such different conditions from the other, if they are actually very close to each other, occupying the same region of space? Why did the light from one of them travel through lots of plasma while the other one is far less affected?<br /><br />We have many observations of objects with similar angular diameter but very different redshifts, apparently very close to each other. The standard model has it that the higher redshifted one is much further away, which would make sense in a relatively homogeneous universe. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><font color="#ff0000">_______________________________________________<br /></font><font size="2"><em>SpeedFreek</em></font> </p> </div>

 

[michaelmozina]

<blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr /><p>What if there is very little angular distance between those objects?<p><hr /></p></p></blockquote><br /><br />Which two objects? It's a bit difficult to generalize here without any real specifics to work with.<br /><br /><blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr /><p>Objects of a similar angular diameter that are very close together can have massively different luminosity and redshift.<p><hr /></p></p></blockquote><br /><br />They may have a very different "local environment" as well. As the photons get out into open space they may traverse similar but not equal amounts of plasma. Keep in mind that EU theory predicts a "threaded" universe that is not homogeneous even though the angular distances might be similar.<br /><br /><blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr /><p>If, as you say, they are the same distance away, they must be very close together, in the same region of space...<p><hr /></p></p></blockquote><br /><br />Not necessarily. You could be comparing a star in the foreground with a galaxy in the background for all I know. I'd need to see some specific images to know how to best respond.<br /><br /><blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr /><p>So why would the light from one of them have been subjected to such different conditions from the other, if they are actually very close to each other, occupying the same region of space? Why did the light from one of them travel through lots of plasma while the other one is far less affected?<p><hr /></p></p></blockquote><br /><br />One star might be enveloped in a more active and more dense filament current channel, even though they are at relatively the same distance from earth. I can't really be more specific without some specific objects to work with.<br /><br /><blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr /><p>We have many observations of objects with similar angular diameter but very different redshifts, apparently very close to each other. The standard model ha</p></blockquote> <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]

<blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr /><p>Counter examples invalidate a theory<br /><br />It does not logically follow that a theory is wrong if it does not make a prediction. Rather when a theory makes a prediction and it is not observed or observations give values contrary to the prediction, then as the theory stands, it is incorrect.<p><hr /></p></p></blockquote><br /><br />Then that hole in the universe clearly demonstrates that Lambda-CDM theory is incorrect. Lambda-CDM theory, and inflation theory in general, predicted a homogeneous universe. No such thing exists in reality. It's time for a better theory. Inflation failed to predict the universe that actually exists in nature. It may have looked good on paper, but it failed the observation test in a big way.<br /><br /><blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr /><p>The reference to classical acoustics was to merely show a possible example wherein the concordance theory may have overlooked a possibility. Namely to consider the fabric of general relativity space-time of having a structure that could lead to formants that would select eigenvalues that correspond to undertones of specific quantum fluctuations during a period of serious inflation. <p><hr /></p></p></blockquote><br /><br />What period of serious inflation? You simply *assumed* an inflation stage! Show me one controlled laboratory experiment that demonstrates that inflation isn't a figment of Guth's overactive imagination? Show me one other vector or scalar field in nature that doesn't experience a significant decrease in density over several exponential increases in volume? Why wouldn't the whole thing have imploded immediately under the weight of it's own gravitational attraction? What is inflation physically? (not metaphysically)? What particle is responsible for inflation? Show me one controlled experiment where inflaton fields were actually shown to exist in nature? In what controlled experiment did inflation ever have any effect o <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]

Ok, I'll start with the first paragraph in the first link:<br /><br />http://arxiv.org/abs/gr-qc/0612027 <br /><br /><blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr /><p>Direct [1] and indirect [2] evidence of the present acceleration of the universe is accumulating. Nonetheless, the source of the accelerated expansion is as elusive as ever. In the context of general relativity, one needs to hypothesize a dark energy source with negative pressure to accommodate the acceleration.<p><hr /></p></p></blockquote><br /><br />Even if we accept the premise of acceleration, this statement is absolutely incorrect. One "need" not hypothesize anything other than EM fields to explain the acceleration of objects in space. The sun's solar wind accelerates as it comes off the photosphere. Is that acceleration caused by "dark energy" too? Charged particles can be accelerated by EM fields without invoking any sort of dark energy explanation. Their very first statement is self serving, and extraordinary. EM fields are not "dark energy". They can and do accelerate particles without making any changes at all to GR. A skeptic of DE has no need for DE. DE is entirely optional. What "negative pressure" are they talking about that can actually be shown to exist in nature, and has some proven effect on nature? This isn't a good start IMO. This notion of "need" is entirely false. DE is not a "need", it is a "hypothesis", and a fairly extraordinary hypothesis at that. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence and extraordinary support. Thus far, all I see are extraordinary claims, and no extraordinary support for observations that can easily be explained by known forces of nature. GR and EM fields explain acceleration of objects just fine. I therefore have no "need" for DE if all I need to do is explain acceleration of charged plasma.<br /> <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]

<blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr /><p>Little is known about the dark energy except that its pressure is negative, and that it accounts for about 70% of the critical density of the universe. <p><hr /></p></p></blockquote><br /><br />Then nothing is really 'known" at all, because there is no such thing as "negative pressure". There is "less pressure" and "more pressure", but there is no such thing as "negative pressure". The notion that anything other that matter makes up the universe is purely hypothetical. As far as I know, there is no "DE" at all, let alone that DE makes up 70 percent of the universe. All I might be able to tell is that the universe is expanding and accelerating. I could not possible know what causes that acceleration or that DE makes up 70 percent of the universe.<br /> <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]

<blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr /><p>For the sake of simplicity, our model for the DDE is a light scalar field, which is not explicitly coupled to the matter density.<p><hr /></p></p></blockquote><br /><br />Then for the sake of simplicity, we can eliminate DE theory entirely and just go with EM fields and EU theory instead. EU theory can explain an apparent acceleration of charge particles and plasma without resorting to any other fields. Occam's razor arguments would suggest that DE is completely superfluous, and completely optional. <br /><br />IMO this paper supports EU theories better than it actually supports DE theories. <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]

<blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr /><p>V. CONCLUSIONS<br /><br />In this work we have investigated the clustering properties of DDE. We modeled the DDE as a scalar field with a light mass, and have shown that in the vicinity of gravitationally collapsing matter, the DDE develops inhomogeneities and forms voids.<p><hr /></p></p></blockquote><br /><br />Well, electron flows are composed of light mass particles, and they tend to concentrate in and around collapsing matter and form inhomogeneties and from voids. I still fail to see any valid argument for DE that doesn't also support EU theory. Let's go back now to the premise they began with, and look at how it can be applied to our own solar system:<br /><br /><blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr /><p>We are interested in spherical perturbations around a flat FRW universe.<p><hr /></p></p></blockquote><br /><br />Solar wind particles coming from the photosphere also tend to accelerate as they leave the surface. In that case we are also looking for spherical perturbations. We can explain the acceleration of these charged solar wind particles in terms of electromagnetic attraction between the positively charged surface of the photosphere, and the relatively negatively charged solar sheath. We can explain all these observations without any need for "dark" anything. Occam's razor arguments blow DE out of the water based on their own premise and their own conclusions.. What do we need DE for, when EM fields would do the job just fine? <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]

Ok, now let's look at the premise and conclusions of the second paper.<br /><br />http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/arxiv/pdf/0711/0711.2480v1.pdf<br /><br /><blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr /><p>The identified voids are quite nonspherical and slightly prolate, with axis ratios in the order of c : b : a 0.5 : 0.7 : 1. Their orientations are strongly correlated with significant alignments spanning scales > 30h−1Mpc. We also find an intimate link between the cosmic tidal field and the void orientations. Over a very wide range of scales we find a coherent and strong alignment of the voids with the tidal field computed from the smoothed density distribution. This orientation-tide alignment remains significant on scales exceeding twice the typical void size, which shows that the long range external field is responsible for the alignment of the voids. This confirms the view that the large scale tidal force field is the main agent for the large scale spatial organization of the Cosmic Web.<p><hr /></p></p></blockquote><br /><br />Here again, their own analysis points us toward EM fields as the culprit. EM fields will form "threads" in plasma. They are 39 orders of magnitude more powerful than gravitational fields, and they can traverse very large distances, particularly through light plasma. If this analysis is valid, then it only supports EU theory, because only EM fields could have that kind of an effect. No other known or identified force of nature could do these things. I'm afraid this paper does not undermine my faith in EU theory, it strengthens it rather significantly. If they are correct about an expanding and accelerating universe made mostly of plasma, then EM fields would fit this model very nicely, including explaining the voids and high density threads of spacetime. There is no need to look any further than EM fields to explain such phenomenon. <br /><br /><blockquote></blockquote> <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]

<blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr /><p>Large voids form around deep density troughs in the primordial density field. The main aspects of the evolution of a large void may be understood on the basis of the expansion of simple spherical and isolated under-densities (e.g. Bertschinger (1985)). Under-dense regions expand with respect to the background Universe and in general will have the tendency to grow more spherical with time (Icke 1984). However, Shandarin et al. (2006) and Park & Lee (2007a) have emphasized that, in realistic cosmological circumstances, voids will be nonspherical. This is quite apparent in images of, for example, the Millennium simulation (Springel et al. 2005). Moreover, substructures within voids display a manifest alignment along a preferred direction. This is, in part, a consequence of the relatively strong influence of the surrounding inhomogeneous matter distribution on the void’s structure and evolution.<p><hr /></p></p></blockquote><br /><br />Plasma physics reveals similar structures in plasma. All that is required is current running through the plasma to explain filaments and voids around the filaments where the currents have "pinched" plasma into filamentary structures, and thereby leave "voids" around the filaments. EM fields could traverse those kinds of distances too, particularly since plasma is a nearly perfect conductor. All of these observations can be explained in very simple terms, involving nothing more than plasma and current flowing through the plasma. I see nothing here that does not support EU theory and plasma cosmology theory. In fact I see a lot of evidence in their own modeling and their own premises to support EU theory and to support a current flow oriented theory. It's a pity that the mainstream has such a strong bias against current flow theories, because all of their models are based on exactly the same things that we observe in plasma when we run current through the plasma. When we run curren <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>

 

[SpeedFreek]

Me: <i>"What if there is very little angular distance between those objects?"</i><br /><br />MM: <font color="yellow">"Which two objects? It's a bit difficult to generalize here without any real specifics to work with."</font><br /><br />Objects of a similar type like spiral galaxies.<br /><br /><br />Me: <i>"Objects of a similar angular diameter that are very close together can have massively different luminosity and redshift."</i><br /><br />MM: <font color="yellow">"They may have a very different "local environment" as well. As the photons get out into open space they may traverse similar but not equal amounts of plasma. Keep in mind that EU theory predicts a "threaded" universe that is not homogeneous even though the angular distances might be similar."</font><br /><br />How could they have a different local environment if they are the same <i>angular-diameter distance</i> and are very close to each other in the sky, or overlapping? The EU "theory" seems to predict large amounts of plasma in empty space, right next to areas of little plasma. Is that the case?<br /><br /><br />Me: <i>"If, as you say, they are the same distance away, they must be very close together, in the same region of space..."</i><br /><br />MM: <font color="yellow">"Not necessarily. You could be comparing a star in the foreground with a galaxy in the background for all I know. I'd need to see some specific images to know how to best respond."</font><br /><br />No, I have said all along that we measure the angular-diameter of objects of the <b>same type</b>, and as redshift increases, objects of the same type appear <b>larger</b>, and thus objects of the <i>same type</i> with a similar angular-diameter can have very different redshifts.<br /><br />I refer you to Angular Size Redshift Relation for a better explanation.<br /><br />From that link:<i>"The angular size redshift relation describes th</i> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><font color="#ff0000">_______________________________________________<br /></font><font size="2"><em>SpeedFreek</em></font> </p> </div>

 

[vandivx]

"What happens when the energy gets loose?"<br />---<br /><br />erm, ehm... well, it bites ankles of those who are curious about what it does when it is let loose at large apparently lost in space<br /><br />what can I say to my defence, usually I re-read my posts and it seems I failed to do that in this one case (probably because the thread grows so fast with hyper posting by OP), also I feel that I fell victim to my own ability - to explain what I mean, I am not native English speaker at all, not American or any other kind<br /><br />I grew up in the middle of Europe and I happen to speak and write English for some twenty five years now and the problem is I do it well enough that people mistake me for native speaker/writer which I am not and that raises the expectations a bit too high, now if I was somebody else here such mistake would pass in silence <img src="/images/icons/wink.gif" /><br /><br />I feel especially unsecure in written presentation (that's very typical for imigrants but natives are not exception to it all too often either) in which I typically make lots of mistakes which I (mostly) correct when I re-read and I don't use dictionaries or anything because I am lazy (electronic spell checkers are too bothersome all too often they rake you over what they think are mistakes and then miss the real mistakes anyway like they likely would miss this one), I correct the text from my head and you may wonder if I know how it should be why didn't I write it correctly in the first place LOL I often wonder about that myself too <img src="/images/icons/smile.gif" /><br /><br />I will surely take a minute or two and study the dictionary quotation kindly supplied by Tom_Hobbes (thx) <br />I have some rests I know about in my grammar and always tell myself I will go and look them up but I never do and next time they come up I feel unsure again and somehow I get it written and again think of taking a minute and looking it up... LOL<br /><br />vanDivX <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[michaelmozina]

Considering the fact that most native English speakers make plenty of spelling mistakes and grammatical errors in their online posts (I certainly do), I wouldn't worry about it. I'm often posting between technical support calls at work, and I rarely (if ever) have the time to proofread anything I post in cyberspace. I'm extremely impressed with your mastery of the English language. I can't speak another language, let alone communicate in another language on a message board. You'll get no complaints or judgments from me. <img src="/images/icons/smile.gif" /> <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]

Sorry for the confusion SF. That was my fault. As you noted we do have two very similar conversations going at this point so I will try to focus on the key issues as I see them.<br /><br /><blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr /><p>The Luminosity Distance (DL) shows why distant galaxies are so hard to see - a very young and distant galaxy at redshift 15 would appear to be about 560 billion light years from us although the Angular Diameter Distance (DA) suggests that it was actually about 2.2 billion light years from us when it emitted the light that we now see. The Light Travel Time Distance (DT) tells us that the light from this galaxy has travelled for 13.6 billion years between the time that the light was emitted and today. The Comoving Distance (DC) tells us that this same galaxy today, if we could see it, would be about 35 billion light years from us." <p><hr /></p></p></blockquote><br /><br />Well, first of all, the *testable* laws of physics preclude any object made of mass from traveling faster than the speed of light. It is therefore physically impossible according to the laws of physics for anything to be more than 27.4 billion light years from Earth today if the universe is only 13.7 billion years old. Only by evoking untestable metaphysical concepts can any object be as far away from earth as your redshift theory suggests. "Space" (as in a pure vacuum) cannot expand, because there is nothing in it to expand. Spacetime can expand as the objects inside spacetime expand, but they cannot exceed the speed of light if they contain mass. Only if we buy into the realm of metaphysics can you "explain" objects that emit highly redshifted light by using their movement patterns to explain that redshift phenomenon.<br /><br />In a tired light scenario however, (or in a MECO theory as well) two objects can be exactly the same distance from Earth, yet have two very different redshifts. If we're talking about two galaxies that roughly appear to be the same <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>

 

[SpeedFreek]

Well I agree with you about the testable laws of physics precluding objects with mass from travelling faster than light.<br /><br />But ask yourself this - how do the testable laws of physics deal with dimensions? How can science <i>prove</i> the nature of the dimensions that we perceive? What are up, down, left, right, front and back actually made of? Why are there only 3 spacial dimensions? Are we simply measuring empty space?<br /><br />What I'm getting at is that the metric expansion of space is a concept where it is the <i>metric that defines distance</i> changes over time. Let's not worry for a moment about the mechanism behind that metric, let's look at the result - distances increase between 2 objects over time, <i>without either object actually moving inertially.</i> This is indeed metaphysics.<br /><br />But it fits with the <i>majority</i> of our observations. The often quoted redshift-distance relationship alone could have quite a few different explanations for sure, but when we take the angular-diameter redshift relationship into account, all the other explanations suddenly get a whole lot more complicated. We have some galaxies of a similar type and size having far higher gravities than others, in order to redshift their light more, and for the dimmest galaxies we still have to account for their angular diameters being as large as galaxies only 2 billion light years away. That would seem to require an incredible amount of plasma or gravity interaction to account for their dimness and very high redshift.<br /><br />With modern telescopes we can see far dimmer objects than previously possible, and the smallest of the dimmest galaxies have a larger angular diameter than the smallest of their brighter counterparts. As I said, this requires a very complicated explanation if you rule out the expansion of space.<br /><br />If we assume the expansion of space is real, suddenly the angular-diameter redshift distance relationship makes total sense. The smallest of those d <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><font color="#ff0000">_______________________________________________<br /></font><font size="2"><em>SpeedFreek</em></font> </p> </div>

 

[michaelmozina]

<blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr /><p>Well I agree with you about the testable laws of physics precluding objects with mass from travelling faster than light.<p><hr /></p></p></blockquote><br /><br />Well, that's a good start, but I have a feeling that you're going to regret saying it, otherwise you're going to be forced to agree with me sooner or later. <img src="/images/icons/smile.gif" /><br /><br /><blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr /><p>But ask yourself this - how do the testable laws of physics deal with dimensions? <p><hr /></p></p></blockquote><br /><br />The laws of physics seem to do quite well for describing the interactions of objects in the four dimensions we live in.<br /><br /><blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr /><p>How can science prove the nature of the dimensions that we perceive?<p><hr /></p></p></blockquote><br /><br />I'm not sure it can prove anything about the "nature" of the four dimensions that we percieve, but it can certainly measure them, and work with them. In fact physics as we understand it is meant to explain the laws of nature that affect the four dimensions that we can identify.<br /><br /><blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr /><p>What are up, down, left, right, front and back actually made of?<p><hr /></p></p></blockquote><br /><br />"Space" (as in metric distance)<br /><br /><blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr /><p>Why are there only 3 spacial dimensions?<p><hr /></p></p></blockquote><br /><br />There just are.<br /><br /><blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr /><p> Are we simply measuring empty space?<p><hr /></p></p></blockquote><br /><br />Sort of. Technically nothing is completely "empty" according to quantum mechanics. "Space" however is simply a metric measurement of absolute distance. That space may not be entirely empty, but we have concluded that there are laws of physics that govern these dimensions, one of the being that the speed of light is the absolute speed limit of anything made of mass. <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>

 

[vandivx]

<blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr /><p>See, when I was in college and studying physical objects in physics classes, that never happened, not even once. If we observed acceleration in an experiment, we were obligated to explain that acceleration using known forces of nature. There was not even a concept of expanding "space" prior to about the mid nineties. If I had come to my physics teacher back in the early 80's with a wild tale about how the two objects in our experiment weren't really accelerating away from each other because of a "force", but rather the "space" between them was expanding, I would have failed my physics test.<p><hr /></p></p></blockquote><br /><br />how lucky we are that Galileo or Kepler or Newton (for example) didn't all religiously listen to their teachers<br /><br />never mind how bizare to even expect to have space expansion show up in some school lab teaching experiment<br /><br /><blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr /><p>Metric space does not expand. That is an extraordinary claim. As such, it requires extraordinary support. Do you have any controlled experiment that demonstrates this extraordinary claim, or must I simply take this claim on pure, unadulterated faith? Pointing to distant observations and claiming that "dark energy did it" is an act of faith. "Science" requires empirical evidence from controlled scientific tests.<p><hr /></p></p></blockquote><br /><br />if you ever wonder why your gurus are shunned by mainstream read that quote of yours here, it is telling in more than one way<br /><br />I did read one paper by Ari Brynjolfsson (http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/astro-ph/pdf/0408/0408312v3.pdf) and I can't say it wasn't educating even if I skipped most of math in the middle of it, it tought me a lot in ways how not to write my papers when or if I do write them, especially when it comes to closing paragraphs<br /><br />vanDivX <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[SpeedFreek]

<font color="yellow">Well, your theory seems "complicated" to me too</font><br /><br />Just to be totally clear, this is not <b>my</b> personal theory, all I am doing is is illustrating the Lambda-CDM concordance model of cosmology. I couldn't think this stuff up myself, you know! <img src="/images/icons/smile.gif" /> <br /><br />It is not actually complicated at all. If objects are embedded in space that expands, and it was expanding fastest during the earliest times and slowing down towards the present, and light moves at a constant speed, then the angular-diameter redshift distance observations seem to fit, as do our observations of the time-dilation of typeIa supernovae (with a high degree of confidence). <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><font color="#ff0000">_______________________________________________<br /></font><font size="2"><em>SpeedFreek</em></font> </p> </div>