Surprise! The universe's expansion rate may vary from place to place

[Admin]

The expansion rate of the universe appears to vary from place to place, a new study reports. This finding, if confirmed, would force astronomers to reassess just how well they understand the cosmos.

Surprise! The universe's expansion rate may vary from place to place : Read more

 

[Torbjorn Larsson]

The expansion rate of the universe appears to vary from place to place, a new study reports. This finding, if confirmed, would force astronomers to reassess just how well they understand the cosmos.

These types of anisotropies in isolated data sets have been reported numerous times, and the uniform LCDM cosmology has survived. The main reason is that integrated data syntheses such as the Planck group do removes or alleviate them.

While it is technically true that the data probe further out, the main data is extremely local, < 1 Glyrs radius (z < 0.1). It is mostly < 10 % nonuniformity and less than the necessary 5 sigma significance at that. They will add more data, which presumably will move the probe further out as well, which will be interesting.

 

[rod]

I think the cosmology department needs a *fact* check for many of the claims commonly presented to the public Here is another report on this rate of expansion problem, Rethinking cosmology: Universe expansion may not be uniform (Update) The report stated, "Astronomers have assumed for decades that the Universe is expanding at the same rate in all directions. A new study based on data from ESA's XMM-Newton, NASA's Chandra and the German-led ROSAT X-ray observatories suggests this key premise of cosmology might be wrong... Widely accepted as a consequence of well-established fundamental physics, the hypothesis has been supported by observations of the cosmic microwave background (CMB). A direct remnant of the Big Bang, the CMB reflects the state of the Universe as it was in its infancy, at only 380 000 years of age. The CMB's uniform distribution in the sky suggests that in those early days the Universe must have been expanding rapidly and at the same rate in all directions. In today's Universe, however, this may no longer be true. "Together with colleagues from the University of Bonn and Harvard University, we looked at the behaviour of over 800 galaxy clusters in the present Universe," says Konstantinos. "If the isotropy hypothesis was correct, the properties of the clusters would be uniform across the sky. But we actually saw significant differences."

Note, the origin of the CMB and redshift used to explain the evolution of the cosmic fireball that created the universe, the uniform or nearly uniform temperature observed in the CMBR today is interpreted to mean *must have been expanding rapidly and at the same rate in all directions. In today's Universe, however, this may no longer be true."

What? This should raise questions here about the various rates of expansion used in cosmology and how these different expansion rates are confirmed. The CMBR uniformity today is considered to represent a redshift where z=1000 or more based upon the expansion rate and size of the universe. However, galaxies with high redshifts are spectral measurements, the CMBR redshift is not, it is an extrapolation dependent on the rate of expansion, this seems to be different now. This is not the same as spectra obtained for high redshift galaxies, but a model dependent interpretation for the redshift or z. For example, ‘Characterizing the Environment Around The Most Distant Known Galaxy’, https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2019hst..prop15977O/abstract, “The discovery of the very luminous galaxy GN-z11 at only 400 Myr after the Big Bang in the GOODS-North field with an HST grism spectroscopic redshift of z=11.1+/-0.1 presents a real puzzle for early Universe science. Its detection raises significant questions about our understanding of early galaxy formation…”

I note a difference here. *spectroscopic redshift* vs. the model dependent interpretation of original temperature some 3000K vs. near 3K today for the CMBR where z=1000 or more.

The latest report on expansion rate published, now we read that the rate of expansion used to calculate the z number for the CMBR redshift, the expansion rate may not be uniform and changed. Seems like z=1000 or more may not be confirmed, certainly not confirmed using the same method as GN-z11 redshift.

 

[rod]

FYI, one more note here. From a source that sent me this information about the formation of the CMBR, "The "surface of last scattering" is a sound physical concept in that in a hot plasma the radiation is constantly interacting with the plasma, where everything is electrically charged - Thompson scattering. However, once the assumed fireball has cooled sufficiently, electrons begin to bind to atomic nuclei and thus form neutral atoms, allowing photons to pass freely - a stage known as decoupling, which corresponds to a temperature of about 3,000 K. Within the standard BB paradigm, the light first radiated from this process is now seen as the Cosmic Microwave Background. Thus the z~1000+ redshift figure is partly based on well-established physics, and partly on the BB paradigm."

The expansion rate used to calculate the redshift from *surface of last scattering* is different now or presently measured different in the universe than what is used in BB model. The CMBR redshift could be less or even more or perhaps no redshift for the cosmic fireball evolution

 

[dfjchem721]

You know rod, the Department of Cosmology's rec room has a dart board, with your picture on it. Have heard it is used quite frequently!

I don't recall any of these posts mentioning Dark Energy (DE) - probably not required from the debate perspective. It would seem that DE, which was "invented" to explain increasing in expansion rate, would have to be asymmetric in its distribution if this new interpretation is correct. I suspect this is why it suggests that the hypothesis of DE and/or the entire BB needs re-evaluation. After all, BB cosmology is based on symmetry in all aspects, unless I am mistaken. Of course there could always be some other form of matter/energy we are unaware of, or have not yet invented, on which the expansion is superimposed, which imparts asymmetry (if this story is accurate).

In one of the greatest understatements I ever read, from the article :

"Dark energy's "baffling nature has not yet allowed astrophysicists to understand it properly," Migkas wrote. "Therefore, assuming it to be isotropic is almost a leap of faith for now. This highlights the urgent need to investigate if today's universe is isotropic or not.""

Assuming it is real, anything but isotropic DE would need a leap in faith, since it is presumed to be the largest part of the mass-energy of the universe. If it is not isotropic, someone has some very serious explaining to do, or so it seems to me.

Just watch out for rod. The dart board only gives him more ammo for counter-attacks. Have at 'em.

Do I sound like early-stage dementia, or is the physics getting jumbled up by data overload?

 

[Xinhang Shen]

The expansion rate of the universe appears to vary from place to place, a new study reports. This finding, if confirmed, would force astronomers to reassess just how well they understand the cosmos.

Surprise! The universe's expansion rate may vary from place to place : Read more

Of course, the expansion is not isotropic because its theoretical base - Einstein's relativity is wrong. Firstly, it should not be called the expansion of "the universe", but the expansion of the visible part of the universe because we can never claim anything about the entire universe which is defined as the collection of everything without boundaries.

Secondly, Einstein's relativity has already been disproved both theoretically and experimentally (see https://www.researchgate.net/publication/297527784_Challenge_to_the_Special_Theory_of_Relativity ). The most well-known experimental evidence is that the time of GPS is absolute because all atomic clocks on the GPS satellites are synchronized to show the same absolute time relative to all reference frames (ground, each satellite, etc), while special relativity tells us that time is relative and clocks can never be synchronized relative to more than one inertial reference frame. Therefore, time is absolute without beginning and end, and independent of the three dimensional space which does not have boundaries. It is non-sense to talk about the age of the universe. At most, we can only talk about the time from the beginning of the current expansion of the visible part of the universe.

Thirdly, the visible part of the universe is a collection of celestial objects (galaxies, clusters of galaxies, etc) which seem in a process of periodical cycles of implosion driven by gravitation and explosion driven by the pressure of aether. It seems that we are currently in the accelerating expansion stage of an explosion. Just like the explosion of a bomb, the expansion of the visible part of the universe should never be isotropic.

 

[ty2010b]

Of course, the expansion is not isotropic because its theoretical base - Einstein's relativity is wrong. Firstly, it should not be called the expansion of "the universe", but the expansion of the visible part of the universe because we can never claim anything about the entire universe which is defined as the collection of everything without boundaries.

Secondly, Einstein's relativity has already been disproved both theoretically and experimentally (see https://www.researchgate.net/publication/297527784_Challenge_to_the_Special_Theory_of_Relativity ). The most well-known experimental evidence is that the time of GPS is absolute because all atomic clocks on the GPS satellites are synchronized to show the same absolute time relative to all reference frames (ground, each satellite, etc), while special relativity tells us that time is relative and clocks can never be synchronized relative to more than one inertial reference frame. Therefore, time is absolute without beginning and end, and independent of the three dimensional space which does not have boundaries. It is non-sense to talk about the age of the universe. At most, we can only talk about the time from the beginning of the current expansion of the visible part of the universe.

Thirdly, the visible part of the universe is a collection of celestial objects (galaxies, clusters of galaxies, etc) which seem in a process of periodical cycles of implosion driven by gravitation and explosion driven by the pressure of aether. It seems that we are currently in the accelerating expansion stage of an explosion. Just like the explosion of a bomb, the expansion of the visible part of the universe should never be isotropic.

"After a Lorentz transformation from a moving inertial reference frame to a stationary inertial reference frame, the time in the moving frame is dilated by a factor γ , but the frequency of a clock in the moving frame decreases by the same factor γ , leaving the resulting product (i.e., the time displayed by the moving clock) unchanged. " - this is describing the same effect, even if they were independent they'd be additive, not offsetting.

GPS times are compensated for relativity http://www.astronomy.ohio-state.edu/~pogge/Ast162/Unit5/gps.html
As well as other factors https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4570298/

 

[Torbjorn Larsson]

I think the cosmology department needs a *fact* check for many of the claims commonly presented to the public Here is another report on this rate of expansion problem, Rethinking cosmology: Universe expansion may not be uniform (Update) The report stated, "Astronomers have assumed for decades that the Universe is expanding at the same rate in all directions. A new study based on data from ESA's XMM-Newton, NASA's Chandra and the German-led ROSAT X-ray observatories suggests this key premise of cosmology might be wrong... Widely accepted as a consequence of well-established fundamental physics, the hypothesis has been supported by observations of the cosmic microwave background (CMB). A direct remnant of the Big Bang, the CMB reflects the state of the Universe as it was in its infancy, at only 380 000 years of age. The CMB's uniform distribution in the sky suggests that in those early days the Universe must have been expanding rapidly and at the same rate in all directions. In today's Universe, however, this may no longer be true. "Together with colleagues from the University of Bonn and Harvard University, we looked at the behaviour of over 800 galaxy clusters in the present Universe," says Konstantinos. "If the isotropy hypothesis was correct, the properties of the clusters would be uniform across the sky. But we actually saw significant differences."

Note, the origin of the CMB and redshift used to explain the evolution of the cosmic fireball that created the universe, the uniform or nearly uniform temperature observed in the CMBR today is interpreted to mean *must have been expanding rapidly and at the same rate in all directions. In today's Universe, however, this may no longer be true."

What? This should raise questions here about the various rates of expansion used in cosmology and how these different expansion rates are confirmed. The CMBR uniformity today is considered to represent a redshift where z=1000 or more based upon the expansion rate and size of the universe. However, galaxies with high redshifts are spectral measurements, the CMBR redshift is not, it is an extrapolation dependent on the rate of expansion, this seems to be different now. This is not the same as spectra obtained for high redshift galaxies, but a model dependent interpretation for the redshift or z. For example, ‘Characterizing the Environment Around The Most Distant Known Galaxy’, https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2019hst..prop15977O/abstract, “The discovery of the very luminous galaxy GN-z11 at only 400 Myr after the Big Bang in the GOODS-North field with an HST grism spectroscopic redshift of z=11.1+/-0.1 presents a real puzzle for early Universe science. Its detection raises significant questions about our understanding of early galaxy formation…”

I note a difference here. *spectroscopic redshift* vs. the model dependent interpretation of original temperature some 3000K vs. near 3K today for the CMBR where z=1000 or more.

The latest report on expansion rate published, now we read that the rate of expansion used to calculate the z number for the CMBR redshift, the expansion rate may not be uniform and changed. Seems like z=1000 or more may not be confirmed, certainly not confirmed using the same method as GN-z11 redshift.

I'm not sure if you are picking nits, but the cosmic background radiation black body spectra has a peak and a temperature (which are correlated). So when we say that it was produced at z ~1000, it is based on the plasma black body temperature then (T ~3,000 K) and the CMB black body temperature now (T ~ 3 K) - the photons in the spectra have been stretched a factor 1,000 during their travel due to the universe having expanded that much. It is done by observing spectra, even if they have no spectroscopic lines. (But technically the many antenna filters in the Planck observatory did a spectroscopic decomposition, so again, your terminological mileage may vary.)

In any case, this result will most likely be met with the same shrug I gave it. Maybe the tension will be over 5 sigma when they go another round of data collection, maybe not. Maybe they can integrate more data and be more convincing, maybe not. Maybe a 10 % nonuniformity is problematic, maybe not. (I don't think they studied that.)

 

[Torbjorn Larsson]

You know rod, the Department of Cosmology's rec room has a dart board, with your picture on it. Have heard it is used quite frequently!

I don't recall any of these posts mentioning Dark Energy (DE) - probably not required from the debate perspective. It would seem that DE, which was "invented" to explain increasing in expansion rate, would have to be asymmetric in its distribution if this new interpretation is correct. I suspect this is why it suggests that the hypothesis of DE and/or the entire BB needs re-evaluation. After all, BB cosmology is based on symmetry in all aspects, unless I am mistaken. Of course there could always be some other form of matter/energy we are unaware of, or have not yet invented, on which the expansion is superimposed, which imparts asymmetry (if this story is accurate).

In one of the greatest understatements I ever read, from the article :

"Dark energy's "baffling nature has not yet allowed astrophysicists to understand it properly," Migkas wrote. "Therefore, assuming it to be isotropic is almost a leap of faith for now. This highlights the urgent need to investigate if today's universe is isotropic or not.""

Assuming it is real, anything but isotropic DE would need a leap in faith, since it is presumed to be the largest part of the mass-energy of the universe. If it is not isotropic, someone has some very serious explaining to do, or so it seems to me.

Just watch out for rod. The dart board only gives him more ammo for counter-attacks. Have at 'em.

Do I sound like early-stage dementia, or is the physics getting jumbled up by data overload?

On the contrary, few cosmologists entertain these notions, it is all in the public meme sector. The statement you refer to is a severe overstatement as far as I can see, dark energy nature is not baffling as much as its value was (and there are explanations for that now), and cosmological homogeneity and isotropy has been well studied from the start of modern cosmology.

I refer to Wikipedia om the history of dark energy and to my comment on the isotropy results in context.

 

[Torbjorn Larsson]

Of course, the expansion is not isotropic because its theoretical base - Einstein's relativity is wrong. Firstly, it should not be called the expansion of "the universe", but the expansion of the visible part of the universe because we can never claim anything about the entire universe which is defined as the collection of everything without boundaries.

Secondly, Einstein's relativity has already been disproved both theoretically and experimentally (see https://www.researchgate.net/publication/297527784_Challenge_to_the_Special_Theory_of_Relativity ). The most well-known experimental evidence is that the time of GPS is absolute because all atomic clocks on the GPS satellites are synchronized to show the same absolute time relative to all reference frames (ground, each satellite, etc), while special relativity tells us that time is relative and clocks can never be synchronized relative to more than one inertial reference frame. Therefore, time is absolute without beginning and end, and independent of the three dimensional space which does not have boundaries. It is non-sense to talk about the age of the universe. At most, we can only talk about the time from the beginning of the current expansion of the visible part of the universe.

Thirdly, the visible part of the universe is a collection of celestial objects (galaxies, clusters of galaxies, etc) which seem in a process of periodical cycles of implosion driven by gravitation and explosion driven by the pressure of aether. It seems that we are currently in the accelerating expansion stage of an explosion. Just like the explosion of a bomb, the expansion of the visible part of the universe should never be isotropic.

No other theory for gravity has stood up as well as Einstein's general relativity, which is why relativistic LCDM is reigning. The contenders are mostly dead: https://www.quantamagazine.org/trou...ives-to-einsteins-theory-of-gravity-20180430/ .

"New observations of extreme astrophysical systems have “brutally and pitilessly murdered” attempts to replace Einstein’s general theory of relativity."

"Many researchers knew that the [binary neutron star] merger would be a big deal, but a lot of them simply “hadn’t understood their theories were on the brink of demise,” he later wrote in an email. In Saclay, he read them the last rites. “That conference was like a funeral where we were breaking the news to some attendees.”"

Your points are really not problematic for cosmology.

- LCDM models the entire universe, since 1) there is no known reason not to and 2) it is more likely compared to any constrained version in a likelihood ratio test.
- Your reference is self promotion. It is an essay of "examination" in something that looks like a shoddy philosophical journal (refers to "views" rather than to references and testing), not a research paper. It's possibly even a predatory "journal" since it is been discontinued from data bases several times [ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Physics_Essays ] and is now listed in "Emerging Sources Citation index" which is described as containing predatory journals [ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emerging_Sources_Citation_Index ]. And I note, it isn't describing relativity at all, since it doesn't use the defining property of clocks - frequency stability. See more on that in ty2010b comment.
- The last claim of error in relativity doesn't seem to make any sense, especially in relation to relativity (which famously has no "aether"). It all depends on scale - galaxies are too small to affect cosmology, galaxy clusters lives in cosmic filaments that are still condensing from gravity over time, the universe is and has always been expanding - so it is hard to extract any overall "cycles". Except on universe scale, which as I noted has none. LCDM says it can't have cycles with the content of our universe being as it is (the inner state decides expansion rates), and all our observations agree.

To sum up, you propose to replace the last century of well founded, well tested physics advance with a non founded claim that Newtonian physics is better (it isn't - it is more restricted), and an erroneous understanding of universe expansion: the universe is expanding in every volume, so it can't have a center or be "an explosion". As they say, big bang was a point in time, not a point in space. It is impossible to make that switch back, it can't explain what we see. C.f. how you don't make sense in regards to cosmological expansion, or to the universal speed limit (light speed in vacuum).

 

[dfjchem721]

T, surely you would not want this to be an echo chamber. What would you debate? My advisor told me early on to always listen to potential variations from your own ideas and models. No one can be right about everything!

And could you be as brief as possible (sparing your time) about "On the contrary, few cosmologists entertain these notions, it is all in the public meme sector. "? Like maybe top five on your hit list of meme nonsense.

 

[Torbjorn Larsson]

These types of anisotropies in isolated data sets have been reported numerous times, and the uniform LCDM cosmology has survived. The main reason is that integrated data syntheses such as the Planck group do removes or alleviate them.

While it is technically true that the data probe further out, the main data is extremely local, < 1 Glyrs radius (z < 0.1). It is mostly < 10 % nonuniformity and less than the necessary 5 sigma significance at that. They will add more data, which presumably will move the probe further out as well, which will be interesting.

A much stronger criticism here: https://www.forbes.com/sites/starts...ion-deserves-lots-of-skepticism/#497e7c384441 .

Siegel makes some hay out of that different data sets disagree as much as the effect they claim to see. But he also goes after the proxy method they use.

On the context:
"Recently, there have been all sorts of grandiose claims that cosmology is in crisis, but most of them fall apart on even a cursory scrutiny for exactly this reason. Claims that dark energy doesn't exist relied on incorrect calibrations of our motion through the Universe; claims that the fine-structure constant varied with either time or space were refuted by improved analysis; claims that quasar redshifts are anisotropic fell apart when the Sloan Digital Sky Survey's data came in."

On the work:
"But this new study is only a clue in that direction, one with many reasonable objections. The sample size is small. The correlation used is new and its universality is dubious. Foreground effects are not sufficiently modeled. And the data itself could be a lot better.

Although the authors look to upcoming eROSITA data as the next step along this path, they should be looking farther afield. A truly next-generation X-ray observatory, like ESA's Athena or NASA's Lynx, is the tool really needed to gather the decisive data, along with complementary large-field, deep optical surveys that we're expecting from ESA's Euclid, NASA's WFIRST, and the Vera Rubin Observatory's LSST."

 

[Torbjorn Larsson]

T, surely you would not want this to be an echo chamber. What would you debate? My advisor told me early on to always listen to potential variations from your own ideas and models. No one can be right about everything!

And could you be as brief as possible (sparing your time) about "On the contrary, few cosmologists entertain these notions, it is all in the public meme sector. "? Like maybe top five on your hit list of meme nonsense.

I don't have any wishes on the site, it is a science site and that suits me. My personal wish is to debate science and that is what I aim to do. Surely it is more than appropriate - regardless of my personal wish - to point out what is worked on in science and what is the folk belief on science!?

I don't have a meme list, but I recognize them when I see them - they are not a big part of the paper heap out there. The only way to learn is to study. My reading of your adviser is that was what he tried to teach - to study the science.

But as far as dark energy goes, I confused it with dark matter yesterday (it was late - an excuse but also an explanation) where the folk meme is that it is a mathematical equation "placeholder" to explain a small part of what it explains. The dark energy/lambda history is even more entangled between what actually happened and what people use to claim happened. But what you stated is a fair reading of the overall history for dark energy within science - its modern form was reused to explain the now dominating exponential part of the universe expansion. Mea culpa! Everything from my second sentence on seems to be correct however.

Yeah, I know, its just 2/3 possibly correct now. A crap comment.

 

[dfjchem721]

(It takes a real man to admit when he is wrong. Most clearly missed that one. And batting 0.666 is MVP level play.)

T wrote:

On the context:

"Recently, there have been all sorts of grandiose claims that cosmology is in crisis, but most of them fall apart on even a cursory scrutiny for exactly this reason. Claims that dark energy doesn't exist relied on incorrect calibrations of our motion through the Universe; claims that the fine-structure constant varied with either time or space were refuted by improved analysis; claims that quasar redshifts are anisotropic fell apart when the Sloan Digital Sky Survey's data came in."


My response:

I suspect that much of this results from the collapsing I.Q. average of the masses. (Nobody reads anything anymore.) The data coming in is creating a picture of the universe much more complex than most ever imagined - so they have no foundation for interpretation, accurate or otherwise. Many can't understand today what we knew 50 years ago. So due to the inability of the masses to believe these "new" findings (many are old, just now confirmed), the press is likely to follow : controversy sells, just make up a good story. If the media simply parroted the findings, how much would that sell. Rolling Stone made "Pet Sounds" their second greatest rock LP of all time, which certainly helped sell since very few would agree with that. The mind-set there is "gotta buy it, what other crazy stuff are they writing about?!).

Quite surprising how popular sci-fi is. I bet it beats out real science by orders of magnitude!

So cosmology's biggest problem with the masses is the "I.Q. gap", not unlike the "mine-shaft gap" from Dr. Strangelove! And an equivalent issue is drawn from the latter - Can we afford an "I.Q. gap"?! Just look at the current state of the world, and the answer is screaming at us.


T wrote:

On the work:

"But this new study is only a clue in that direction, one with many reasonable objections. The sample size is small. The correlation used is new and its universality is dubious. Foreground effects are not sufficiently modeled. And the data itself could be a lot better.

My response:

The data can almost always be better. As you no doubt know, if you have legit findings, the devil is usually in its interpretation.

 

[Stephen Wilde]

However the universe began, the distribution of matter, temperature, pressure and gravity is clearly uneven.
Thus convection away from and towards the centre of mass / gravity must inevitably develop.
Warmer, less dense regions will move away from the centre and cooler, more dense regions will move towards the centre.
Thus, in some regions of space there will be expansion with a red shift and black holes appearing to destroy matter and in other regions contraction with a blue shift and white holes appearing to create matter.
We happen to inhabit an expanding region.
The fundamental error has been to assume that the entire universe is expanding when that assumption is neither necessary nor inevitable.
The universe is likely just the same as any ball of gas around a gravitational centre which is bound to develop convection over time if there is even the most miniscule unevenness in the density distribution. Half will be ‘rising’ and expanding whilst half will be ‘falling’ and contracting.
So, no need to propose any big bang at the outset though that could have happened.
With or without an initial big bang we now have a steady state universe with regions of convection away from and towards the centre of gravity and that is sufficient to explain both what we see in our local region and the recent findings mentioned here.

 

[Xinhang Shen]

"After a Lorentz transformation from a moving inertial reference frame to a stationary inertial reference frame, the time in the moving frame is dilated by a factor γ , but the frequency of a clock in the moving frame decreases by the same factor γ , leaving the resulting product (i.e., the time displayed by the moving clock) unchanged. " - this is describing the same effect, even if they were independent they'd be additive, not offsetting.

GPS times are compensated for relativity http://www.astronomy.ohio-state.edu/~pogge/Ast162/Unit5/gps.html
As well as other factors https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4570298/

Please be aware that special relativity clearly tells us that clocks can never be synchronized relative to more than one inertial reference frame no matter how you correct them because time is relative and simultaneity can be held only relative to one inertial reference frame, but the reality is that all clocks on the GPS satellites are synchronized relative to all reference frames. Just this fact has already disproved special relativity. The corrections for the atomic clocks on the GPS satellites seem for the effects of aether and other unknowns, nothing to do with relativity because all the corrections are not relative but absolute i.e. same observed from all reference frames.

 

[dfjchem721]

Suspect I will not be the only one with questions or comments about this post, but as Stephen Wilde has posted:

"Thus, in some regions of space there will be expansion with a red shift and black holes appearing to destroy matter and in other regions contraction with a blue shift and white holes appearing to create matter."

I am a bit confused by this statement. By "appearing", are you referring to their formation and activity, or as an illusion (i.e. artifact) that these things only seem to occur.

Got this crazy notion that you are suggesting that matter is being created and destroyed, which I believe contradicts one or another fool physical law:

The Conservation of Mass-Energy:

There is a scientific law called the Law of Conservation of Mass, discovered by Antoine Lavoisier in 1785. In its most compact form, it states: matter is neither created nor destroyed. ... the total amount of mass and energy in the universe is constant.

(Antoine was a pretty clever guy back in 1785!)

I never heard that this law was ever overturned, or any other scientific law. Should I be feeling like Rip Van Winkle here? Maybe its 'cause I had a bad night attempting to sleep, again.......

 

[Xinhang Shen]

No other theory for gravity has stood up as well as Einstein's general relativity, which is why relativistic LCDM is reigning. The contenders are mostly dead: https://www.quantamagazine.org/trou...ives-to-einsteins-theory-of-gravity-20180430/ .

"New observations of extreme astrophysical systems have “brutally and pitilessly murdered” attempts to replace Einstein’s general theory of relativity."

"Many researchers knew that the [binary neutron star] merger would be a big deal, but a lot of them simply “hadn’t understood their theories were on the brink of demise,” he later wrote in an email. In Saclay, he read them the last rites. “That conference was like a funeral where we were breaking the news to some attendees.”"

Your points are really not problematic for cosmology.

- LCDM models the entire universe, since 1) there is no known reason not to and 2) it is more likely compared to any constrained version in a likelihood ratio test.
- Your reference is self promotion. It is an essay of "examination" in something that looks like a shoddy philosophical journal (refers to "views" rather than to references and testing), not a research paper. It's possibly even a predatory "journal" since it is been discontinued from data bases several times [ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Physics_Essays ] and is now listed in "Emerging Sources Citation index" which is described as containing predatory journals [ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emerging_Sources_Citation_Index ]. And I note, it isn't describing relativity at all, since it doesn't use the defining property of clocks - frequency stability. See more on that in ty2010b comment.
- The last claim of error in relativity doesn't seem to make any sense, especially in relation to relativity (which famously has no "aether"). It all depends on scale - galaxies are too small to affect cosmology, galaxy clusters lives in cosmic filaments that are still condensing from gravity over time, the universe is and has always been expanding - so it is hard to extract any overall "cycles". Except on universe scale, which as I noted has none. LCDM says it can't have cycles with the content of our universe being as it is (the inner state decides expansion rates), and all our observations agree.

To sum up, you propose to replace the last century of well founded, well tested physics advance with a non founded claim that Newtonian physics is better (it isn't - it is more restricted), and an erroneous understanding of universe expansion: the universe is expanding in every volume, so it can't have a center or be "an explosion". As they say, big bang was a point in time, not a point in space. It is impossible to make that switch back, it can't explain what we see. C.f. how you don't make sense in regards to cosmological expansion, or to the universal speed limit (light speed in vacuum).

The problem of relativity is a logical error which is fatal no matter how you try to fit it. The fatal error of relativity is that it uses Lorentz Transformation to have defined a new space and time and the newly defined time is no longer the physical time we measure with physical clocks.

Now let’s look at the property of our physical time in Lorentz Transformation to verify whether relativistic time defined by Lorentz Transformation be our physical time. If you have a clock (clock 1) with you and watch my clock (clock 2) in motion and both clocks are synchronized to show the same physical time T relative to your inertial reference frame at your relativistic time t, you will see your clock time:

T1 = tf1/k1 = T

and my clock time:

T2 = tf2/k2 = T

where f1 and f2 are the frequencies of clock 1 and clock 2 respectively observed in your inertial reference frame, k1 and k2 are calibration constants of the clocks. The two events (Clock1, T, x1=0, y, z, t) and (Clock2, T, x2=vt, y, z, t) are simultaneous measured with both relativistic time t and physical time T in your reference frame. Now we want to see how these simultaneous events will become after Lorentz Transformation. When these two clocks are observed by me in the moving inertial reference frame, according to special relativity, we can use Lorentz Transformation to get the events in the frame of (x', y', z', t'):

(clock1, T1′, x1′=-vt1', y’, z’, t1′)

and

(clock2, T2′, x2′=0, y’, z’, t2′)

i.e., I will see

T1′ = t1’f1’/k1 = (γt)(f1/γ)/k1 = tf1/k1 = T1 = T

and

T2′ = t2’f2’/k2 = (t/γ)(γf2)/k2 = tf2/k2 = T2 = T

where

γ = 1/sqrt(1-v^2/c^2).

That is, no matter observed from which inertial reference frame, the events are still simultaneous measured with physical time T i.e. the two clocks are always synchronized measured with physical time T, but non-synchronized measured with relativistic time t’. Therefore, our physical time and relativistic time behave differently in Lorentz Transformation and thus they are not the same thing. The change of the reference frame only changes the relativistic time but keeps the physical time unchanged. That is, our physical time measure with physical clocks is still absolute in special relativity. Therefore, relativistic time is not our physical time and thus special relativity is wrong.

 

[Stephen Wilde]

"I am a bit confused by this statement. By "appearing", are you referring to their formation and activity, or as an illusion (i.e. artifact) that these things only seem to occur.
Got this crazy notion that you are suggesting that matter is being created and destroyed, which I believe contradicts one or another fool physical law:"

I am suggesting that as one moves from a region of expansion to a region of contraction within a convective universe pretty much all observable phenomena are reversed with no net creation or destruction of matter or energy.

 

[dfjchem721]

I was not aware of a need to define "no net creation or destruction of matter or energy." That surely would be the case with how the BB began. After that I assumed mass/energy was a static "quantity".

Always thought Lavoisier had the final say on that. Hard to keep up with what is happening out there.

You will likely hear from others..........

 

[PaulWolf]

This area of research seems dominated by the need to validate Genesis or some other theory of how the universe was created. The evidence has always shown that the universe is in a steady state and had no beginning.

The red shifts measured by Hubble (and more recently of supernovas) are ISOTROPIC. This would only be consistent with the big bang theory if the big bang occurred at the position of the observer. Otherwise, we could determine the location of the starting point of the big bang from the relative motion of the galaxies. Galaxies on the opposite side would be moving away from us, while galaxies on the same side would be moving in the same direction as us. Unfortunately, it has not been possible to determine the location of "ground zero," because the observed red shifts are ISOTROPIC. It doesn't make sense that they could be caused by the Doppler effect. Whatever is causing them, they tend to disprove, not prove, the big bang theory.

When this is pointed out to believers, they may counter with another, abstract version of the big bang theory, which is that "space itself" is expanding uniformly like the surface of a balloon. There was, in fact, no great explosion, or ground zero where the big bang occurred. This abstract version was disproven by the Michaelson-Morley experiment. It is the same as arguing the medieval concept of the aether. "Space itself" cannot expand, because there is nothing there to expand. Moreover, Einstein's theory of special relativity means that the frame of reference is relative between the observer and observed. It would be hard to reconcile with the concept of an aether; ie., an "expanding universe" or universal frame of reference. This is a hidden flaw in any theory of an expanding universe, which implies a universal frame of reference that exists independently of the observer. To say nothing of how odd it is to choose a frame of reference that is changing over time. According to relativity, no frame of reference is preferred over any other.

The other data used to argue the big bang theory, the presence of a nearly isotropic background of microwave radiation, suffers from the same problem. One wonders why the microwaves aren't all heading away from ground zero, the starting point for the big bang. Our own galaxy is racing away from ground zero at lightspeed - isn't this the basic idea of the big bang theory? The fact that the CMB is more or less isotropic tends to disprove that it originated in a big bang, just as the red shift data does.

There is also something called the matter-antimatter asymmetry problem. In the laboratory, matter and antimatter particles are always produced in pairs. If they come into contact, they annihilate each other, leaving only energy. The observed universe is made almost entirely of matter. If all matter was created from energy in a big bang, by what mechanism was it created, that did not result in the creation of an equal amount antimatter? There is no explanation, and no known mechanism.

That's because the big bang theory is a creationist myth. It has already been disproven a dozen different ways. Yet nothing will convince the zealots whose religious beliefs are always in need of support.

 

[dfjchem721]

The expansion of the universe is an absolute fact in science. It has nothing to do with deities or creationists. It is one of the most fundamental truths in all of science, and is backed by a vast amount of astronomical observations, and of collider data, the latter being empirical observations made here on the planet.

FYI, the Big Bang (and its results) have been given the ultimate designation in science. It is a physical law :

Hubble's law - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

As I have noted previously, the civil courts have overturned many laws, but science never has. That is because those of us who made science our profession are not idiots, and we do not designate many observations and notions as laws. But the ones that we do so designate, like those of thermodynamics, have been proven so many times as to defy any other explanation. That is the basis for our designation of laws of science, and so for Hubble's Law as well. All laws of science are absolute facts.

The expansion is known as the Hubble Flow. If you really want to know what the story is, click on the above link.

The truth will set you free.

 

[PaulWolf]

FYI, the Big Bang (and its results) have been given the ultimate designation in science. It is a physical law :

Hubble's law - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

As I have noted previously, the civil courts have overturned many laws, but science never has. That is because those of us who made science our profession are not idiots,

Wikipedia, of course. You may wish to review it yourself and see how the flaws I pointed out are addressed. If you are a professional in this field then you should understand what I wrote and be able to come up with a more sophisticated response.

 

[dfjchem721]

"Wikipedia, of course. "

Of course. You did not expect me to send you a link about professional astrologers, did you? I have vetted several hundred scientific articles from Wikipedia and found very few errors. Almost all of what they publish is dead nuts on. I suspect that is precisely why some people just don't like it. The preference for alternative facts is highly pervasive.

Running a search on Wiki for professional astrologers came back with this header :

Did you mean: professional astronomers? (That does not surprise some of us.)

That some would even rate astrologers as professional is revealing. Everything posted here can be seen in the stars and planets, etc. So why not astrology too? Surely there is a Law of Astrology out there somewhere.

Indeed, I suspect it has more adherents than Hubble's Law.

 

[Catastrophe]

I posted this a few times in the Expansion thread:
"The equivalence principle, that is one of the main pillars of general relativity, is very well tested in the Solar system; however, its validity is more uncertain on cosmological scales, or when dark matter is concerned."

Can we just assume that ideas which may seem reasonable locally are automatically universally applicable.

Naturally, I was pleased to see this title posted:
Surprise! The universe's expansion rate may vary from place to place.