Universe twice as bright?

Page 5 - Seeking answers about space? Join the Space community: the premier source of space exploration, innovation, and astronomy news, chronicling (and celebrating) humanity's ongoing expansion across the final frontier.
Status
Not open for further replies.
D

DrRocket

Guest
<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>&nbsp;Well, in all fairness, I did invite the challenge with my comments in the very first post of the thread.&nbsp; I'm as much guilty as anyone.&nbsp; To be quite honest, I thought it would be amuzing watching folks stumble all over this one trying fit it in with their conceptions of an invalid theory.&nbsp;Posted by derekmcd</DIV></p><p>It was interesting, but I think the bloom&nbsp;is off that rose.&nbsp; I also agree with your comments that this probably won't change much, since there seem to be techniques other than standard candles that have been developed.&nbsp; <br /></p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>
 
C

chode

Guest
<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Show me where "dark energy" ever did anything to anything in a physics experiment then.&nbsp; You can't just increase the" space" between two objects without changing the overall energy in the system.&nbsp; What physical process in nature do you know of that makes "space expand"?&nbsp; All known forces of nature act on objects, not space.&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; <br />Posted by michaelmozina</DIV></p><p>The general theory of relativity is a well accepted theory, which says that "gravity", as a force of nature (of which we are all quite familiar with), acts on space, and not objects, so your statement that "All known forces of nature act on objects, not space." is not true. Your statement that "You can't just increase the" space" between two objects without changing the overall energy in the system." is&nbsp;completely&nbsp;valid. It is exactly why "dark energy" is called "dark energy", because whatever it is, it is increasing the "space" between objects in the universe, and so must be some form of energy.</p><p>&nbsp;</p><p>Regards<br /></p>
 
M

michaelmozina

Guest
<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>The general theory of relativity is a well accepted theory, which says that "gravity", as a force of nature (of which we are all quite familiar with), acts on space, and not objects,</DIV></p><p>No, gravity acts on "spacetime", not on "space".&nbsp; The GR manifold is a "spacetime" manifold, and has no effect on "space".&nbsp; It effect "spacetime" but not space.</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>so your statement that "All known forces of nature act on objects, not space." is not true. Your statement that "You can't just increase the" space" between two objects without changing the overall energy in the system." is&nbsp;completely&nbsp;valid. It is exactly why "dark energy" is called "dark energy", because whatever it is, it is increasing the "space" between objects in the universe, and so must be some form of energy.&nbsp;Regards <br /> Posted by chode</DIV></p><p>If the space between objects is increasing, then something is causing it to occur.&nbsp; We all seem to agree on that point.&nbsp; If however there is a force that acts on these objects, it is acting on the objects, not on the "space" between the objects.&nbsp; "Space" isn't even defined in GR, so your previous statement about gravity acting on "space" is inaccurate. &nbsp; If we have two objects and the apace between them changes, then some "force" has acted upon the objects in some way, but it did not "expand the space" between them.&nbsp; They moved due to a force applied to the object and the space between them changed accordingly.&nbsp; Nothing acted upon the "space" to increase the space between them. </p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> It seems to be a natural consequence of our points of view to assume that the whole of space is filled with electrons and flying electric ions of all kinds. - Kristian Birkeland </div>
 
M

michaelmozina

Guest
<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>&nbsp;Why would you not consider the time since the Big Bang to be the age of the universe ? <br /> Posted by DrRocket</DIV></p><p>Because it would not have been the beginning of time anyway.&nbsp; The gravity from your singularity would have created it's own "spacetime" continuum around the singularity long before it "blew".&nbsp;</p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> It seems to be a natural consequence of our points of view to assume that the whole of space is filled with electrons and flying electric ions of all kinds. - Kristian Birkeland </div>
 
M

michaelmozina

Guest
<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Now, I have shown through the same information that is available to all of us that each and every statement you made above is quite simply false</DIV></p><p>Well, I'm going to recind the "age of the universe" being modified, since that seem far more dependent upon DE and infaltion than DM.&nbsp; The rest of my comments have not been proven "false" in any way.&nbsp; You "alledge" they might be false perhaps, but none of you have explain why we would not simply increase the stars in a galaxy to explain a doubling of the photons coming from a galaxy.&nbsp; My points about DM are valid, and LAMBDA-CDM theory will have to eventually be modified accordingly.</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>"This is nothing more than a sensationalized statement with nothing to support it.&nbsp; </DIV></p><p>The doubling of photons coming from every galaxy supports my statements just fine. &nbsp;&nbsp;</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Based on the numbers that I could dig up, it is shown that the ~20% increase to stellar mass (I believe this is solely referring to the central bulge which would make it less than 20% overall for the galaxy, but I could be wrong and will just leave it at 20%) would require an adjustment of stellar matter from .005 to .006 of the overall composition of the LambdaCDM model.&nbsp; That's 1/10 of 1%. </DIV></p><p>It's only a small number because:</p><p>A) That 20% increase of stellar matter is purely a low end guestimate considering the doubling of photons we observe.&nbsp; It could just as easily be a 100% change in stellar masses and no change in stellar output and then your 20% figure jumps to 100%.&nbsp; The "interpretation" of the cause of a doubling of photon output seems to make all the difference in the world in determining this "missing mass" figure.</p><p>B) The Lambda-CDM theory is 3/4 DE to begin with, therefore "matter" makes up a small percentage of the theory.&nbsp; Of course there is no ligitmate way to assign a percentage to DE to begin with, so it's a made up figure in the first place.&nbsp; No change in "matter" could therefore affect more than 25% of Lambda-CDM theory to begin with, there even massive changes in matter look fairly small as a "percentage", but as matter itself is concerned, it's a much bigger change than a single percentage number suggests.</p><p>The primary revelation from this paper is that your "methods" of determining the amount of baryonic matter in a galaxy are flawed significantly, anywhere from 20% (which is still significant) all the way up to at least 100%.&nbsp; You can't simply claim a 100% change in baryonic matter is an "insignificant" number and even a 20% change is a significant understimation of the mass of a galaxy.&nbsp; Add to that the attenuation we might expect from dense plasma threads between here and a distant galaxy, and you could easily be underestimating these numbers even still.&nbsp; In fact I saw no attenuation numbers for the heliospheres of suns or the materials inside of a heliosphere.&nbsp; I suppose these numbers could be "factored in" to the total attenuation numbers, but I'm not sure that's been accounted for either.</p><p>"Unidentified matter" is not the same as "dark matter".&nbsp; Dark matter has been assigned 'properties', like it supposedly doesn't interact with photons,&nbsp; it is stable, etc that have not been emprically demonstrated to be true of this "unidentied matter".&nbsp; In fact, it is only because this "unidentified mass" does interact with photons that caused you folks to underestmate the mass of a galaxy in the first place!&nbsp; Therefore these "properties" that are assigned to "dark matter" were both confusing and inaccurate as it relates to these recent discoveries.&nbsp; There was no special form of matter found, just ordinary plain ol' matter.&nbsp; We now need less of "dark matter" to explain the matter layout of a galaxy, and more baryonic matter.&nbsp; That is a triumph for emprical physics, and it undercuts your faith in any exotic forms of matter. &nbsp; </p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>he original point of this thread was not only to discuss the topic of the article, but was a reaction about how people tend to overreact when adjustments and revisions are made to theories and the woo woo crowd jumps all over them when they don't even have the facts.&nbsp; Assumptions are made, what facts they may have are manipulated, and conclusions are completely overblown to support their agenda.&nbsp; Thanks for participating, Michael.&nbsp; You provided an excellent example. <br /> Posted by derekmcd</DIV></p><p>Likewise from my perspective your 20% figure is simply arbitrary.&nbsp; There is no physical reason that number was chosen over a 100% figure other than perhaps to minimize the damage done by revealing that your baryonic matter calculations were flawed.&nbsp;&nbsp; It is just as much of a "manipulation" to suggest there is only a 20% change in baryonic matter necessary to explain a 100% increase in photon output from a galaxy.&nbsp; It is even more manipulative to create forces like "dark energy" to explain an observation of acceleration.&nbsp; It is manipulative to suggest "inflation" did anything to anything.&nbsp; Manipulation comes in lots of flavors, and data can always be "interpreted" in subjective ways.</p><p>This information however does confirm one undeniable fact.&nbsp; The old methods for determining the amount of baryonic matter in a galaxy were significantly flawed they will have to be revised.&nbsp; Likewise the old estimates for the amount of "dark matter" in a galaxy will also have to be revised downward.&nbsp; You can "spin" these facts anyway you like, but those are the facts. </p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> It seems to be a natural consequence of our points of view to assume that the whole of space is filled with electrons and flying electric ions of all kinds. - Kristian Birkeland </div>
 
D

DrRocket

Guest
<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>One more example of the difference between emprical science and mathematical myth making can be found in the theory of "magnetic reconnection".&nbsp; Hannes Alfven spent his whole career criticizing the concept of magnetic reconnection.&nbsp; That hasn't stopped anyone from manipulating the math in MHD theory to model "magnetic reconnection theory", or from claiming it is somehow connected to the Earth's aurora.&nbsp; Kristian Birkeland demonstrated through emprical testing that electron flow could be involved in the Earth's aurora.&nbsp; Noboday ever duplicated the emprical test of concept for "magnetic reconnection" before claiming that it was related to the Earth's aurora activity.&nbsp; There are now mathematical models of "magnetic reconnection" and absolutely no emprical test to show it's real in any way.&nbsp; Now should I believe Hannes Alfven and Kristian Birkeland who showed me emprically that the Earth's aurora is caused by electron flow, and who explain the plasma physics behind the process, or should I just trust astronomers who point at the sun and claim "magnetic reconnection did it"?&nbsp; That is the serious question I have to ask myself as an emprical scientist interested in discovering "truth".&nbsp;&nbsp; One emprical test is worth a thousand expert opinion and a couple of thousand computer models in my book.&nbsp; I believe Birkeland because he showed me emprically that electron flows could cause the effects we observe in the solar atmosphere and in the Earth's atmosphere.&nbsp; I don't believe that "magnetic reconneciton" is real at all because there is no physical model identified that is unique to magnetic reconnection theory, and there is therefore no way to differentiate it from ordinary electrical and particle interactions in plasma.&nbsp; As far as I know, Hannes Aflven was right to label that theory "pseudoscience".&nbsp; He did write the book on MDH theory afterall, and he did understand electrical theory as an electrical engineer.&nbsp; He clearly understood that magnetic fields always form a full and complete continuum, whereas astronomers seem to believe you can make and break magnetic connections like you can make and break electrical circuits.&nbsp; In all the years I've been involved in computer hardware and software, I've never seen anyone make magnetic field connections in a controlled experiment.This again comes back to emprical testing.&nbsp; Whereas your DE seems to be "untestable" by any physical method, we should be able to text that concept emprically in lab.&nbsp; Since no physically unique energy release process has ever been identified for "magnetic reconnection", it's not even possible to falsify or verify the concept in the first place, and the only "emprical testing" that's been done to date involved huge flows of current that simply 'stirred up" the objects in the plasma and resulted in ordinary electrical and particle reconnections within the current sheet inside the plasma. This is why emprical testing is *critical*, and mathematical models are not a valid substitute for emprical testing.&nbsp; You can model "magnetic reconnection" all you like, but until you can show me how it works in a lab, I'm afraid it's not emprical science, it is hypothetical speculation. <br />Posted by michaelmozina</DIV></p><p>You will neither understand nor accept this but I feel obliged to point out the truth of scientific investigation for the benefit of any lurker who might be tempted to accept this nonsense.</p><p>The whole point of physical theories is be able to take the results of laboratory observations, made under very controlled conditions, explain them in relatively simple principles that are framed in the language of mathematics, and then apply those principles more widely to explain phenomena that may not be confronted in the limited environement of the laboratory.&nbsp; Without the application of mathematics and mathematical reasoning, the utility of laboratory data is so limited as to be utterly useless.&nbsp; Predictions made using mathematics are, far from magical, a logical extension of hard empirical data obtained in the laboratory.&nbsp; In fact the principles on which those calculations are based reflect&nbsp; a body comprisng far more empirical data than can be found in&nbsp;the laboratory experiments performed by any single individual.&nbsp;&nbsp;Applications of those principles&nbsp;tend to avoid traps caused by poor laboratory technique or simple misinterpretation of data that is common with a smaller experimental data base.</p><p>It is in fact the theoretical constructs of physics that are of the most value and that provide the basis for engineers to build real products.&nbsp; </p><p>Your so-called reliance on what you call empirical data is misplaced.&nbsp; There is far more empirical data standing behind theoretical calculations than you are apparently willing to recognize. Physical law lives or dies on agreement with experiment,&nbsp; Period.&nbsp; You also need to understand the difference between a calculation that has as its purpose&nbsp;to hightlight the logical conclusion of a hypotheses&nbsp;so as to&nbsp; provide a prediction by which it may be tested and&nbsp;a calcultion that is intended to provide a specific prediction based on verified physical principles.</p><p>At the heart of your many misconceptions is the notion that a laboratory experiment can be applied broadly&nbsp;without regard to scale or the influence of factors present in nature but deliberately&nbsp;excluded in the laboratory, without&nbsp;recourse to&nbsp;the basic theoretical principles on which the phenomena is based.&nbsp; Application of those principles requires the use of mathematics.&nbsp;It is precisely the failure to apply sound physics in extrapolating from the laboratory to the outside world that was the source of the criticism levied at Alfven, your hero, and&nbsp;one reason that his cosmological ideas were eventually dismissed.&nbsp; His notions regarding cosmology simply do not fit the&nbsp;empirical evidence.</p><p>In short,your approach reflects extremely bad science.&nbsp; It is not empiricism at all.&nbsp; It is mystical mumbo jumbo of the very sort that you mistakenly attribute to mainstream science.&nbsp; </p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>
 
M

michaelmozina

Guest
<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>You will neither understand nor accept this .....&nbsp; <br /> Posted by DrRocket</DIV></p><p>I'm sorry DrRocket.&nbsp; I accidently posted that response to the wrong thread.&nbsp; I deleted it here after reposting to the electricity thread where I meant to post it, but evidently you had already seen in here.&nbsp; I'd rather that this thread stay focused strictly on "dark matter" since the rest of our debate really has nothing to do with the original paper.&nbsp; I'll reply to your post in the electricity thread. </p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> It seems to be a natural consequence of our points of view to assume that the whole of space is filled with electrons and flying electric ions of all kinds. - Kristian Birkeland </div>
 
D

derekmcd

Guest
<strong>"The primary revelation from this paper is that your "methods" of determining the amount of baryonic matter in a galaxy are flawed significantly, anywhere from 20% (which is still significant) all the way up to at least 100%.&nbsp; You can't simply claim a 100% change in baryonic matter is an "insignificant" number and even a 20% change is a significant understimation of the mass of a galaxy."</strong><br /><br />First, I only wish that these were my methods, but alas... I'm stuck here on SDC debating someone else's methods.&nbsp; Second, I have never diminished the significance of these apparent findings as related to galaxies.&nbsp; I was only attempting to show how you were using these figures and incorporating them into the LambdaCDM model in an effort to show significant faults.&nbsp; I am downplaying the significance in the overall, large-scale picture.<br /><br />I most certainly agree that there is a significant increase in baryonic matter contained within spiral galaxies.&nbsp; I think astronomers already realized there were flaws in their measurements of these galaxies, they were just surprised as to the degree.&nbsp; This, no doubt, has an impact on their formation and evolution (of which they didn't know too much about to begin with).<br /><br />And again, a 20% increase does not necessarily change the overall mass of the galaxy, rather it redistributes it.<br /><strong><br />"Likewise from my perspective your 20% figure is simply arbitrary"</strong><br /><br />It's not my figure of 20%... It's directly from the guy leading the study and the only source I can find at the moment.<br /><br />From the NYTimes link I posted previously. <br /><em><br />&ldquo;Basically increasing the stellar mass in the nearby universe by 20 percent has little impact,&rdquo; Dr. Driver said in an e-mail message from Scotland.</em><br /><br />The 20% is derived (my understanding anyway) from&nbsp; the infrared coming from the dust of these galaxies being stronger than what they should be.&nbsp; And, given the apparent homogenous nature of the universe, the distribution of spiral galaxies should be even between being seen head-on or side view.&nbsp; They were not even and the ratio between the angles of view and what was visible fit quite balanced with the amount of infrared radiation they were getting from the dust.&nbsp; The majority of the luminosity comes from the central bulge.&nbsp; The bulge itself may, indeed, have 2 times the amount of stellar mass, but when distributed throughout the entirety of the galaxy, it is likely ~20%.&nbsp; I'm sure it is considerably more complicated than that, but that my layman interpretation.<br /><br />So, I highly doubt it is nothing more than an arbitrary figure.&nbsp; There is no reason that Dr. Driver, who is leading the study, would discredit his teams work by simply tossing around an arbitrary figure.&nbsp; Just doesn't make sense.&nbsp; Seriously, why would they fudge an important figure like that to downplay the signifcance when others can peer review his work?&nbsp; To claim he tossed that figure out in an attemp to downplay the significance of impact on the LambdaCDM model or cover their previous flaws just doesn't logically fit.<br /><strong><br />"This information however does confirm one undeniable fact.&nbsp; The old methods for determining the amount of baryonic matter in a galaxy were significantly flawed they will have to be revised."</strong><br /><br />I don't think anyone is denying this.&nbsp; They knew before these finding that they were flawed.&nbsp; They openly admitted it.&nbsp; That was likely the main motivation they undertook this task to determine how flawed they were.<br /><br />"Likewise the old estimates for the amount of "dark matter" in a galaxy will also have to be revised downward.&nbsp; You can "spin" these facts anyway you like, but those are the facts."<br /><br />It is you, not I, spinning these facts in an attempt to increase the significance on the LambdaCDM model.&nbsp; One-tenth of a percentage point increase in baryonic matter when applied to the entire model is not significant.&nbsp; When applied to galactic models, yes... it is significant, but that was not what you were previously implying.<br /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <div> </div><br /><div><span style="color:#0000ff" class="Apple-style-span">"If something's hard to do, then it's not worth doing." - Homer Simpson</span></div> </div>
 
M

michaelmozina

Guest
<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>I most certainly agree that there is a significant increase in baryonic matter contained within spiral galaxies.&nbsp; I think astronomers already realized there were flaws in their measurements of these galaxies, they were just surprised as to the degree.&nbsp; This, no doubt, has an impact on their formation and evolution (of which they didn't know too much about to begin with).And again, a 20% increase does not necessarily change the overall mass of the galaxy, rather it redistributes it."</DIV></p><p>The idea that we can double the amount of light coming from a galaxy without doubling the number of light sources and doubling the number of stars seems, well, rather "fishy" from my perspective.&nbsp; In the sense that I owe this team the benefit of the doubt unless I can find a specific flaw in their method, I can't really refute any number they might have come up with at this point.&nbsp; I don't recall seeing that 20% figure in the paper, but maybe it was only in the article you listed, or maybe I just missed it.<br /> </p><p>At any rate, I don't quite grasp the reasons for their choice of that 20% figure, so I can't justify it, or falsify it at this point in time.&nbsp; I only know for sure that if you double the number of photons coming from a field of stars, you could logically explain that observation&nbsp; by doubling the point sources of light and doubling the number of stars in the field.&nbsp; The methods for determining baryonic matter in a galaxy are typically based on brightness and distance.&nbsp; If the distance remains exactly the same and the brightness goes up by a factor of 2, I fail to see how anyone can justify only a 20% increase in baryonic matter, but hey, even 20% is a step in the right direction from my perspective, and I'm certainly glad they published this paper.&nbsp; I was also pleased with the other article I listed related to the "missing mass" they found in the threads of spacetime.</p><p>Since none of us can falsify DE, if we only look at how this information affects the percentage of "dark matter" in the universe, we find that ordinary matter now accounts for more of a galaxy's mass than once believed, and the need for any exotic, ad hoc forms of "dark matter" diminishes significantly.&nbsp; Add to that the bayronic matter they also found in dense threads and all the universe's "missing mass" seems to be becoming less mysterious by the moment.&nbsp; </p><p>I guess my only remaining "issue" here is that there is no logical reason to for us to believe that any of the universes "unidentified matter' is going to be found in any exotic form of matter.&nbsp;&nbsp; The term "dark matter" is now being associated with a unique form of&nbsp; matter that doesn't interact with photons, is presumably stable, passes through ordinary matter without interacting with it, has a half life measured in billions of years and releases gamma rays when it decays, etc.&nbsp;&nbsp; The term ''dark matter" is now characteristly different from "unidentitied mass".&nbsp; There are now "ad hoc" properties being assigned to "dark matter'&nbsp; that are not necessarily true of simple "unidentified matter".&nbsp; The folks that wrote this paper indentified some of a galaxy's "unidentified matter" and none of it had any of the properties that have been associated with "dark matter".&nbsp; I therefore have no faith that any of the "undentified matter" we are still trying to find is going to be found in any exotic new form of matter, but rather I see ample evidence that our stellar density numbers are off by a significant and wide margin.&nbsp;&nbsp; There may still be flaws in our newer methods even still in fact, just less flaws than there were a week ago.</p><p>IMO assigning unique properties to this 'unidentified mass' is detrimental to emprical science.&nbsp; It could be very misleading in the final analysis.&nbsp; Instead of reevaluating our stellar density calculations as we should be doing, instead I read paper after paper after paper about ad hoc qualities of "dark matter" that 'explain' why it's undectable.</p><p>IMO it's detectable, we just aren't there yet when it comes to our technology and our cosmological theories.&nbsp; I have no faith at all that these even these newer and better methods of intentifying baryonic matter in distant galaxies are anywhere close to 100% accurate, otherwise there would be no need for 'dark matter' at all IMO.&nbsp; If and when someone can produce a gram of any form of "dark matter" that fits their ad hoc definitions of the stuff,&nbsp; I'll be happyto allow them to spread it liberally around the universe.&nbsp; Until then however, I see no evidence that any exotic "dark matter" exists, and plenty of evidence that our technologies and methods are still very immature and need a lot of refining.</p><p>FYI, I have enjoyed our conversation a great deal.&nbsp; I'm pretty much done with this thread now, so if you have anything else to add, I'll be happy to give you the last word on the topic. :) </p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> It seems to be a natural consequence of our points of view to assume that the whole of space is filled with electrons and flying electric ions of all kinds. - Kristian Birkeland </div>
 
D

derekmcd

Guest
<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>FYI, I have enjoyed our conversation a great deal.&nbsp; I'm pretty much done with this thread now, so if you have anything else to add, I'll be happy to give you the last word on the topic. :) <br /> Posted by michaelmozina</DIV></p><p>I've enjoyed it, too.&nbsp; No need for the last word here... I think we both have presented our opinions with intellectual honesty and will just have to agree to disagree on the magnitude.&nbsp;</p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <div> </div><br /><div><span style="color:#0000ff" class="Apple-style-span">"If something's hard to do, then it's not worth doing." - Homer Simpson</span></div> </div>
 
C

chode

Guest
<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>No, gravity acts on "spacetime", not on "space".&nbsp; The GR manifold is a "spacetime" manifold, and has no effect on "space".&nbsp; It effect "spacetime" but not space.If the space between objects is increasing, then something is causing it to occur.&nbsp; We all seem to agree on that point.&nbsp; If however there is a force that acts on these objects, it is acting on the objects, not on the "space" between the objects.&nbsp; "Space" isn't even defined in GR, so your previous statement about gravity acting on "space" is inaccurate. &nbsp; If we have two objects and the apace between them changes, then some "force" has acted upon the objects in some way, but it did not "expand the space" between them.&nbsp; They moved due to a force applied to the object and the space between them changed accordingly.&nbsp; Nothing acted upon the "space" to increase the space between them. <br />Posted by michaelmozina</DIV></p><p>&nbsp;I'm sorry, but I&nbsp;can't continue to argue points&nbsp;about general relativity with someone who has no understanding of it.</p><p>&nbsp;</p><p>Regards</p>
 
M

michaelmozina

Guest
<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>&nbsp;I'm sorry, but I&nbsp;can't continue to argue points&nbsp;about general relativity with someone who has no understanding of it.&nbsp;Regards <br /> Posted by chode</DIV></p><p>Yawn.&nbsp; GR theory proper (as Einstein taugh it) has absolutely *nothing* in it that would cause "space" to expand.&nbsp; In fact GR theory does not define "space" at all, it only describes the movement of objects in "spacetime".&nbsp;&nbsp; You're confusing "blunder theory" (as Einstein called it) with GR theory I'm afraid. </p><p> Only "blunder theory" supports any knnd of goofy ideas about "expanding space", not GR theory the way Einstein taught it. &nbsp; GR theory is not the same as blunder theory.&nbsp; Some wet behind the ear first semester college students might believe that GR theory and blunder theory are the same thing, but I'm too old and I've been around the block too many times to fall for that metaphysical song and dance routine.</p><p>Nothing in GR theory supports the idea of "expanding space", only expanding "spacetime".&nbsp;&nbsp; GR theory does not affect "space" in any way, just "spacetime". &nbsp; The phyiscal manifold in standard GR theory could not possibly expand at a rate that was faster than 2C because the expansion of the manifold would require the objects in the manifold to expand.&nbsp; No objects made of matter can travel faster than C according to standard GR theory.&nbsp; Only in Lambda-magic theory can objects expand at superliminal speeds and only in Lambda-magic theory does "space" expand. &nbsp; You aren't talking about phyiscs or GR theory, you're talking about magic.</p><p>&nbsp;</p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> It seems to be a natural consequence of our points of view to assume that the whole of space is filled with electrons and flying electric ions of all kinds. - Kristian Birkeland </div>
 
D

DrRocket

Guest
<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Yawn.&nbsp; GR theory proper (as Einstein taugh it) has absolutely *nothing* in it that would cause "space" to expand.&nbsp; In fact GR theory does not define "space" at all, it only describes the movement of objects in "spacetime".&nbsp;&nbsp;... </DIV></p><p>There is only one problem with your argument here.&nbsp; Apparently the "Yawn" is meant to indicate that you slept through the class on relativity.&nbsp; Your assertion is simply, utterly, completely mistaken.&nbsp; So, arguing from a false premise you can conclude anything at all.</p><p>If you take Eisntein's cosmological constant out of the field equations, and Einstein did precisely that after he became aware of Hubble's empirical observations, then GR does in fact predict an expanding universe.&nbsp; Your much-hated dark energy is only inserted to accelerate the&nbsp;expansion.&nbsp; The expansion itself comes right out of general relativity&nbsp;with no need for dark energy, inflation or anything else.</p><p>You really do need to learn some physics.<br /></p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>
 
D

derekmcd

Guest
<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>If you take Eisntein's cosmological constant out of the field equations, and Einstein did precisely that after he became aware of Hubble's empirical observations, then GR does in fact predict an expanding universe.&nbsp; Your much-hated dark energy is only inserted to accelerate the&nbsp;expansion.&nbsp; The expansion itself comes right out of general relativity&nbsp;with no need for dark energy, inflation or anything else.You really do need to learn some physics. <br /> Posted by DrRocket</DIV></p><p>&nbsp;</p><p>This is correct.&nbsp; Einstein's field equations allowed for a non-static universe.&nbsp; His solutions were that the universe would collapse and that went against his notion of a steady-state type universe.&nbsp; He introduced a cosmological constant into his equations to fix this problem.&nbsp; <br /><br />Friedman came up with solutions (and later Lemaitre) that did allow for an expanding universe derived from Einstein's Field Equations and Einstein, himself,&nbsp; actually agreed with the math, but still couldn't accept the idea of an expanding universe.&nbsp; <br /><br />The cosmological constant was not his 'biggest blunder', rather it was his inability to give up the notion of a static universe.&nbsp; He may have removed it from his equations and accepted an expanding universe when the evidence that Hubble observed was brought to his attention, but I don't believe he completely abandoned it until many years later.<br /><br />I don't think you can find a source other than an autobiography by George Gamow published in 1970 claiming, "My biggest blunder" was told to him by Einstein during a discussion. This is just one of many variations of quote you might see attributed him, and all of which may be wrong.<br /><br />The only source I could find was this quote from a letter Einstein wrote to Lematire in 1947 [Edit:&nbsp; I can't find a link directly to the letter, but it seems this letter is fairly well known].<br /><strong><em><br />"The introduction of such a constant implies a considerable renunciation of the logical simplicity of the theory... Since I introduced this term, I had always a bad conscience... I am unable to believe that such an ugly thing should be realized in nature."<br /><br />&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; &mdash;Einstein to Lema&icirc;tre, 1947</em></strong><br /><br />My interpretation is not a blunder, rather that it is simply unnecessary to use when the solutions to his equations for an expanding universe were so simple and elegant.&nbsp; He only considered the cosmological constant ugly because he came to the realization that it ruined the otherwise perfectly beautiful solutions by Friedman and Lamaitre that fit Hubble's observations.<br /><br />Again, his blunder wasn't the constant, it was his refusal to accept anything other that and static, eternal universe.&nbsp; Had he known it was actually accelerating, I'd bet he would be having the last laugh enjoying the irony in all of it. </p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <div> </div><br /><div><span style="color:#0000ff" class="Apple-style-span">"If something's hard to do, then it's not worth doing." - Homer Simpson</span></div> </div>
 
D

DrRocket

Guest
<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>&nbsp;This is correct.&nbsp; Einstein's field equations allowed for a non-static universe.&nbsp; His solutions were that the universe would collapse and that went against his notion of a steady-state type universe.&nbsp; He introduced a cosmological constant into his equations to fix this problem.&nbsp; ...Posted by derekmcd</DIV></p><p>I believe that the situation is that without a cosmological constant, a static universe is unstable.&nbsp; Starting from a static situation the universe would collapse.&nbsp; But if it is expanding then without the cosmological constant it would continue to do so until it either stopped and started to contract, or else continued to expand at a continuously slowiing rate.&nbsp; Adding the dynamics provides a stable solution.</p><p>A non-zero cosmological constant is requred for either accelerated expansion&nbsp; or for a stable static solution to the field equations.<br /></p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>
 
C

chode

Guest
<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Yawn.&nbsp;</DIV></p><p>Yawn (some people just think they know everything, and as a consequence, are unwilling to learn anything).</p><p>&nbsp;</p><p>Regards</p>
 
M

michaelmozina

Guest
<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>There is only one problem with your argument here.&nbsp; Apparently the "Yawn" is meant to indicate that you slept through the class on relativity. </DIV></p><p>No, it is meant to show you all how silly these personal attacks are. &nbsp; Personal attacks, like your comment about sleeping in class, are not a valid debate tactic.&nbsp; It's irrational ultimately and denotes desparation on your part IMO.</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Your assertion is simply, utterly, completely mistaken.&nbsp; So, arguing from a false premise you can conclude anything at all.</DIV></p><p>My assertion is completely true, and if you stuff magic in GR theory I'm sure you too can conclude anything at all.&nbsp; The thing is, I'm old enough to know the difference between GR theory and blunder theory.&nbsp; All this personal attack is pointless because it's not going to work on me.&nbsp; You can't beat me into submission, and you can't hide the fact that Blunder theory is *not* GR theory.&nbsp; GR theory does *not* allow for "space" to expand, only 'spacetime", and that exansion is limited to the speed of light (2C actually). &nbsp;</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>If you take Eisntein's cosmological constant out of the field equations, and Einstein did precisely that after he became aware of Hubble's empirical observations, then GR does in fact predict an expanding universe.</DIV></p><p>Sure, but not a "superliminal" sort of expansion.&nbsp; "Space" however is not expanding, only the spacetime manifold is expanding as the objects that create the manifold expand and separate.&nbsp; No such thing as "space" is even defined in GR.&nbsp; Your expanding space would roughly equate to a fixed metric distance in GR theory.&nbsp; "Space" does not expand.</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>&nbsp; Your much-hated dark energy is only inserted to accelerate the&nbsp;expansion. </DIV></p><p>It's an insertion into "Blunder" theory and has nothing at all to do with GR proper.&nbsp; GR does not allow you to stuff in a constant that would create superliminal expansion.&nbsp; That premise is a pure act of faith on your part in fact because it defies the basic premises of GR theory.&nbsp; You've also never demonstrated that 'dark energy" is even remotely related to GR theory, so stuffing it into a blunder theory is dubious at best.&nbsp; In doing so, you've created a push-me-pull-you effect that in no way is falsifiable in any sort of emprical test related to the attractive force of gravity.<br /> </p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>The expansion itself comes right out of general relativity&nbsp;with no need for dark energy, inflation or anything else.You really do need to learn some physics. <br /> Posted by DrRocket</DIV></p><p>You're not describing normal "expansion" as Einstein envisioned it however.&nbsp; All you comments about what I need to study are childish.&nbsp; You can't demonstrate that "Dark energy" even has anything at all to do with "physics", so stuffing it into a GR formula is pointless, and it's ultimately a form of metaphysical mumbo jumbo, not GR theory. </p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> It seems to be a natural consequence of our points of view to assume that the whole of space is filled with electrons and flying electric ions of all kinds. - Kristian Birkeland </div>
 
D

DrRocket

Guest
<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>...&nbsp;&nbsp;Sure, but not a "superliminal" sort of expansion.&nbsp; "Space" however is not expanding, only the spacetime manifold is expanding as the objects that create the manifold expand and separate.&nbsp;..Posted by michaelmozina</DIV></p><p>Expansion of the space-time manifold IS expansion of space.&nbsp; Your last sense is completely nonsensical.&nbsp; Apparently you do not understand the difference between expansion of the manifold in terms of the metric of&nbsp; the manifold and movement of bodies in local coordinates.</p><p>ANY&nbsp;expansion of the manifold can in principle result in superluminal recessions speeds.&nbsp; The expansion is proportional to distance, so to get superluminal expansion velocities you only have to consider objects that are sufficiently far away.&nbsp; The only way to avoid this is for the space-time manifold to be finite and sufficiently small that superluminal speeds do not exist and for the expansion to stop and reverse so that the required size is never reached.&nbsp; Since general relativity can accomodate an open or closed universs and any size closed universe, it follows quite logically that general relativity must admit the possibility of superluminal recessioin velocities.&nbsp; Einstein, being a logical person, recognized this.<br /></p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>
 
M

michaelmozina

Guest
<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>&nbsp;This is correct.&nbsp; Einstein's field equations allowed for a non-static universe.&nbsp; His solutions were that the universe would collapse and that went against his notion of a steady-state type universe.&nbsp; He introduced a cosmological constant into his equations to fix this problem. </DIV></p><p>The problem from your perspective is that there is no problem with GR as it stands, without any constants.&nbsp; There is no emprical evidence that accelation has anything at all to do with GR or gravity.&nbsp; Stuffing magic into GR theory is not acceptable.&nbsp; Even Einstein naver tried to explain superluminal speeds with GR theory, with our without a constant.&nbsp; None of the additions to GR theory have anything at all to do with gravity or GR theory. They are an act of pure metaphysical faith.&nbsp; "Dark energy" has never been shown to have anything at all to do with gravity, so stuffing it into GR theory is like me stuffing magic into GR theory and then trying to tell you that my magic formulas are GR theory. They are not GR theory. They are magic mumbo jumbo under the guise of GR theory. &nbsp;</p><p>Einstein called it his greatest blunder because no constant was necessary to explain a non static universe and there was no evidence that a static (or accelerating) force would have anything at all to do with GR theory to begin with.&nbsp; It was a perfectly expressed physics theory without any fudge factors, and it needs not fudge factors of any sort to explain the effect of gravity on spacetime.&nbsp; The notion that you can just stuff it with metaphysics and still call it GR theory is ridiculous IMO.&nbsp; If I stuffed magic energy and magic matter and magic inflation into a GR theory, this is not evidence that magic did it, even if my math works out beautifully.&nbsp; You guys can't just skip the emprical testing phase of physics scinece in favor of a math formula.&nbsp; Emprical sceince doesn't work like that. &nbsp;</p><p>GR theory is fine.&nbsp; It's elegant.&nbsp; Einstein's version of GR theory is a beautiful physics formula that contains no metaphysical fudge factors at all.&nbsp; Lambda-magic theory however is not GR theory.&nbsp; It's stuffed with metaphysical entities that do not exist in nature.&nbsp; Inflation came right from the imagination of Alan Guth. &nbsp; No other vector or scalar field will retain near constant density throughout multiple exponential increases in volume.&nbsp; It's quite literaly a "supernatural" construct.&nbsp; Likewise, no energy known to exist in nature acts on "space", only objects in spacetime.&nbsp; To suggest than that GR theory and Lambda-CDM theory are the same is false advertizing, purely misleading and only works on "newbies" that have no idea about the history of GR theory.</p><p>Einstein resisted any additions to GR theory that were not required.&nbsp; &nbsp; Inflation isn't even real, and it's certainly not "required" in GR theory just to explain gravity.&nbsp; Dark e3nergy isn't real either, and therefore stuffing it into a blunder theory in no way excuses you folks from emprically demonstrating that dark energy isn't a figment of your collective imagination before stuffing it into GR theory. </p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> It seems to be a natural consequence of our points of view to assume that the whole of space is filled with electrons and flying electric ions of all kinds. - Kristian Birkeland </div>
 
M

michaelmozina

Guest
<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Expansion of the space-time manifold IS expansion of space.&nbsp; Your last sense is completely nonsensical. </DIV></p><p>No, it is an expansion of the spacetime manifold.&nbsp; PERIOD.&nbsp; There is not such thing as epxanding metric space.&nbsp; You can't do that trick without resorting to blunder theory.&nbsp; Nothing like that happens in GR theory the way Einstein taught it, and nothing would allow it to do superliminal speed tricks.</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Apparently you do not understand the difference between expansion of the manifold in terms of the metric of&nbsp; the manifold and movement of bodies in local coordinates.</DIV></p><p>Show me in Einstein's version of GR theory proper how "space" expands?&nbsp;&nbsp; You cannot resort to any sort of blunder theory.&nbsp; Show me how Einstein's standard GR theory allows for "space" to expand.&nbsp; Ultimately "space" is but a fixed metric distance in GR theory.&nbsp; You're cludging up GR theory with metaphysical ideas that have nothing at all to do with GR theory. </p><p>&nbsp;</p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> It seems to be a natural consequence of our points of view to assume that the whole of space is filled with electrons and flying electric ions of all kinds. - Kristian Birkeland </div>
 
M

michaelmozina

Guest
<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Yawn (some people just think they know everything, and as a consequence, are unwilling to learn anything).&nbsp;Regards <br /> Posted by chode</DIV></p><p>And you personally are exempt from this behavior?&nbsp; Have you read any of Alfven's work?&nbsp; Anything from Birkeland?</p><p>When you can emprically demonstrate that inflation is anything other than an imaginary entity dreamed up by Guth, and you can emprically demonstrate that DE has any effect on reality, then I'll be happy to let you stuff these things into GR theory.&nbsp; If you can't do that first part, then stuffing those metaphysical entities into GR theory is no better than me stuffing magic into GR theory and blaming you for being unwilling to learn something about magic. &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;</p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> It seems to be a natural consequence of our points of view to assume that the whole of space is filled with electrons and flying electric ions of all kinds. - Kristian Birkeland </div>
 
D

derekmcd

Guest
<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>The problem from your perspective is that there is no problem with GR as it stands, without any constants.&nbsp; There is no emprical evidence that accelation has anything at all to do with GR or gravity.&nbsp; Stuffing magic into GR theory is not acceptable.&nbsp; Even Einstein naver tried to explain superluminal speeds with GR theory, with our without a constant.&nbsp; None of the additions to GR theory have anything at all to do with gravity or GR theory. They are an act of pure metaphysical faith.&nbsp; "Dark energy" has never been shown to have anything at all to do with gravity, so stuffing it into GR theory is like me stuffing magic into GR theory and then trying to tell you that my magic formulas are GR theory. They are not GR theory. They are magic mumbo jumbo under the guise of GR theory. &nbsp;Einstein called it his greatest blunder because no constant was necessary to explain a non static universe and there was no evidence that a static (or accelerating) force would have anything at all to do with GR theory to begin with.&nbsp; It was a perfectly expressed physics theory without any fudge factors, and it needs not fudge factors of any sort to explain the effect of gravity on spacetime.&nbsp; The notion that you can just stuff it with metaphysics and still call it GR theory is ridiculous IMO.&nbsp; If I stuffed magic energy and magic matter and magic inflation into a GR theory, this is not evidence that magic did it, even if my math works out beautifully.&nbsp; You guys can't just skip the emprical testing phase of physics scinece in favor of a math formula.&nbsp; Emprical sceince doesn't work like that. &nbsp;GR theory is fine.&nbsp; It's elegant.&nbsp; Einstein's version of GR theory is a beautiful physics formula that contains no metaphysical fudge factors at all.&nbsp; Lambda-magic theory however is not GR theory.&nbsp; It's stuffed with metaphysical entities that do not exist in nature.&nbsp; Inflation came right from the imagination of Alan Guth. &nbsp; No other vector or scalar field will retain near constant density throughout multiple exponential increases in volume.&nbsp; It's quite literaly a "supernatural" construct.&nbsp; Likewise, no energy known to exist in nature acts on "space", only objects in spacetime.&nbsp; To suggest than that GR theory and Lambda-CDM theory are the same is false advertizing, purely misleading and only works on "newbies" that have no idea about the history of GR theory.Einstein resisted any additions to GR theory that were not required.&nbsp; &nbsp; Inflation isn't even real, and it's certainly not "required" in GR theory just to explain gravity.&nbsp; Dark e3nergy isn't real either, and therefore stuffing it into a blunder theory in no way excuses you folks from emprically demonstrating that dark energy isn't a figment of your collective imagination before stuffing it into GR theory. <br /> Posted by michaelmozina</DIV></p><p>&nbsp;</p><p>Nothing in this entire post addresses my post.&nbsp; I was simply giving a historical perspective with some minor commentary on the cosmological constant and it's relation to the phrase "biggest blunder" that is always thrown around.&nbsp;</p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <div> </div><br /><div><span style="color:#0000ff" class="Apple-style-span">"If something's hard to do, then it's not worth doing." - Homer Simpson</span></div> </div>
 
D

derekmcd

Guest
<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Show me in Einstein's version of GR theory proper how "space" expands?<br /> Posted by michaelmozina</DIV></p><p>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Friedmann_equations</p><p>&nbsp;</p><p>Just as an aside, what is GR theory "proper"?&nbsp; What do you mean by "proper"?&nbsp;</p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <div> </div><br /><div><span style="color:#0000ff" class="Apple-style-span">"If something's hard to do, then it's not worth doing." - Homer Simpson</span></div> </div>
 
C

chode

Guest
<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>And you personally are exempt from this behavior?&nbsp; Have you read any of Alfven's work?&nbsp; Anything from Birkeland?When you can emprically demonstrate that inflation is anything other than an imaginary entity dreamed up by Guth, and you can emprically demonstrate that DE has any effect on reality, then I'll be happy to let you stuff these things into GR theory.&nbsp; If you can't do that first part, then stuffing those metaphysical entities into GR theory is no better than me stuffing magic into GR theory and blaming you for being unwilling to learn something about magic. &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; <br />Posted by michaelmozina</DIV></p><p>I've studied some of Alfven's work, and he has certainly made important contributions in the field of Plasma Physics (Alfven waves, for example), and has won the Nobel Prize for that work. I also know that he was an advocate for consideration of Birkeland's theories, but there has been a lot of scientific evidence that goes against those theories since then. Maybe now we need to argue why Chapman's theories are wrong.</p><p>&nbsp;Of course, I can't demonstrate that DE has any effect on reality, because there is no accepted theory of what DE is. The only reason DE as a concept exists is because "reality" doesn't match up with "theory", so "something" is having an effect on "reality", and that is what we label as DE. You can call it "metaphysical" as much as you want, but I'd rather call it "unknown physics", instead of "metaphysical".</p><p>Regards</p><p>&nbsp;</p>
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

ASK THE COMMUNITY