Notices
Results 1 to 21 of 21

Thread: Space Doesn't Expand and Center of the Universe

  1. #1 Space Doesn't Expand and Center of the Universe 
    Forum Freshman icarus2's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Posts
    72
    Hello^^;
    I apologize for my poor English.

    Mainstream article on expansion of space : http://www.mso.anu.edu.au/~charley/p...DavisSciAm.pdf


    [ Space Doesn't Expand and New Proof of Hubble's Law ]

    After the expansion of universe was observed in the 1920s, physicists and astronomers introduced the concept of "space expands" into physics and many observations and research results were used based on this. However, we can't explain why space expands and why it has a specific velocity and is no observations of expansion of space. This study proves that the expansion of the universe and Hubble's law doesn't result from the expansion of space, but is a dynamical result from the movement of galaxies in space. We could confirm that Hubble's law was always valid when the effect of acceleration was smaller than initial velocity. We can define the center of the universe and find it. Also, this shows that cosmological red shift comes out from the Doppler effect of light. Expansion of space was explained that it was related to red shift and scale factor. Therefore, it is influencing many areas of astronomy and cosmology. Therefore, if this discovery is true, all matters related to red shift and scale factor should be reviewed.


    I. Introduction

    By and Hubble in the 1920s, expansion of universe, red shift of the galaxy, and recession velocity based on Earth were observed, scientists introduced the concept of "space expands" into physics to explain this.

    Observed cosmological red shift was similar to the Doppler shift which occurs when the light source becomes further away from the observer in space, but it was replaced with the concept that space itself expands.

    From the two facts of observation of all distant galaxies receding with Earth in the center and that Earth isn't the center of universe, it is presumed that cosmological red shift isn't Doppler shift of the galaxy moving in space.

    Moreover, because scale factor is separated and marked by the solution of field equation and this can be corresponded to expansion of space, it was thought that observed cosmological red shift results from the expansion of space.

    A recent study put some other interpretation on the expansion of space.
    However, significant matters related to expansion of space haven't been proved or explained during the 80s until today and these results aren't being observed.

    1. Expansion of space isn't an obvious matter.

    Thinking of space expanding, there are 3 cases.

    A. Expansion
    B. Contraction
    C. Maintenance - Condition without expansion and contraction

    If force does not exists, it is natural that any physical quantity has the same value, so "maintenance" is the most natural value.


    2. If space expands, the expansion speed of space can vary from - infinity to + infinity. There is no basis that a specific value among these should be chosen.

    3. We have never observed the expansion of space.

    The physical meaning of "space expands" is that all space expands.

    A. Space between an atomic nucleus and electrons also expands.
    B. Space between the Sun and Earth also expands.
    C. Space between galaxies also expands.

    Like the above content, it means that all space expands.
    People who claim expansion of space, space all expands in A, B, C, but

    For A, binding is consisted by electromagnetic force, space actually expands but position is compensated by electromagnetic force in time we don't feel, and therefore it is explained that is why we can't observe that effect.

    For B, space between the Sun and Earth expands every second, but position is immediately compensated because the Sun and Earth is strongly combined by gravity and explains that is why we can't observe that effect.

    On the other hand, for C, space between galaxies also expands, but it is explained that expansion of space appears in C because their gravitational binding is weak.

    It is a possible explanation.

    However, this is a possible explanation for Hubble's law, but it is clear that we didn't observe the "expansion of space."

    Thus, we have never directly observed expansion of space between electrons and protons, and energy loss used in compensation of position was never measured, and was never measured between Earth and Sun either.


    4. Expansion of the universe and expansion of space isn't the same concept.

    The fact that the universe expands shows that distance between galaxies become further. This can be explained from the expansion of space between galaxies, but this can be explained even when galaxies have +r direction initial speed in condition where space doesn't expand.

    5. The metaphor of a balloon is 4 dimensional or 2 dimensional, the observed Hubble's law is an observational matter in 3 dimensional space.

    Balloon analogy is just a metaphor, not a precise explanation.

    This study proves that Hubble's law is a natural result from the dynamics of galaxies in 3 dimension and tries to prove the fact that all far away galaxies have recession speed with Earth in the center.


    II. Proof of Hubble's law through dynamics

    1. After an accelerating expansion (inflation) of early universe has almost finished, particles started to have some velocity.

    This velocity distribution naturally has higher velocity when it is further away from the center of the universe and has lower velocity when it is closer to the center.

    A. Big bang simulation in the zero energy universe

    [Video for Big bang Simulation]
    Inflation, accelerating expansion with pair creation of negative and positive mass -2 - YouTube


    Fig.1.Velocity distribution of galaxies at early universe.
    Red arrows show the velocity vector of particles. It can be known that the magnitude of velocity vector is bigger as it become further from the center.


    Even if the velocity of particles is zero in the early universe, there are particles with higher velocity in further areas from the center and particles close to the center have relatively low velocity by inflation (an accelerating expansion). When positive mass gravitationally contracts to form a galaxy, momentum must be conserved, so higher initial velocity continues to exist as it becomes further away from the center of universe.

    B. Natural distribution of velocity in the 3D space

    Thinking in another way, 3 dimensional space can be divided into 3 areas (from the center) to far, middle, and close area. Even if the velocity of the far area is lower than the middle area, middle area particles exceed far area particles when time passes because the velocity of middle particles are higher. As a result, velocity distribution of particles shows that the velocity of far areas is highest, middle area is second, and the close area becomes third.



    Reply With Quote  
     

  2.  
     

  3. #2  
    Forum Freshman icarus2's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Posts
    72
    C. Velocity distribution when some kind of anti-gravitational source exists
    If some kind of anti-gravitational source in 3 dimension exists, M exists with even density, the above velocity distribution can exist.





    If anti-gravitational source is evenly distributed in accelerating expansion time like the inflation of early universe, a bigger acceleration a exists as r becomes larger and velocity distribution has a higher velocity as the radius of the universe becomes larger. As a result, higher velocity exists for particles of far area from the center of the universe after inflation ends.

    The 3 explanations shown above mean that higher velocity for larger R(distance from the center of universe) after inflation in the early universe isn't a peculiar phenomenon. If speed in small area in the early universe distributes from 0 to c and if some time passes, velocity distribution will be in order as above.


    2. Derivation of Hubble's law in space without expansion

    A. Decelerating expansion time

    First to look into the possibility of this model, let's look into the case in which the direction of and is the same.





    , : It is the speed in which A and B galaxy has when inflation ends.

    : Acceleration by force (maybe gravity) occurred from some unknown energy source. It is the acceleration of decelerating expansion because decelerating expansion seems to have taken place in the early universe. It is actually a function of time. To make the problem simple, we plan to solve the problem making it as a constant.


    : Total time of universe decelerating expansion.






    The above equations are equations of speed and distance when acceleration is constant.

    B. Accelerating expansion time

    After decelerating expansion ends, there was a time of accelerating expansion. Acceleration is given as this time and the duration time is set as .






    , is the now speed of galaxy a and galaxy b.









    C. Deriving Hubble's law (when direction is the same)

    is the relative speed of galaxy a and galaxy b.







    Because the galaxies or particles in the early universe were concentrated in a very close distance,

    it can be set as


    This is the age of the universe.

    Deriving the relation between and ,



    It can be known that Hubble's law comes out. WoW!!

    Especially, the Hubble constant is H=1/t and this is a result that the Hubble constant in Hubble's law corresponds to the reciprocal of the age of universe. Considering decelerating expansion and accelerating expansion and movement of relative particles, the actual age of the universe is . It is very close to 1.

    Therefore, the above model contains simple equation, but has possibility.

    Thus, the recession velocity and Hubble's law between galaxies don't come from some vague concept (unknown concept without empirical experience) of "expansion of space" and shows possibility that it comes from a simple movement equation called .


    In , if a(t) is small, this is because a shape Hubble's law comes out.

    D. The observation of "all galaxies become further from us and all galaxies have recession velocity from Hubble's law" isn't from the expansion of space, it is result of dynamics that galaxies show.


    Fig.2.Hubble's observation of all galaxies receding with Earth in the center

    It is assumed that interpretation issues of observation results above applied most in physicists and astronomers introducing expansion of space. When observed from Earth, it is observed that all galaxies recede from Earth and the recession velocity also follow all relations of .

    To explain this, if position of the Earth is the center of expansion, namely if position of the Earth is the center of universe, this issue can be simply solved but it can be clearly known that Earth isn't the center of the universe from the observation of the universe until now.

    It is because Earth isn't the center of the solar system, but is clear to be just a planet and that the solar system isn't the center of the galactic system either.

    Therefore, physicists and astronomers had to find a way to explain this and as this couldn't be explained by dynamics, a new concept that "space expands" was introduced. To explain more specifically, it is assumed that the stereotype that Hubble's observation isn't valid in places where expansion isn't in the center had influence.



    Reply With Quote  
     

  4. #3  
    Forum Freshman icarus2's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Posts
    72
    [ Derivation of Hubble's law ]


    Fig.3. Hubble's law doesn't result from the expansion of space, but is a dynamical result from the movement of galaxies in space.


    Set as ,




    Set as x-axis.















    [ Relative Velocity ]



    [ Relative Distance ]



    1) When is zero.




    Therefore, Hubble's law is valid.


    2) When is small.




    Hubble's law is valid for the 2 following cases.

    i)
    When initial speed is much larger than speed change by deceleration and acceleration :

    * Because there is high possibility that there was a time of inflation of the early universe, particles gained high speed after inflation and the galaxy composed by these particles also had high speed, so the above supposition has validity.

    * : When the effects of deceleration and acceleration are offset by each other

    ==========
    Considering decelerating expansion and accelerating expansion and movement of relative particles, the actual age of the universe is . It is very close to 1. Namely, our universe has a state of
    ==========

    * Zero Energy Universe : In principle, the total energy is zero. So deceleration and acceleration terms are small.






    Therefore, Hubble's law is valid.

    ii) Hubble's law is valid in condition.

    Because the term of decelerating expansion and accelerating expansion is almost similar from the current observation, it can be set as . This condition is the result gained from the condition of assuming expansion of space. Therefore, if the result of this study is true, it can be revised.






    Therefore, Hubble's law is valid.

    Reply With Quote  
     

  5. #4  
    Forum Freshman icarus2's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Posts
    72
    3) When is big.





    i)





    Therefore, Hubble's law is valid.

    When initial speed is much larger than velocity change from deceleration and acceleration, Hubble's law is valid is a very wide area. Also this initial speed is the velocity gained from the inflation process.

    ii) If






    Therefore, Hubble's law is valid.


    E. Direct meaning of proof

    1) Hubble's law is valid is a very wide area in 3 dimensional space when the initial speed of galaxies is much larger than the velocity change by deceleration and acceleration (in the same meaning, when velocity change by deceleration and acceleration is smaller compared to initial speed).

    2) Even though initial velocity isn't much bigger than the effect by deceleration and acceleration, Hubble's law can be valid in some specific condition.
    For example,

    3) Even though Earth isn't the center of the universe, the belief (something not experienced such as "expansion of space”) isn't necessarily needed to explain the reason all galaxies recede from Earth.


    III. Meaning including proof

    Hubble's law isn't a matter only explained by special condition such as "center of the universe" or a new concept that we haven't experienced such as "expansion of space."

    Hubble's law is a result of dynamics valid in almost all areas when change of acceleration is small in the universe.


    1. Even if and is a function of time, Hubble's law is always valid when the effect of decelerating expansion and accelerating expansion is smaller than initial velocity.

    To derive the Hubble's law, we presumed decelerating expansion in the early term and accelerating expansion of the later term. and was set as a constant in this process. However, more closely speaking, and is a function of time.

    2. When the effect of decelerating expansion and accelerating expansion has some specific ratio, Hubble's law can be valid.
    For example :


    3. Hubble's law doesn't come from the expansion of space, but results from dynamics from velocity of individual galaxies.


    Fig.4. Hubble's law is a dynamical result from the movement of galaxies in 3D space. Two situations are same.

    4. Therefore, red shift comes from the Doppler shift of light and implies that the existing equation of red shift should be revised.
    Existing equation :
    R is scale factor.

    Equation by this discovery :

    The two equations show similar results in close galaxies, but show difference in far galaxies.

    5. Red shift was the role of a ruler measuring the distance of the universe, but if this model is true, the inaccuracy of the existing ruler is implied and all data through red shift should be reviewed.

    6. We can define the center of the universe and find it. (Revival of absolute coordinate system)
    Considering homogeneous, isotropy, and dependence of r of gravity, Hubble's law will be well valid as the direction is closer to the center direction. Draw several lines with Earth in the center and observe the galaxy in those lines by even interval. For example, 2,4,6,8,10Gly.

    The center of universe positions in the direction of smallest (or even) deviation of Hubble's law.


    7. When space doesn't expand, the maximum value of recession velocity will become light velocity c.

    8. The change of red shift eq. influences the "discovery that the universe accelerating expands." Therefore, there is necessity to review accelerating expansion.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  6. #5 Center of the universe 
    Forum Freshman icarus2's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Posts
    72
    6. We can define the center of the universe and find it. (Revival of Absolute Coordinate System)


    A. Direction of center of the universe

    Considering homogeneous, isotropy, and dependence of r of gravity, Hubble's law will be well valid as the direction is closer to the center direction. Draw several lines with Earth in the center and observe the galaxy in those lines by even interval. For example, 2,4,6,8,10Gly.

    If it is observed as above, we will see some kind of direction.

    When is zero,


    Therefore,

    However, when is big,





    term existing.

    Therefore, the center of universe positions in the direction of smallest (or even) deviation of Hubble's law.

    B. How to calculate the distance between the center of the universe and the earth


    Fig05.

    1) Find galaxy A which is located vertically direction from the center direction of the universe.

    2) Find galaxies(B,C,...) which have the same relative distance from the earth and for an angle with galaxy A.

    3) Galaxy C has the same speed with the earth.


    Fig06.When

    From relative velocity eq.(24)


    Set as





    If , is same with




    Find a galaxy that corresponds with , by putting values of several galaxies into it.

    Especially, it passes from and changes into , as gets bigger. This relation can be used for finding a point that is same with





    Center of the universe : Distance between center of the universe and the earth



    ( is an angle between galaxy A and C.)

    Have a nice day!


    --- Icarus2

    Space Doesn't Expand and New Proof of Hubble's Law
    viXra.org e-Print archive, viXra:1203.0044, Space Doesn't Expand and New Proof of Hubble's Law
    Last edited by icarus2; April 8th, 2012 at 08:16 AM.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  7. #6  
    Moderator Moderator Markus Hanke's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    Ireland
    Posts
    7,302
    1. It is bad form to post a simple idea over several posts on the same thread. It will immediate turn people off trying to follow you
    2. Topologically, any smooth 4-manifold which is unbounded and is not embedded in a higher dimensional manifold of at least D=5 does not have a center. This is mathematical fact.
    3. Should such a manifold indeed be embedded in a higher dimensional manifold, then it may be possible to define a center point, however, such a center point will always be outside the 4-manifold, i.e. not be a part of the universe.
    4. There is no absolute coordinate system, as clearly shown in General Relativity
    5. Because of (2) above the universe does not have center point. No calculations with Hubble's law are necessary, it is a simple topological fact.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  8. #7  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Posts
    8
    As to expansion: If the universe would not expand at some point, it would become repetitive eventually (if only in thousands of billions of years), and because of this, it would be static in a certain sense. A universe created by chance would be impossible to be static, because a static universe out of nothing would be the equivalent of a ready made house or even a whole city or more appearing out of nothing. If there was a God or something like that, and the universe is actually created, but this God doesn't like to proove his/her existence to us, then he/she would obviously choose the only possible universe which might not have been created. Ergo I can say with certainty, from purely philosophical thoughts, that the universe has always been expanding since the beginning of time, and will always be expanding.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  9. #8  
    Universal Mind John Galt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    14,168
    Quote Originally Posted by Carl View Post
    As to expansion: If the universe would not expand at some point, it would become repetitive eventually
    This is not a certain consequence. If you believe it is please demonstrate this is the case.

    Quote Originally Posted by Carl View Post
    and because of this, it would be static in a certain sense.
    Only in the sense that you twist the meaning of words.

    Quote Originally Posted by Carl View Post
    A universe created by chance would be impossible to be static, because a static universe out of nothing would be the equivalent of a ready made house or even a whole city or more appearing out of nothing.
    And you know this because?

    Quote Originally Posted by Carl View Post
    If there was a God or something like that, and the universe is actually created, but this God doesn't like to proove his/her existence to us, then he/she would obviously choose the only possible universe which might not have been created.
    So, not only do you understand cosmology to great depth you also understand the mind of any postulated God. That's quite a CV you have there.


    Quote Originally Posted by Carl View Post
    Ergo I can say with certainty, from purely philosophical thoughts, that the universe has always been expanding since the beginning of time, and will always be expanding.
    Please don't confuse vague ramblings with philosophy. That's the sort of thing that gives philosophy a bad name.


    Welcome to the forum.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  10. #9  
    Forum Sophomore Alex-The Great's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    in my house , in front of my pc
    Posts
    195
    well john you are good at that very well pretty well .............
    "Universe is not as weird as you think it is weirder than you can ever,ever think"- Ophiolite(My Grandpa)
    "The greatest enemy of knowledge is not ignorance, it is the illusion of knowledge."
    - Prof. Stephen W. Hawking
    Reply With Quote  
     

  11. #10  
    Universal Mind John Galt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    14,168
    Quote Originally Posted by Alex-The Great View Post
    well john you are good at that very well pretty well .............
    Good at what? Your remark is obtuse.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  12. #11  
    Forum Freshman icarus2's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Posts
    72
    Quote Originally Posted by Carl View Post
    As to expansion: If the universe would not expand at some point, it would become repetitive eventually (if only in thousands of billions of years), and because of this, it would be static in a certain sense. A universe created by chance would be impossible to be static, because a static universe out of nothing would be the equivalent of a ready made house or even a whole city or more appearing out of nothing. If there was a God or something like that, and the universe is actually created, but this God doesn't like to proove his/her existence to us, then he/she would obviously choose the only possible universe which might not have been created. Ergo I can say with certainty, from purely philosophical thoughts, that the universe has always been expanding since the beginning of time, and will always be expanding.
    Expansion of the universe and expansion of space isn't the same concept.

    The fact that the universe expands shows that distance between galaxies become further. This can be explained from the expansion of space between galaxies, but this can be explained even when galaxies have +r direction initial speed in condition where space doesn't expand.

    ========
    If the universe(space??) would not expand at some point, it would become repetitive eventually (if only in thousands of billions of years), and because of this, it would be static in a certain sense.
    ========

    In my opinion, No.
    I believe the Zero Energy Universe.

    Inflation, accelerating expansion with pair creation of negative and positive mass -2 - YouTube



    [ More information ]
    Dark energy - Accelerating expansion of the universe due to negative mass
    Reply With Quote  
     

  13. #12  
    Moderator Moderator Markus Hanke's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    Ireland
    Posts
    7,302
    Quote Originally Posted by icarus2 View Post
    but this can be explained even when galaxies have +r direction initial speed in condition where space doesn't expand.
    No it can't, because this wouldn't explain why the galaxies appear to move faster the further away they are.
    Btw, YouTube isn't a viable source of scientific data.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  14. #13  
    Quagma SpeedFreek's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Location
    London, UK
    Posts
    2,787
    Quote Originally Posted by icarus2 View Post
    Expansion of the universe and expansion of space isn't the same concept.
    Incorrect, it is the same concept but "expanding space" is just an analogy for the following:

    Quote Originally Posted by DrRocket
    GR treats the universe over all time as a single entity – spacetime. This can also be done in Newtonian mechanics, so there is nothing really new about spacetime. What distinguishes GR is that spacetime is not just affine 4-space, but in fact is a Lorentzian 4-manifold of undetermined topology, with a curvature tensor that is also unknown but is determined by the distribution of mass/energy via a stress-energy tensor defined by a very complex set of partial differential equations. These equations, the Einstein field equations can only be explicitly solved in a few simple circumstances. Gravity is the result of curvature of spacetime.

    In general because of curvature neither space nor time have any global meaning. However, if one makes the assumption that spacetime is homogeneous and isotropic, then spacetime decomposes as a 1-parameter foliation by space-like 3-dimensional hyperplanes of constant curvature. The parameter serves as a surrogate for time and the hyperplanes as a surrogate for space. The hyperplanes inherit a true Riemannian metric from spacetime and expansion of space means that the distance between points increases as the value of the time-like parameter increases.
    ^ That is what "expanding space" means. It is the expansion of the universe.


    Quote Originally Posted by icarus2 View Post
    The fact that the universe expands shows that distance between galaxies become further. This can be explained from the expansion of space between galaxies, but this can be explained even when galaxies have +r direction initial speed in condition where space doesn't expand.
    No it cannot be explained that way.

    [astro-ph/0310808] Expanding Confusion: common misconceptions of cosmological horizons and the superluminal expansion of the Universe
    We use standard general relativity to illustrate and clarify several common misconceptions about the expansion of the Universe. To show the abundance of these misconceptions we cite numerous misleading, or easily misinterpreted, statements in the literature. In the context of the new standard Lambda-CDM cosmology we point out confusions regarding the particle horizon, the event horizon, the ``observable universe'' and the Hubble sphere (distance at which recession velocity = c). We show that we can observe galaxies that have, and always have had, recession velocities greater than the speed of light. We explain why this does not violate special relativity and we link these concepts to observational tests. Attempts to restrict recession velocities to less than the speed of light require a special relativistic interpretation of cosmological redshifts. We analyze apparent magnitudes of supernovae and observationally rule out the special relativistic Doppler interpretation of cosmological redshifts at a confidence level of 23 sigma.
    (My emphasis in bold)
    Reply With Quote  
     

  15. #14  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Posts
    8
    Quote Originally Posted by John Galt View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Carl View Post
    As to expansion: If the universe would not expand at some point, it would become repetitive eventually
    This is not a certain consequence. If you believe it is please demonstrate this is the case.

    Quote Originally Posted by Carl View Post
    and because of this, it would be static in a certain sense.
    Only in the sense that you twist the meaning of words.

    Quote Originally Posted by Carl View Post
    A universe created by chance would be impossible to be static, because a static universe out of nothing would be the equivalent of a ready made house or even a whole city or more appearing out of nothing.
    And you know this because?

    Quote Originally Posted by Carl View Post
    If there was a God or something like that, and the universe is actually created, but this God doesn't like to proove his/her existence to us, then he/she would obviously choose the only possible universe which might not have been created.
    So, not only do you understand cosmology to great depth you also understand the mind of any postulated God. That's quite a CV you have there.


    Quote Originally Posted by Carl View Post
    Ergo I can say with certainty, from purely philosophical thoughts, that the universe has always been expanding since the beginning of time, and will always be expanding.
    Please don't confuse vague ramblings with philosophy. That's the sort of thing that gives philosophy a bad name.


    Welcome to the forum.
    John, I think you are nitpicking too much. But to your points:

    How could a universe which is not expanding not be repetitive, assuming endless time? Imagine a smaller universe, with just a few atoms and no expansion, and one can easily see that eventually, it will run out of what could possible happen which didn't happen before. Even if we not only count all distinguishable states and positions of the atoms, but include all electromagnetic waves going through this, there is only so many possibilities. One might say that there is an endless number of possible distinctions, if we go further and further into the details, but eventually even with that we reach a point where we distinguish to such a level that it doesn't make any difference anymore if we look at the whole - for instance, which actual interactions happen between the atoms.

    I may be stretching the meanings of words, but in a perfectly legal way if using the abstract definitions of them. I don't think any of them are really "twisted" or completely wrong, except where I made a mistake, which I don't mind correcting if you point it out to me.

    "Know this because" is not an argument. Try to stay nice and point out actual mistakes, otherwise, this discussion becomes meaningless - I discuss matters with people because I like to find flaws in my ideas and learn from them, so that there are fewer such flaws. I think many here have similar intentions. It works better without meaningless comments disguised as questions.

    I never saw anything which comes even close to proving the existence of a God or any other kind of supernatural being. Judging by what I heard even the most convinced religious people tell me or others in that regard, neither did they, even though some keep making up "proofs" for such which usually fall apart at a first glance. As to people who say they witnessed something to that effect, none of them has ever been shown to be reliable, nor has anything they witnessed been possible to proof through according traces, records, or experiments. If there was a God, he or she could easily prove his/her existence to us. This never happened, afaik. Ergo any God doesn't want to be proven. No mind reading needed for that. So no need for your sarcastic comments.

    My idea of philosophy seems to be different from yours. In my opinion, it's something anyone can take part in, and most people actually do, though at different levels. Your idea seems to be to allow only the ones who share your opinions such a "status"...
    Reply With Quote  
     

  16. #15  
    Forum Freshman icarus2's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Posts
    72
    Quote Originally Posted by SpeedFreek View Post
    [astro-ph/0310808] Expanding Confusion: common misconceptions of cosmological horizons and the superluminal expansion of the Universe
    We use standard general relativity to illustrate and clarify several common misconceptions about the expansion of the Universe. To show the abundance of these misconceptions we cite numerous misleading, or easily misinterpreted, statements in the literature. In the context of the new standard Lambda-CDM cosmology we point out confusions regarding the particle horizon, the event horizon, the ``observable universe'' and the Hubble sphere (distance at which recession velocity = c). We show that we can observe galaxies that have, and always have had, recession velocities greater than the speed of light. We explain why this does not violate special relativity and we link these concepts to observational tests. Attempts to restrict recession velocities to less than the speed of light require a special relativistic interpretation of cosmological redshifts. We analyze apparent magnitudes of supernovae and observationally rule out the special relativistic Doppler interpretation of cosmological redshifts at a confidence level of 23 sigma.
    (My emphasis in bold)
    In above paper,

    Footnote 6: There are several complications that this analysis does not address. (1) SR could be manipulated
    to give an evolving Hubble’s constant and (2) SR could be manipulated to give a non-trivial relationship
    between luminosity distance, DL, and proper distance, D. However, it is not clear how one would justify these ad hoc corrections.

    Therefore, above results have to interpreted not prove “space is expanding”, but prove “universe is accelerating expansion.”
    Reply With Quote  
     

  17. #16  
    Quagma SpeedFreek's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Location
    London, UK
    Posts
    2,787
    Quote Originally Posted by icarus2 View Post
    Therefore, above results have to interpreted not prove “space is expanding”, but prove “universe is accelerating expansion.”
    Regardless of the acceleration, it is still expanding as described and that expansion cannot be expressed as motion through space. Here is another paper showing an alternative way to describe the very same expansion, formulated in order to avoid the confusion caused when cosmologists say "space" is expanding:

    [0707.0380] Expanding Space: the Root of all Evil?

    While it remains the staple of virtually all cosmological teaching, the concept of expanding space in explaining the increasing separation of galaxies has recently come under fire as a dangerous idea whose application leads to the development of confusion and the establishment of misconceptions. In this paper, we develop a notion of expanding space that is completely valid as a framework for the description of the evolution of the universe and whose application allows an intuitive understanding of the influence of universal expansion. We also demonstrate how arguments against the concept in general have failed thus far, as they imbue expanding space with physical properties not consistent with the expectations of general relativity.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  18. #17  
    Forum Freshman icarus2's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Posts
    72
    Quote Originally Posted by Markus Hanke View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by icarus2 View Post
    but this can be explained even when galaxies have +r direction initial speed in condition where space doesn't expand.
    No it can't, because this wouldn't explain why the galaxies appear to move faster the further away they are.

    In the zero energy universe model or model of pair creation of negative energy(mass) and positive energy(mass)





    Antigravity term() is existing. Therefore it can~


    A. Birth of the universe from zero energy state
    1) computer simulation

    Fig14. m+=+1 (1,000ea), -m-=-1 (1,000ea),
    U++ = -5190.4707907,
    U-- = -5308.0373689,
    U-+= 10499.2712222,
    U_tot = 0.7630625

    Total rest mass energy is zero. Total gravitational potential energy () is +0.763.

    , so is almost zero.

    We could not make GPE 0 for there were too many particles. Therefore, we simulated dividing the value of (total GPE) into two parts which are when it is little bit bigger than 0 (+0.76306) and when smaller than 0 (-0.53277), and we could gain almost similar results. (Attached 1, 2)

    2) Accelerating expansion of the universe (inflation)

    It can be confirmed that even though the total energy starts with 0, the universe expands and positive masses combine one another due to attractive interaction among themselves, while negative masses can not form massive mass structure because of repulsive interaction.

    The pair creation model of negative mass and positive mass explains “energy conservation” in times of the birth of the universe and “expansion after the birth” naturally, and it does not need institution of new mechanism or field like inflaton or inflation itself, and it explains this effect with only gravity.

    3) Change of GPE


    Figure15-a.The ratio of negative GPE to positive GPE of the early universe. We can confirm that as the universe expands, (+GPE/-GPE) ratio decreases, and gets to be negative value. Figure15-b. Total GPE of the early universe. Figure15-c. of the early universe and GPE related with positive mass. It looks almost like a straight line for the size of is relatively small.

    The graph above is that the change of GPE related with positive mass and drawn through graph.

    As we have observed activities of only positive masses, “GPE related with positive mass ()” has a significant meaning.

    a) Nevertheless the value of changes from 0 to negative value, the universe expands for GPE related with positive mass has + value.

    b) Note that nevertheless the total energy is 0, GPE related with positive mass has very big positive value, and this value approaches to 0 very rapidly. This explains the dramatic expansion like the early universe inflation and the finish of this inflation mechanism.

    c) The thing we can notice by this and the next simulation is that if time goes bit more, and GPE related with positive mass both have negative values, and the universe is converted to the decelerating expansion stage.

    d) In order to explain the flatness of the universe, typical researchers assume the inflation mechanism and explain it using this. But Zero Energy Universe does not need institution of new field for it guarantees flatness itself, and additionally, the simulation above means that the accelerating expansion of the early universe can be explained with gravity without instituting new field.

    4) Change of GPE related with positive mass and in three initial value


    Fig16-a. Total rest mass energy=0, (initial value)= +51.79 / +0.76 / -0.53. Time scale=0.5, Step scale(+51.79,-0.53)=200, Step scale(+0.76)=250,
    Fig16-b. Change of GPE related with positive mass in three cases

    GPE related with positive mass has very big positive value, and this value approaches to 0 very rapidly.


    Paper: The change of Gravitational Potential Energy and Dark Energy in the Zero Energy Universe.
    viXra.org e-Print archive, viXra:1110.0019, The Change of Gravitational Potential Energy and Dark Energy in the Zero Energy Universe
    Reply With Quote  
     

  19. #18  
    Anti-Crank AlexG's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Posts
    2,809
    Vixra is where you go when Arivx turns you down.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  20. #19  
    Moderator Moderator Markus Hanke's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    Ireland
    Posts
    7,302
    Quote Originally Posted by icarus2 View Post
    In above paper,

    Footnote 6: There are several complications that this analysis does not address. (1) SR could be manipulated
    to give an evolving Hubble’s constant and (2) SR could be manipulated to give a non-trivial relationship
    between luminosity distance, DL, and proper distance, D. However, it is not clear how one would justify these ad hoc corrections.
    The important bit is highlighted above. To the best of our knowledge the current model of metric expansion explains the observed redshift of distant galaxies very well.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  21. #20  
    Moderator Moderator Markus Hanke's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    Ireland
    Posts
    7,302
    Quote Originally Posted by icarus2 View Post
    In the zero energy universe model or model of pair creation of negative energy(mass) and positive energy(mass)




    Antigravity term() is existing. Therefore it can~
    1. The above does not answer my question
    2. The above formulas are just gibberish - please explain how you derived this relation
    3. There is no evidence whatsoever that such a thing as anti-gravity exists; it would require the presence of exotic matter, for which there is also no evidence, in fact, one could argue that this is in violation of GR's energy conditions
    Reply With Quote  
     

  22. #21  
    Forum Freshman icarus2's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Posts
    72
    Quote Originally Posted by Markus Hanke View Post

    2. The above formulas are just gibberish - please explain how you derived this relation
    3. There is no evidence whatsoever that such a thing as anti-gravity exists; it would require the presence of exotic matter, for which there is also no evidence, in fact, one could argue that this is in violation of GR's energy conditions
    2. When the number of negative mass is n_- , and the number of positive mass is n_+ , total potential energy is given as follows.





    3. Negative mass observed( or needed), but it was discarded.
    From the observance of the HSS team and SCP team in 1998, they gained the mass density of the negative using field equations which do not have the cosmological constant.

    HSS(The High-z Supernova Search) team : Brian P. Schmidt, et al :
    [astro-ph/9805201] Observational Evidence from Supernovae for an Accelerating Universe and a Cosmological Constant
    14P, 26~29lines.
    If Λ=0, Ω_m = - 0.38(±0.22) : negative mass density


    SCP(Supernova Cosmology Project) team : S.Perlmutter et al.
    [astro-ph/9812473] Cosmology from Type Ia Supernovae
    7P
    If Λ=0, Ω_m = - 0.4(±0.1) : negative mass density


    However, HSS team and SCP team have asserted that cosmological constant must be revival. Because mass must not be negative value in they thought.
    They did not know that negative mass is stable at the maximum point. Therefore, the problem of the transition of the energy level of minus infinity does not occur



    All the while, the field of physics did not seriously consider the possibility of existence of negative mass at the general state.
    The standard explanation about negative mass is, if energy level of negative exists, that the state of low energy is stable, and the lowest state of energy is minus infinity, so the positive mass of all emits energy, and it will transit to the energy level of minus infinity, and the universe will collapse. However, at the present, our universe exists without collapsing, so the explanation for this became the strong proof for the nonexistence of the negative mass and the energy level of negative. We have taken this as the natural common sense and teach it to students.

    At the center of this background, there is the fundamental proposition that "State of low energy is stable". But, we show that the "State of low energy is stable" proposition is an incomplete one, and in case of a positive mass, it is stable at the low state, whereas, in case of negative mass, it is stable at the high state. Due to this, the problem of the transition of the energy level of minus infinity does not occur, and therefore, in our universe, the existence of negative mass is possible.

    Reply With Quote  
     

Similar Threads

  1. Expand your minds and contract your ignorance
    By I.B.1.Dance in forum Astronomy & Cosmology
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: January 14th, 2011, 03:31 PM
  2. center of universe
    By diablobo in forum Astronomy & Cosmology
    Replies: 4
    Last Post: June 29th, 2010, 09:12 AM
  3. From where Vacuum came in which universe expand ????
    By vishstar in forum Astronomy & Cosmology
    Replies: 11
    Last Post: October 16th, 2009, 02:32 PM
  4. Earth the center of Universe?
    By thyristor in forum Astronomy & Cosmology
    Replies: 35
    Last Post: June 4th, 2008, 07:29 PM
  5. Where is the center of the universe?
    By GrowlingDog in forum Astronomy & Cosmology
    Replies: 20
    Last Post: February 27th, 2008, 05:23 PM
Tags for this Thread

View Tag Cloud

Bookmarks
Bookmarks
Posting Permissions
  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •