Thread: Critique of the Universe, Introduction

The following comments are not speculative. The following comments are not my own personal opinion. They do not constitute my own original research.

If one carefully reads the papers submitted to ArXiv astrophysics from after 1998, one sees that Saul Perlmutter's and Adam Riess's supernova research groups were not independent, as claimed, and that they were in serious communication. Perlmutter and Riess actually wrote a paper together.

They say that the data that the two groups got regarding the distances to supernovae type 1a and other bright extremely distant objects was not concordant at first. In order to make the two data sets conform, they admit that they had to apply an "adjustment". This artificial factor was used by both groups to bring the data of one set into alignment with the other so that a smooth plot could be made that included all the data points.

The sense of this artiface alone is the sole "evidence" that they both cite for an accelerating rate of expansion of the universe. They might have applied the adjustment to the other data set in the opposite sense. Then, the universe expansion rate would have been seen as decelerating.

There was a choice to be made. A cynic might hazard a guess as to why they made the choice that they did.

In college, we had to write laboratory reports on the experiments that we did in lab. We were warned against manufacturing data. Our professors all said that this kind of "fudging" is a big "NO NO". Ethical standards are not just for students. Still, as professionals who certainly are good scientists, Permutter and Riess no doubt think that they were perfectly well justified in applying their adjustment factor and did so in all honesty. But, the result is the same.

Furthermore, Mordehai Milgrom's discovery of the MOND effect (modified Newtonian dynamics) does not acknowledge that spiral galaxies almost always contain supermassive black holes in their nuclei. Black holes are enormous relativistic point masses with infinite density. Such "singularities" must have singular gravitational fields also. Such fields decline as 1/r or hyperbolically, not as 1/r² or parabolically, as assumed by Newton's Law of Gravity.

The difference between the black hole hyperbolic gravitational potential and the Newtonian parabolic one accounts for Milgrom's residual centripetal acceleration constant that he found for stars near the peripheries of spiral galaxies. So, the invention of unfalsifiable "Dark Matter" to acount for the MOND effect is as unnecessary as the ad hoc construction of the Dark Energy ediface to account for putative "acceleration" of the universe expansion rate.

So, given the doubtful nature of Dark Energy and Dark Matter, what do we do about the "missing mass" necessary to account for the flatness apparent in the anisotropy shown by the cosmic microwave background radiation (CMB)? The easiest way is to postulate that the universe is about 22 times as massive as our little telescopes can discern. The signal strength, statistical distribution and identifiable extra contributions (as from the SZ effect) to the CMB implies that our current inventory of matter and energy in the universe accounts for only about 4.5% of its total mass. So, 100%/4.5% = 22.2, that is, the mass of the universe must be around 22 times bigger than we can tell from our limited perspective here on Earth.

If the universe is that much bigger and more massive than conventional wisdom admits, and if the universe eminates from a super black hole with its hyperbolic gravitational field, this accounts for the CMB characteristics, the red-shift effects, the gravitational lensing effects and the SZ effects that are being used to give credibility to acceleration and Dark Energy.

In other words, Dark Energy and Dark Matter are subject to Occam's Razor as mere whiskers on the chin of astrophysics.

It should be pointed out that there have been many monumental scams in science before. Piltdown Man and Cold Fusion come to mind. Remember, many reputable scientists fell for these frauds completely for long periods of time. Clearly, we must be wary of any kind of massive pseudoscience which may still be going on today!

This goes to the whole question of the exclusive use of a single model of the universe that depends on the Friedmann equations and the FLRW metric. The consensus interpretation of the Lambda/cold dark matter model must clearly be flawed if it leads to the conclusion that the scientific method must be scrapped in order to save the model. Dark Matter and Dark Energy are ad hoc "add-ons" that are trying to find theoretical justification. Dark Enegy, in particular, is being called a supernatural or "unfalsifiable" hypothesis because no experiment can possibly directly challenge it, just like the existence of God hypothesis.

Heretofore, all hypotheses must adhere to the scientific method (the SM). Now, in order to admit Dark Energy, cosmologists insist that SM must be tinkered with and an unfalsifiable hypothesis allowed for the first time in history. If we do this, the Pope can re-ascend to the Throne.

All of the indirect "overwhelming evidence" for expansion rate acceleration and Dark Energy can be just as well applied to the concept that our inventory of matter and energy in our local universe is inadequate and that the mass of the global universe is at least 22.2 times as large as has been supposed (100%/4.5% = 22.2). The total mass of the universe has been and still is open to question. The Matter/Energy that we can inventory accounts for only 4.5% of the total needed to "flatten" the anisotropy pattern that is seen in the Cosmic Microwave Background radiation (CMB). This proposed revision in the "total mass" and the General Relativity (GR) concept of the black hole hyperbolic field will save not only SM, but the Friedmann Equations and the FLRW metric themselves too!

The "inflaton particle" from which the universe may have sprung was the mother of all black-holes (MOAB). As such, it must have possessed an hyperbolic gravitational field that existed timelessly according to Alan Guth's quantum principles. During the instant of inception of the differentiated universe that we can now detect, this hyperbolic field must have begun to degenerate. Space with time came into existence during this instant. The implication here of the prior existence of a sort of meta-universe is not explicitly acknowledged in any of the scenarios we read, but it is nonetheless an unstated assumption.

This space-time bubble's surface traveled up the MOAB's hyperbolic field gradient at a velocity hundreds or thousands of times the speed of light. This is Allan Guth's "Inflation". Matter/Light could keep pace with the inflation of space-time only as long as its temperature was several exponential decades of degrees Kelvin. As soon as Matter/Light began to condense and the fundamental forces began to differentiate, the inflation era ended. The collapse of the infinite density hyperbolic field began. The hyperbolic field has been collapsing by means of a time-dependent process ever since. It is this ongoing transition from a hyperbolic black hole gravitational field to a parabolic Newtonian gravitational field underlying the global universe that is being mistaken for acceleration and Dark Energy.


This is not speculation. This is not my personal idea. This is but one example of a different logical meaning of Allan Guth's inflation theory and General Relativity according to Schwartzchild and many others. When guided by correct meta logic, mathematical physicists will be able to validate this or some other theoretical interpretation of GR, the Friedmann equations and the FLRW metric. Then, with the demise of Dark Energy and Dark Matter, the scientific method will be saved.


Cosmologists are always wrong, but never in doubt. - Lev Landau

Originally Posted by Gary Anthony Kent

In other words, Dark Energy and Dark Matter are subject to Occam's Razor as mere whiskers on the chin of astrophysics.

So how do you explain the gravitational lensing apparent in the Bullet Cluster, or Abell 1689 for instance, where the lensing of background galaxies shows there to be a lot more mass in those clusters than is apparent from their light sources? These recent observations are a tentative confirmation of dark matter.

Oh, and the "missing mass" applies to our observable universe, as well as the universe as a whole, under the assumption of the cosmological principle, so your solution there is misconceived.

Originally Posted by Gary Anthony Kent

They say that the data that the two groups got regarding the distances to supernovae type 1a and other bright extremely distant objects was not concordant at first. In order to make the two data sets conform, they admit that they had to apply an "adjustment". This artificial factor was used by both groups to bring the data of one set into alignment with the other so that a smooth plot could be made that included all the data points. The sense of this artiface alone is the sole "evidence" that they both cite for an accelerating rate of expansion of the universe. They might have applied the adjustment to the other data set in the opposite sense. Then, the universe expansion rate would have been seen as decelerating.

No. At different times, corrections have been applied in order to get the same zero-point for the data. That is, the data from the two sources has been interpreted so that they measure the same distances at the same amount. The acceleration of the universe shows up in a relative measure of distance, not an absolute one, so this result is insensitive to a choice of zero-point. In both data sets, the more distant galaxies are retreating at a greater rate and no massaging can reasonably applied to show otherwise.

My theory explains this. leave me some questions

PhysBang: I am merely reporting what they said in their papers. See LONETREE* PICTURES* &* NEW* COSMOS with MOND for references. They applied a fudge factor. The fudge factor alone was used as "evidence" of acceleration. This "evidence" it is said, must be due to "Dark Energy". The main point is not that there are ways to quibble with the details that have been reported, but that there are more parsimonious ways to deal with any perceived "acceleration". The Scientific Method must not be sacrificed in order to save any particular model, no matter how attractive such model may seem.

The fact that there must have been an hyperbolic gravitational field during Guth's "inflaton" era and that it must still be collapsing or transitioning to a parabolic Newtonian field is not being recognized. That there must be hyperbolic fields surrounding supermassive black holes in galaxies is also being ignored. These phenomena are real. They are facts as real as GR itself. But, they are not being taken into account in any way. The reason, I suspect, is that they are mundane details that are really such old ideas that they are not news anymore. Only exciting NEW news gets funded. Weird science gets dollars. But, weird science is getting a reputation for being pseudoscience. Careful!

There it is again. That logical inconsistency that keeps popping up. If more distant galaxies are receding at a greater rate, then less distant galaxies (closer to us in time and in space) are receding at a lesser rate. That is, the expansion rate must be slowing down, decelerating, not accelerating. This is plain English. But it is being interpreted in a deliberately backward fashion in order to preserve pet preconceptions.

Yes, the data is being INTERPRETED. This another of my main points. It is not necessary to interpret the data in the way that it has been. In fact, other interpretations of the equations of general relativity result in models other than the FLRW metric and the Friedmann equations. Some of these still "predict" Dark Energy. Other perfectly reasonable models do not. No mention of these alternatives are ever given in the media. There is serious doubt of the competence of science "journalists" and especially of science "editors".

The only model that is being allowed is the Lambda/cold-dark-matter model according to the FLRW metric and the Friedmann equations. ALL the data must be interpreted. It is interpreted using the very model that is to be verified and validated. This is not just retrodiction. It is phony circular reasoning that any high school geometry teacher who likes to mention Euclid will consider a joke. After he finishes weeping.

Also see the thread "MOND", Prelude to "Critique of the Universe, Introduction"

SpeedFreek: I thought the answer to this would be apparent on its face. The very same distortion of a galaxy's or galactic cluster's gravitational field that would result from the hypothetical postulate of Dark Matter will also result from the relativistic fact of an hyperbolic gravitational field.

Reading backwards is apparently a dyslexia epidemic. I said that the "missing mass" is based on our little telescopes' measurements of our local universe. The global universe must be 22.2 times as large based on CMB measurements and calculations that do not depend on a model, but on statistics and straightforward geometry.

By the way, the cosmological principle is itself subject to doubt. Search "George Ellis". See the discussion at LONETREE* PICTURES* &* NEW* COSMOS with MOND .

Also see the thread "MOND", Prelude to "Critique of the Universe, Introduction" .

Brandon: No theories are required. GR is the theory. If you suppose that yours may displace it, you are dreaming.

Originally Posted by Gary Anthony Kent

PhysBang: I am merely reporting what they said in their papers. See LONETREE* PICTURES* &* NEW* COSMOS with MOND for references. They applied a fudge factor. The fudge factor alone was used as "evidence" of acceleration.

Well, now I know that you are a liar or you have really serious reading comprehension problems. I am very familiar with the relevant papers and you are grossly wrong.

Originally Posted by Gary Anthony Kent

There it is again. That logical inconsistency that keeps popping up. If more distant galaxies are receding at a greater rate, then less distant galaxies (closer to us in time and in space) are receding at a lesser rate. That is, the expansion rate must be slowing down, decelerating, not accelerating. This is plain English. But it is being interpreted in a deliberately backward fashion in order to preserve pet preconceptions.

Am I understanding you correctly? Are you saying that the fact that we see closer galaxies receding at a lower speed than more distant galaxies is evidence that the expansion is slowing down? I hope not, because this is a huge misconception. Please clarify.

Originally Posted by Gary Anthony Kent

PhysBang: I am merely reporting what they said in their papers. See LONETREE* PICTURES* &* NEW* COSMOS with MOND for references.

Please be aware that using this link as the basis to your posts is questionable at best. And I am pretty sure that it violates the forum policy of advertising political and religious opinions. Come up with true references like peer reviewed articles.

Originally Posted by SpeedFreek

Originally Posted by Gary Anthony Kent

In other words, Dark Energy and Dark Matter are subject to Occam's Razor as mere whiskers on the chin of astrophysics.

So how do you explain the gravitational lensing apparent in the Bullet Cluster, or Abell 1689 for instance, where the lensing of background galaxies shows there to be a lot more mass in those clusters than is apparent from their light sources? These recent observations are a tentative confirmation of dark matter.

Oh, and the "missing mass" applies to our observable universe, as well as the universe as a whole, under the assumption of the cosmological principle, so your solution there is misconceived.

In addition, the telling feature of the Bullet Cluster is that the gravitational lensing of this additional mass is offset from the visible structures. This is exactly what you would expect from the DM model where the visible matter would have been slowed by the collision while the DM continues on unabated, causing a separation of the two.

Originally Posted by Dishmaster

Originally Posted by Gary Anthony Kent

There it is again. That logical inconsistency that keeps popping up. If more distant galaxies are receding at a greater rate, then less distant galaxies (closer to us in time and in space) are receding at a lesser rate. That is, the expansion rate must be slowing down, decelerating, not accelerating. This is plain English. But it is being interpreted in a deliberately backward fashion in order to preserve pet preconceptions.

Am I understanding you correctly? Are you saying that the fact that we see closer galaxies receding at a lower speed than more distant galaxies is evidence that the expansion is slowing down? I hope not, because this is a huge misconception. Please clarify.

Egad!

There must be something that doctors can prescribe for comprehensional dyslexia.

The RATE of expansion must be slowing down for this to be true. Therefore, the expansion RATE of the universe is currently DECELERATING.

Being wed to Dark Energy must be like being married to a whore. I will not reiterate.

Originally Posted by PhysBang

Originally Posted by Gary Anthony Kent

PhysBang: I am merely reporting what they said in their papers. See LONETREE* PICTURES* &* NEW* COSMOS with MOND for references. They applied a fudge factor. The fudge factor alone was used as "evidence" of acceleration.

Well, now I know that you are a liar or you have really serious reading comprehension problems. I am very familiar with the relevant papers and you are grossly wrong.

Read the papers by Perlmutter and Riess given in my LoneTree Pictures website.

Your reply is noted as an inappropriate personal attack.

Originally Posted by Gary Anthony Kent

Read the papers by Perlmutter and Riess given in my LoneTree Pictures website. Your reply is noted as an inappropriate personal attack.

My attack on your person is entirely warranted. I am quite familiar with almost all of Perlmutter's and Riess' papers on this subject. Your comments, along with the abysmal design of your website, are signs that you don't understand this subject and you have latched onto the subject as part of your own personal mental problems. It is important for others to realize that those who are familiar with this subject feel that your position on this subject is entirely wrong.

Originally Posted by PhysBang

Originally Posted by Gary Anthony Kent

Read the papers by Perlmutter and Riess given in my LoneTree Pictures website. Your reply is noted as an inappropriate personal attack.

My attack on your person is entirely warranted. I am quite familiar with almost all of Perlmutter's and Riess' papers on this subject. Your comments, along with the abysmal design of your website, are signs that you don't understand this subject and you have latched onto the subject as part of your own personal mental problems. It is important for others to realize that those who are familiar with this subject feel that your position on this subject is entirely wrong.

Reported. Be advised.

Originally Posted by PhysBang

Originally Posted by Gary Anthony Kent

Read the papers by Perlmutter and Riess given in my LoneTree Pictures website. Your reply is noted as an inappropriate personal attack.

My attack on your person is entirely warranted. I am quite familiar with almost all of Perlmutter's and Riess' papers on this subject. Your comments, along with the abysmal design of your website, are signs that you don't understand this subject and you have latched onto the subject as part of your own personal mental problems. It is important for others to realize that those who are familiar with this subject feel that your position on this subject is entirely wrong.

It's from a Microsoft FrontPage 2003 website template. Tell Microsoft. Bill Gates wants to hear. Wait. "Almost"?

Gary until you started calling people dyslexia epidemics etc., this thread was pretty civil. Than you upped the rhetoric again with "comprehensional dyslexia."
You and Phsbang are both out of line.

I'm giving each of you the rest of the weekend to learn the difference between personal attacks and challenging ideas, after which time I hope this tread can return to a more civil discourse.

Lynx

Originally Posted by Gary Anthony Kent

Originally Posted by Dishmaster

Originally Posted by Gary Anthony Kent

There it is again. That logical inconsistency that keeps popping up. If more distant galaxies are receding at a greater rate, then less distant galaxies (closer to us in time and in space) are receding at a lesser rate. That is, the expansion rate must be slowing down, decelerating, not accelerating. This is plain English. But it is being interpreted in a deliberately backward fashion in order to preserve pet preconceptions.

Am I understanding you correctly? Are you saying that the fact that we see closer galaxies receding at a lower speed than more distant galaxies is evidence that the expansion is slowing down? I hope not, because this is a huge misconception. Please clarify.

Egad!

There must be something that doctors can prescribe for comprehensional dyslexia.

The RATE of expansion must be slowing down for this to be true. Therefore, the expansion RATE of the universe is currently DECELERATING.

Being wed to Dark Energy must be like being married to a whore. I will not reiterate.

You will find, if you study he nature of metric expansion, that recession rate always increases with distance, whether the expansion is accelerating, decelerating, or constant. It would pay you to study up on an expanding metric.

The distance between things is thought to be increasing at the same rate, at any given time, but that rate can change, over time.

So imagine, for instance, that the distance between things scaled up at the same rate, across the universe. If one measure of distance doubles in size, so will another double in size. The whole thing is expanding. It takes the same time for something 1 billion light-years away to become 2 billion ly away, as it does for something 10 billon ly away to become 20 billion ly away. The whole universe scales up at the same rate - but the further away something is, the faster it has receded - a galaxy 1 billion ly away receded by 1 billion ly in the same time as a galaxy 10 billion ly away receded by 10 billion ly!

If what was 1 billion ly has doubled to become 2 billion ly, then that will be true for all distances. 1,2,3,4,5 becomes 2,4,6,8,10.

That is the nature of metric expansion and it holds true whatever the rate of expansion does over time, as long as it is always the same across the universe at any given time. So, the observation that the further away something is, the faster it recedes, only means we are dealing with an expanding metric, and has no bearing on how the rate of expansion has changed.

You are using a misconception about the theory to question the theory.

Originally Posted by SpeedFreek

Originally Posted by Gary Anthony Kent

Originally Posted by Dishmaster

Originally Posted by Gary Anthony Kent

There it is again. That logical inconsistency that keeps popping up. If more distant galaxies are receding at a greater rate, then less distant galaxies (closer to us in time and in space) are receding at a lesser rate. That is, the expansion rate must be slowing down, decelerating, not accelerating. This is plain English. But it is being interpreted in a deliberately backward fashion in order to preserve pet preconceptions.

Am I understanding you correctly? Are you saying that the fact that we see closer galaxies receding at a lower speed than more distant galaxies is evidence that the expansion is slowing down? I hope not, because this is a huge misconception. Please clarify.

Egad!

There must be something that doctors can prescribe for comprehensional dyslexia.

The RATE of expansion must be slowing down for this to be true. Therefore, the expansion RATE of the universe is currently DECELERATING.

Being wed to Dark Energy must be like being married to a whore. I will not reiterate.

You will find, if you study he nature of metric expansion, that recession rate always increases with distance, whether the expansion is accelerating, decelerating, or constant. It would pay you to study up on an expanding metric.

The distance between things is thought to be increasing at the same rate, at any given time, but that rate can change, over time.

So imagine, for instance, that the distance between things scaled up at the same rate, across the universe. If one measure of distance doubles in size, so will another double in size. The whole thing is expanding. It takes the same time for something 1 billion light-years away to become 2 billion ly away, as it does for something 10 billon ly away to become 20 billion ly away. The whole universe scales up at the same rate - but the further away something is, the faster it has receded - a galaxy 1 billion ly away receded by 1 billion ly in the same time as a galaxy 10 billion ly away receded by 10 billion ly!

If what was 1 billion ly has doubled to become 2 billion ly, then that will be true for all distances. 1,2,3,4,5 becomes 2,4,6,8,10.

That is the nature of metric expansion and it holds true whatever the rate of expansion does over time, as long as it is always the same across the universe at any given time. So, the observation that the further away something is, the faster it recedes, only means we are dealing with an expanding metric, and has no bearing on how the rate of expansion has changed.

You are using a misconception about the theory to question the theory.

Not the recession RATE. The absolute recession VELOCITY. Hubble himself referred to it as a velocity, by the way. Not a "speed". I am not so "full of it" as you imply. And, it is not details that I wish we would focus upon, but the "gist'. We can get trapped in endless debate about every single point and about every definition of every single word. Where does it stop, once we get started?

It is you who said "The RATE of expansion must be slowing down for this to be true. Therefore, the expansion RATE of the universe is currently DECELERATING.". Your statement is incorrect.

With a constant expansion rate, recession velocity increases with distance.

With a decelerating expansion rate, recession velocity increases with distance.

With an accelerating expansion rate, recession velocity increases with distance.

You need to understand the difference between a recession velocity, and the rate of expansion that would cause that recession velocity.

Whatever, your statement above is incorrect.

Originally Posted by Gary Anthony Kent

Not the recession RATE. The absolute recession VELOCITY. Hubble himself referred to it as a velocity, by the way. Not a "speed". I am not so "full of it" as you imply. And, it is not details that I wish we would focus upon, but the "gist'. We can get trapped in endless debate about every single point and about every definition of every single word. Where does it stop, once we get started?

The recession velocity due to expansion certainly increases with distance. This is true for any point in the universe. Such a phenomenon does not tell you anything about, whether the expansion is accelerating. The only thing that Hubble found was that the recession velocity increases with distance. This was and is still regarded as evidence for the expansion of the universe. Not more. The rate of expansion, i.e. the change of expansion with time, is a different thing. For this, one must measure the evolution of the Hubble parameter (it is not a constant) with time.

There is a bend in time and space around matter which sits in space. That means our earth, sun, and other planets around us create a bend in light (however so slight or large) which acts as a sort of glass bowl - it's possible the universe is neither colliding or expanding, however we see it. This would explain why something closer to us would look like it's moving less rapidly than something much further away as the effect on the light from the object further away would be greater. At such distances any distortion especially of movement is magnified greatly.

Originally Posted by Gary Anthony Kent

The following comments are not speculative. The following comments are not my own personal opinion. They do not constitute my own original research...... In other words, Dark Energy and Dark Matter are subject to Occam's Razor as mere whiskers on the chin of astrophysics. It should be pointed out that there have been many monumental scams in science before. Piltdown Man and Cold Fusion come to mind. Remember, many reputable scientists fell for these frauds completely for long periods of time. Clearly, we must be wary of any kind of massive pseudoscience which may still be going on today!

Any theory that can not generate formulas independent of observations is not a solid theory , the Quantum é Relativity ones comes first to mind not being able to explain the E=mcé2 for starters , never mind gravity .You may try the UPN in the Timmid attempt thread and see if you can extract the formulas .

Originally Posted by SpeedFreek

It is you who said "The RATE of expansion must be slowing down for this to be true. Therefore, the expansion RATE of the universe is currently DECELERATING.". Your statement is incorrect.

With a constant expansion rate, recession velocity increases with distance.

With a decelerating expansion rate, recession velocity increases with distance.

With an accelerating expansion rate, recession velocity increases with distance.

You need to understand the difference between a recession velocity, and the rate of expansion that would cause that recession velocity.

Whatever, your statement above is incorrect.

Your statement is almost exactly what I just said! And, what I meant. Absolute recession velocity does not depend on the expansion rate acceleration or deceleration, but on the rate itself, whatever it may be, prorated over time as it may be, so to speak.

I give up completely!

That is not almost exactly what you said, hence my correcting you. You said:

Originally Posted by Gary Anthony Kent

There it is again. That logical inconsistency that keeps popping up. If more distant galaxies are receding at a greater rate, then less distant galaxies (closer to us in time and in space) are receding at a lesser rate. That is, the expansion rate must be slowing down, decelerating, not accelerating. This is plain English. But it is being interpreted in a deliberately backward fashion in order to preserve pet preconceptions.

Which is incorrect. Sorry.

But don't give up!

Also, there is no such thing as "absolute" recession velocity.

Originally Posted by SpeedFreekSo how do you explain the gravitational lensing apparent in the Bullet Cluster, or Abell 1689 for instance, where the lensing of background galaxies shows there to be [B

a lot more mass[/B] in those clusters than is apparent from their light sources? These recent observations are a tentative confirmation of dark matter.

In a universe where DM is supposed to be endemic as in six times as much as light matter, the fact that you can only point to just two clusters in the belief that they back up your idea makes it look like you deliberately ignored the untold trillions of clusters which don't back up your idea.

Also, there is no such thing as "absolute" recession velocity.

Does not something moving away from us (combined speeds) at light speed fit that criteria, since any faster and we cannot see it?

Originally Posted by Reprise

There is a bend in time and space around matter which sits in space. That means our earth, sun, and other planets around us create a bend in light (however so slight or large) which acts as a sort of glass bowl - it's possible the universe is neither colliding or expanding, however we see it. This would explain why something closer to us would look like it's moving less rapidly than something much further away as the effect on the light from the object further away would be greater. At such distances any distortion especially of movement is magnified greatly.

When light is "bent" when travelling past something very massive, it just means that it moves in a slightly different direction. Still the same light though.

In gravitational lensing of very distant objects, we can sometimes see several versions of one galaxy, none where the original is, as light has been "bent" while passing a dense object between us and it.

In some cases it does produced a magnified image of very distant objects in a similar way to the way a magnifying glass spreads light and makes an object look larger.

Originally Posted by Dishmaster

The recession velocity due to expansion certainly increases with distance.

To put it a little more accurately, the redshift increases with distance and this is interpreted as recession, as in a train whistle going past us.

Originally Posted by Cyberia

In a universe where DM is supposed to be endemic as in six times as much as light matter, the fact that you can only point to just two clusters in the belief that they back up your idea makes it look like you deliberately ignored the untold trillions of clusters which don't back up your idea.

Pretty much every cluster supports the idea of dark matter. It is just that there are a couple of clusters that pose incredible difficulties for alternatives to dark matter but fit dark matter very well. These clusters have rare histories that make them good examples. To attempt to discredit these examples without knowing the details makes it look like you deliberately try to avoid the evidence.

PhysBang. Dark matter is just a silly idea made up to save thinking of something rational. The Bullet Cluster is always mentioned because it is one of the very few examples that fit in with the idea.

IF, and it is if, the redshift is to be believed, then stars in our galaxy are moving too fast to stay inside it. Instead of looking for a rational explanation, they decided there must be some magical material holding it together, something which though it outmasses light matter by six times, there is no actual evidence for other than this silly idea.

Dark matter started off with various nonsensical properties as in it is 9,000.C and never cools down and cannot be detected by heat. It always moves at a fantastic speed and never slows down. It forms only very massive structures, maybe in the halo of a galaxy but no evidence again, etc.

Now it is just something that exerts gravity but strangely gravitational forces do not seem to affect it in that it has not been hoovered up by anything from the size of a moon upwards as they move around galaxies, and "galaxies move around the universe," and not forgetting those nasty SMBH's.

If DM forms a large structure and a black hole comes near it, think of putting a vacuum hose into a gas filled room. goodbye DM cluster, and then all of the other clusters nearby as they fall inwards to fill in the space, like a honeycomb collapsing in on itself.


Since we have no evidence for DM (DM and not unseen conventional material), it is more likely that the redshift are wrong, that they have a component not being taken into account.


Your double on a very religious planet far away: "As any fool knows, demons hold everything down so we do not fly off into space. To attempt to discredit this without knowing the details makes it look like you deliberately try to avoid the evidence."


Since a lot of maths is just moving numbers around, it would be possible to build up a provable system of mathematical equations to show that demons do hold everything in place and it is not that evil atheist idea about gravity.

So your excuse for not actually reading any scientific information is that you believe that mathematics can prove anything?

Originally Posted by Cyberia

Originally Posted by SpeedFreek

So how do you explain the gravitational lensing apparent in the Bullet Cluster, or Abell 1689 for instance, where the lensing of background galaxies shows there to be a lot more mass in those clusters than is apparent from their light sources? These recent observations are a tentative confirmation of dark matter.

In a universe where DM is supposed to be endemic as in six times as much as light matter, the fact that you can only point to just two clusters in the belief that they back up your idea makes it look like you deliberately ignored the untold trillions of clusters which don't back up your idea.

No, we take evidence from the clusters where, due to its magnitude, the effect is most easily measured, of course.