Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12
Results 31 to 59 of 59

Thread: The Universe Is Not Expanding! Our Measuring Stick Is Shrinking.

  1. #31
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Posts
    2,696
    Well, Summer, you see now the problems with shrinking rulers and/or matter. Occam's Razor rules here. Shrinkage requires way too many arbitrary constructs, and does not match the observations. The idea shows up in some form about twice a month on ATM. That's why you got such quick replies. Basically, it just doesn't work. But, nice try and well mannered.

    Thanks, regards, John M.
    I'm not a hardnosed mainstreamer; I just like the observations, theories, predictions, and results to match.

    "Mainstream isn’t a faith system. It is a verified body of work that must be taken into account if you wish to add to that body of work, or if you want to change the conclusions of that body of work." - korjik

  2. #32
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Posts
    4,362
    Quote Originally Posted by Summerwind View Post
    V= HD is Hubble law.
    Yes i know that, my point is that you're using it incorrectly.
    If a galaxy is at a distance of , at what distance will it be some time later?
    The answer is not as you have it, because the velocity is not constant over the path, the answer is .
    That gets even more complicated when you consider that is a function of (which itself changes over the path), and that's why we just use the scale factor component in the FLRW metric to model expansion. I would really recommend you take some time to learn the FLRW metric, as far as modelling expansion goes there just are no shortcuts.

    The current consensus seems to support an acceleration component in H or V.
    Surprising as it may be, dark energy (at least as a cosmological constant) actually implies a constant Hubble constant (in general the hubble constant is not an actual constant, it changes over time).

    I have not seen it but I believe Hubble law will be refined.
    Hubble's law need not be refined.

    I strive to do nothing more than a coordinate change at this time.
    {...}
    If the coordinate change is done properly, the whatever language will uncover things that the language of general relativity cannot.
    That is not correct, general relativity at its very heart is about coordinate-free thinking. Coordinate changes are done all the time. In the metaphor we're using here, general relativity is the actual physics irrespective of the language it is expressed in.

  3. #33
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    London
    Posts
    213
    I have been posting on other sites about this for a while, normaly under the title "Condensing universe" or most recently "Us shrinking or space expanding?"
    My main interest is what could cause our units of measurement to shrink.

    As we measure everthing using instruments made of matter, I have been consentrating on the possible phyics of atoms shrinking over time.
    To me it does look like you can get both the redshift and an affect that could slow the cooling of supernova, out of the basic equations.

  4. #34
    Quote Originally Posted by Shaula View Post
    No, it gives you exactly the same problem but phrased in different terms. Now you have to explain changes in rates of shrinkage, not changes in rates of expansion. It doesn't help at all. Instead of dark energy you have to explain dark ruler-not-shrinker.

    If your theory predicts nothing different from the current theory then it is not ATM. It is just mainstream expressed in a slightly clunkier interpretative framework. If you have a genuinely novel theory then it has to disagree with the predicitons of the mainstream in some way to allow it to be tested. In what ways does your theory disagree with the mainstream and what tests would show these differences?
    Here is one difference: dark energy works against gravity while the whatever equivalent energy in the shrinking ruler model works with gravity (or it might just be gravity, constrained by some forces.)

    I strive to do nothing more than a 'coordinate change' for THE FIRST BENCHMARK. If it is indeed viewed as mainstream, then I have met the milestone. But I do not think it is there yet and I appreciate readers for taking time to question and point our incorrect and unclear areas.

  5. #35
    Quote Originally Posted by caveman1917 View Post
    Yes i know that, my point is that you're using it incorrectly.
    If a galaxy is at a distance of , at what distance will it be some time later?
    The answer is not as you have it, because the velocity is not constant over the path, the answer is .
    That gets even more complicated when you consider that is a function of (which itself changes over the path), and that's why we just use the scale factor component in the FLRW metric to model expansion. I would really recommend you take some time to learn the FLRW metric, as far as modelling expansion goes there just are no shortcuts.
    Excellent. Your answer is in the form that I can relate. Do you discuss FLRW metric at some website? I like to visit.

    Quote Originally Posted by caveman1917 View Post
    That is not correct, general relativity at its very heart is about coordinate-free thinking. Coordinate changes are done all the time. In the metaphor we're using here, general relativity is the actual physics irrespective of the language it is expressed in.
    Let 's assume the nearly impossible: someone does coordinate change on the expanding universe model and correctly reframe it into the perfect shrinking rule model (not my first draft model but some ideal one). According to this impeccable model, the universe does not expand, atoms shrink. Then, I think quantum mechanics can tell us things about atoms that GR translates to cosmic events. In this example, GR is not the subject matter but is the communication means.

  6. #36
    Quote Originally Posted by John Mendenhall View Post
    Well, Summer, you see now the problems with shrinking rulers and/or matter. Occam's Razor rules here. Shrinkage requires way too many arbitrary constructs.
    Perhaps. As in expansion universe model, I can always lump constructs into 'constants' that are not constant and give unknowns names like 'dark energy'. (I write this factually and not sarcastically)

    Quote Originally Posted by John Mendenhall View Post
    The idea shows up in some form about twice a month on ATM.
    The gentleman at http://pantheory.org/Pages/index2.php said he came up with this shrinking concept 50 years ago and some version of the shrinking model has surfaced every 10 years or so. At this site, the idea got brought up twice a month so the universe must be accelerating in more ways than I have imagined

    Quote Originally Posted by John Mendenhall View Post
    nice try and well mannered.
    Thanks.

  7. #37
    Quote Originally Posted by PetTastic View Post
    I have been posting on other sites about this for a while, normaly under the title "Condensing universe" or most recently "Us shrinking or space expanding?"
    My main interest is what could cause our units of measurement to shrink.

    As we measure everthing using instruments made of matter, I have been consentrating on the possible phyics of atoms shrinking over time.
    To me it does look like you can get both the redshift and an affect that could slow the cooling of supernova, out of the basic equations.
    Thanks. I will google the titles.

  8. #38
    Quote Originally Posted by caveman1917 View Post
    Surprising as it may be, dark energy (at least as a cosmological constant) actually implies a constant Hubble constant (in general the hubble constant is not an actual constant, it changes over time).
    Does this mean dark energy helps to compute hubble constant at various time or it is there to defer explaining the unknown? Thanks.

  9. #39
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Posts
    4,362
    Quote Originally Posted by Summerwind View Post
    Does this mean dark energy helps to compute hubble constant at various time or it is there to defer explaining the unknown? Thanks.
    Neither, unless i'm misunderstanding the question. I was just saying that your statement that current consensus says there is an acceleration component in (which i interpreted as an increasing ) was incorrect, current consensus gives as a constant. It was before the discovery of dark energy that it was thought changes (it was decreasing). Strictly speaking it's still decreasing since not all of expansion due to dark energy, but as time goes on dark energy becomes dominant and if we approximate the universe as solely dark energy (ie de Sitter space), it is constant.

  10. #40
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Posts
    4,362
    Quote Originally Posted by Summerwind View Post
    Excellent. Your answer is in the form that I can relate. Do you discuss FLRW metric at some website? I like to visit.
    There's a decent article on wikipedia to get you started.

    Let 's assume the nearly impossible: someone does coordinate change on the expanding universe model and correctly reframe it into the perfect shrinking rule model (not my first draft model but some ideal one). According to this impeccable model, the universe does not expand, atoms shrink. Then, I think quantum mechanics can tell us things about atoms that GR translates to cosmic events. In this example, GR is not the subject matter but is the communication means.
    No, because if you decide to change to shrinking coordinates, you'll have to do it for everything else too. For example if you're having an electric charge orbiting another, their distance will weirdly change over time (due to your coordinate lengths shrinking), but the values of the electric field will also weirdly change over time (due to it not only being a function of r but also t, since r depends on t now), and in the end the entire thing remains just the same.

  11. #41
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Posts
    4,362
    Quote Originally Posted by Summerwind View Post
    Excellent. Your answer is in the form that I can relate. Do you discuss FLRW metric at some website? I like to visit.
    There's a decent article on wikipedia to get you started.

    Let 's assume the nearly impossible: someone does coordinate change on the expanding universe model and correctly reframe it into the perfect shrinking rule model (not my first draft model but some ideal one). According to this impeccable model, the universe does not expand, atoms shrink. Then, I think quantum mechanics can tell us things about atoms that GR translates to cosmic events. In this example, GR is not the subject matter but is the communication means.
    No, because if you decide to change to shrinking coordinates, you'll have to do it for everything else too. For example if you're having an electric charge orbiting another, their distance will weirdly change over time (due to your coordinate lengths shrinking), but the values of the electric field will also weirdly change over time (due to it not only being a function of r but also t, since r depends on t now), and in the end the entire thing remains just the same.

  12. #42
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Posts
    1,012
    Quote Originally Posted by caveman1917 View Post
    It was before the discovery of dark energy that it was thought changes (it was decreasing).
    Dark energy has never been “discovered”. It is an ad hoc explanation to make observations fit the theory.

  13. #43
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Posts
    1,012
    Quote Originally Posted by caveman1917 View Post
    No, because if you decide to change to shrinking coordinates, you'll have to do it for everything else too. For example if you're having an electric charge orbiting another, their distance will weirdly change over time (due to your coordinate lengths shrinking), but the values of the electric field will also weirdly change over time (due to it not only being a function of r but also t, since r depends on t now), and in the end the entire thing remains just the same.
    The proportions may remain the same in each reference frame but as we look back in time the change in coordinates should become apparent.
    The values of the electric field should increase with time if atoms grow smaller and we should see this increase reflected in a proportional shortening of wavelengths. Large, low energy atoms in the early universe emitted light in long wavelengths proportional to their size while 'now' smaller atoms emit light in shorter wavelengths. This makes older atoms appear redshifted relative to the present with no need for expansion as an explanation.

  14. #44
    Quote Originally Posted by Bob Angstrom View Post
    The proportions may remain the same in each reference frame but as we look back in time the change in coordinates should become apparent.
    The values of the electric field should increase with time if atoms grow smaller and we should see this increase reflected in a proportional shortening of wavelengths. Large, low energy atoms in the early universe emitted light in long wavelengths proportional to their size while 'now' smaller atoms emit light in shorter wavelengths. This makes older atoms appear redshifted relative to the present with no need for expansion as an explanation.
    You mentioned a few key words here. Assume the shrinkage is at atomic level, it is likely quantized (QM) and not continuous (GR). And, if we overlay redshift sets that we know to be free from red-shifting by peculiar motion and other types of interference, I wonder if the redshifts show some form of bundling to discrete lumps.

  15. #45
    Join Date
    Nov 2002
    Posts
    6,238
    Quote Originally Posted by Bob Angstrom View Post
    The proportions may remain the same in each reference frame but as we look back in time the change in coordinates should become apparent.
    The values of the electric field should increase with time if atoms grow smaller and we should see this increase reflected in a proportional shortening of wavelengths. Large, low energy atoms in the early universe emitted light in long wavelengths proportional to their size while 'now' smaller atoms emit light in shorter wavelengths. This makes older atoms appear redshifted relative to the present with no need for expansion as an explanation.
    Yeah, but it still causes a problem because of Oklo. If Oklo is a good measurement (and it doesn't even have to be as accurate as it is now), then forces were the same ~2 billion years ago. Which means a redshift of ~.15 can't mean larger atoms emitting longer wavelengths, it means that those atoms are emitting the same wavelength as today, hence, no shrinking. Unless, of course, it just so happens that the forces are changing in time with the shrinking.

  16. #46
    Quote Originally Posted by Tensor View Post
    Yeah, but it still causes a problem because of Oklo. If Oklo is a good measurement (and it doesn't even have to be as accurate as it is now), then forces were the same ~2 billion years ago. Which means a redshift of ~.15 can't mean larger atoms emitting longer wavelengths, it means that those atoms are emitting the same wavelength as today, hence, no shrinking. Unless, of course, it just so happens that the forces are changing in time with the shrinking.
    You obviously have seen people traveling down this road before. Your question seems to have issues left over from some previous attempts. I can venture an off the top of my head answer and please let me know if it is different than what you saw.

    Let us set and model the granularity of the ruler at the Bohr's electron orbit level. Big atoms have electrons at higher ‘n’ orbits. Shrinkage means dropping to a lower n orbit. No change to forces is necessary there (until atoms get to bohr radius), Uranium atoms decayed to the same products in the past as they are now. The products also have electrons at higher n orbits than they are now. I do not know how they get Oklo redshift but z = 0.15 means wavelength emitted then is longer than wavelength emitted now.

    If theoretical calculations of decay from atoms at higher orbit to products with electrons at higher orbit does result in longer wavelength, I will say “WOW” and take myself to lunch. If it does not, then the granularity should be somewhere else and your question regarding forces is very challenging.

  17. #47
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Posts
    1,012
    Quote Originally Posted by Summerwind View Post
    You mentioned a few key words here. Assume the shrinkage is at atomic level, it is likely quantized (QM) and not continuous (GR).
    I consider shrinkage at the atomic level to be quantized but the size of the atoms is determined by their spacetime environment (GR) just as is the length of a ruler. The size of the atoms and length of the ruler remain proportional but both are shrinking over time. I may be reading something into the Atlantic article that isn't there but I see an acceleration in the rate of time (clocks tick faster) to be indistinguishable from a shortening of length. The standard meter is defined as the distance light travels in roughly 1/300,000,00 sec. So, as our clocks tick faster, our ruler grows shorter as do all our other observations of length. You say shorter ruler and I think faster time. I see faster time as the cause for our ruler growing shorter but one could just as easily say shorter lengths are the cause for faster time. Atoms grow smaller and spin faster. Pendulums grow shorter etc.
    Is a mutual relationship between length and time consistent with your model or have I gone too far.
    Quote Originally Posted by Summerwind View Post
    And, if we overlay redshift sets that we know to be free from red-shifting by peculiar motion and other types of interference, I wonder if the redshifts show some form of bundling to discrete lumps.
    I see clumping or bundling as a tendency among particles but I don't see how that would apply to light.

  18. #48
    Bob Angstrom

    Please do not hi-jack another posters ATM Thread.

    If you have claims to make then start your own thread.

    I don't want to see any other posters to reply to this hi-jack
    Rules For Posting To This Board
    All Moderation in Purple

  19. #49
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Posts
    4,362
    Quote Originally Posted by Tensor View Post
    Unless, of course, it just so happens that the forces are changing in time with the shrinking.
    That indeed seems to be the gist of it. If one correctly changes everything to shrinking coordinates, so will the descriptions of the forces change, but that would be pretty meaningless even though there's nothing "wrong" with it per se. And since shrinking coordinates don't correspond to measureables, whenever you want to actually calculate predictions for experiments you'll have to change back to more usual coordinates, thus the entire thing is just a null-operation anyway.

    But if one is expecting different results that are in some way measureable, then one is not "just" changing coordinates.

  20. #50
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Posts
    4,362
    Quote Originally Posted by Summerwind View Post
    Let us set and model the granularity of the ruler at the Bohr's electron orbit level. Big atoms have electrons at higher ‘n’ orbits. Shrinkage means dropping to a lower n orbit. No change to forces is necessary there (until atoms get to bohr radius)
    (my bold)

    Do you mean that electrons that were in say n=2 are now in n=1, or just that the "size" of n1,n2,... "shrinks"?
    If the former you have quite different predictions. If the latter i'll point out that if you just let the sizes shrink (as in just a coordinate change), so does the size of your "granularity of the ruler".

    I'm having trouble following your chain of thoughts since on one hand you say you're just trying to do a coordinate change but on the other hand you seem to try to find predictions that differ from the current model. It's either one or the other, you can't have both.

  21. #51
    Quote Originally Posted by caveman1917 View Post
    (my bold)

    Do you mean that electrons that were in say n=2 are now in n=1, or just that the "size" of n1,n2,... "shrinks"?
    If the former you have quite different predictions. If the latter i'll point out that if you just let the sizes shrink (as in just a coordinate change), so does the size of your "granularity of the ruler".

    I'm having trouble following your chain of thoughts since on one hand you say you're just trying to do a coordinate change but on the other hand you seem to try to find predictions that differ from the current model. It's either one or the other, you can't have both.
    I like to respond to several previous posts.

    From GR I like to switch the description of the universe to the shrinking coordinates but size the smallest unit of the shrinking model just enough for QM to continue from there. It is like defining an interface between cosmology and 'small stuff' physics. The cosmology is described by GR and the 'small stuff' is described by another proven branch of science. If the 'small stuff' is atom then QM is the tool. If an interface is possible, when GR in cosmology pulls a string at the interface, QM pulls something in the atomic level. If the interface is done properly, when something of consequence happens in the atomic level, QM pushes buttons at the interface and GR tells us what happens to the bigger universe.

    Expansion model has the 'space time fabric' that stitches everything together and allows the universe to expand into something. It is a nice concept but I do not see it as part of the science toolbox. In switching coordinates, I do not want to carry that concept to the other extreme and define a 'space time fine particle fabric' that allows things to shrink without reworking atomic and sub-atomic forces. Bob Angstrom wrote about atom, which seemed to be a good starting point so I placed the interface there to see what could be verified and predicted. I like to thank Bob for beaming his flashlight in that direction.

    Taking atom as the level of interface means atom is the unit of measurement in three dimensional space; time is treated separately. To verify the validity of the interface, I hypothesize each time the universe clumps, electrons jump from a higher orbit to a smaller orbit. i.e. n=101 to n=100. The overall size of the universe remains the same but is denser in places. Since the jump is quantized, atoms do not get a tiny bit smaller but a quantized size smaller. As wavelength is related to size of atoms, wavelength reductions, and consequently redshifts, also get quantized. By overlaying sets of redshifts we (meaning ones with data) can verify if redshifts seem to bunch at discrete positions and give a hint that atomic level is the appropriate interfacing level.

  22. #52
    Join Date
    Nov 2002
    Posts
    6,238
    Quote Originally Posted by Summerwind View Post
    You obviously have seen people traveling down this road before.
    Heheheheh, quite a few times.

    Quote Originally Posted by Summerwind View Post
    Your question seems to have issues left over from some previous attempts. I can venture an off the top of my head answer and please let me know if it is different than what you saw.
    No, it's pretty much the same. Shrinking universe works within coordinate swaps in GR. However, you can't use GR with Quantum Field Theory (QFT), except in extremely specialized circumstances. Combining GR with QFT is one of, if not the unsolved problem in Physics today.

    Quote Originally Posted by Summerwind View Post
    Let us set and model the granularity of the ruler at the Bohr's electron orbit level. Big atoms have electrons at higher ‘n’ orbits. Shrinkage means dropping to a lower n orbit.
    No, it doesn't. You're confusing jumps (or electrons changing orbitals) with the location of the orbitals. Those lower orbitals are completely filled, and electrons can't drop into a lower orbital if the lower orbital is filled. Unless you are changing the orbitals of atoms, to allow more electrons in each shell, or coming up with completely new locates for the shells, shrinking means the orbitals get closer to the nucleus. If, in the past, the orbitals were farther away, and they would be if they have shrunk to the current size, it would take more energy, in the past, to get the electrons to jump to the next level. When the electron jumped to a lower level, it would give up more energy. More energy would appear as a bigger frequency or shorter wavelength. The opposite of the redshift. However, there is a way...

    Quote Originally Posted by Summerwind View Post
    No change to forces is necessary there (until atoms get to bohr radius), Uranium atoms decayed to the same products in the past as they are now.
    Shrinking the orbitals and keeping the same energy for jumps would require changing the forces. Electrons in the outer orbits react to the repulsion of the inner electrons(there is a decrease in the force the outer electrons feel due to the repulsion of the inner electrons). If the orbital are farther away in the past, the electron force (the Z number) has to be stronger to get the same result .

    Quote Originally Posted by Summerwind View Post
    The products also have electrons at higher n orbits than they are now.
    Yep, farther away, equals a larger Z number on the electrons to get the same result. This is, of course, dependent on changing forces.

    Quote Originally Posted by Summerwind View Post
    I do not know how they get Oklo redshift but
    Oklo had been dated by radiometric dating at ~2 billion years ago (well 1.86 billion if you want to be more accurate). A redshift of 0.15 would equate to a lookback time of ~2 billion years ago using the ΛCDM model. Which is why I asked about how you calculate lookback time in your model. If you propose to get rid of dark energy, then while the redshift stays the same in your model, the lookback time of 2 billion year will differ from the ΛCDM model.

    Quote Originally Posted by Summerwind View Post
    z = 0.15 means wavelength emitted then is longer than wavelength emitted now.
    Under the current model, it equates to recession velocity of around 42,000 kps. Rulers have to be shrinking by how much to equal this?

    Quote Originally Posted by Summerwind View Post
    If theoretical calculations of decay from atoms at higher orbit to products with electrons at higher orbit does result in longer wavelength, I will say “WOW” and take myself to lunch. If it does not, then the granularity should be somewhere else and your question regarding forces is very challenging.
    You should see that it is challenging. However, you should take yourself out for lunch. It's been a very enjoyable back and forth with you. Unusual for ATM.

  23. #53
    Join Date
    Nov 2002
    Posts
    6,238
    Quote Originally Posted by Summerwind View Post
    I like to respond to several previous posts.

    From GR I like to switch the description of the universe to the shrinking coordinates but size the smallest unit of the shrinking model just enough for QM to continue from there. It is like defining an interface between cosmology and 'small stuff' physics.
    There actually isn't an interface between the two. Only the point where the two fail. At lengths smaller than 10-35m, gravitational effects become important and General Relativity needs to use some QFT, and the two don't play well with each other.

    Quote Originally Posted by Summerwind View Post
    The cosmology is described by GR and the 'small stuff' is described by another proven branch of science. If the 'small stuff' is atom then QM is the tool. If an interface is possible, when GR in cosmology pulls a string at the interface, QM pulls something in the atomic level. If the interface is done properly, when something of consequence happens in the atomic level, QM pushes buttons at the interface and GR tells us what happens to the bigger universe.
    Yeah, it's not going to be quite that simple. And how does having that interface explain things like the changes in supernova brightness, dark matter, the CMB and Nucleosynthesis?

    Quote Originally Posted by Summerwind View Post
    Expansion model has the 'space time fabric' that stitches everything together and allows the universe to expand into something.
    It doesn't stitch everything together. QFT can't use GR as it's background (spacetime), it can only use SR, at present, except in some specific cases.

    Quote Originally Posted by Summerwind View Post
    It is a nice concept but I do not see it as part of the science toolbox. In switching coordinates, I do not want to carry that concept to the other extreme and define a 'space time fine particle fabric' that allows things to shrink without reworking atomic and sub-atomic forces. Bob Angstrom wrote about atom, which seemed to be a good starting point so I placed the interface there to see what could be verified and predicted. I like to thank Bob for beaming his flashlight in that direction.
    Yeah, if Bob decides to start his own thread, I might feel like pointing out where he explanation doesn't work.

    Quote Originally Posted by Summerwind View Post
    Taking atom as the level of interface means atom is the unit of measurement in three dimensional space; time is treated separately.
    You do realize that Quantum Field Theory(QFT) fully incorporates Special Relativity, which does not treat time separately. If you're going to go this route, you're going to have to reformulate QFT completely.

    Quote Originally Posted by Summerwind View Post
    To verify the validity of the interface, I hypothesize each time the universe clumps, electrons jump from a higher orbit to a smaller orbit. i.e. n=101 to n=100.
    You should take a good look at an introduction to orbitals if you plan on discussing orbitals and electron jumps.

    Quote Originally Posted by Summerwind View Post
    The overall size of the universe remains the same but is denser in places. Since the jump is quantized, atoms do not get a tiny bit smaller but a quantized size smaller. As wavelength is related to size of atoms, wavelength reductions, and consequently redshifts, also get quantized.
    Hold on, wavelength is related to the size of the orbitals, not the size of the atom, per se.

    Quote Originally Posted by Summerwind View Post
    By overlaying sets of redshifts we (meaning ones with data) can verify if redshifts seem to bunch at discrete positions and give a hint that atomic level is the appropriate interfacing level.
    There have been several reports of quantized redshifts. I won't bother with the earlier ones due to the limited number and distance of the objects used in the earlier studies. Here is a study that reviews some of the earlier studies, including some of the problems with those studies. This paper uses the third release of the Sloan Digital Sky Survey (SDSS) and uses 46,000 quasars and find periodicities. However, they admit it may be due to selection effects, but don't actually determine whether this could be the reason. Another paper uses the fourth edition of the SDSS with over 70,000 entries and they note that previous selection effects (this is in reference to the paper using the third edition) disappear if those selection effects are taken into account (something the previous authors didn't do). So the basic answer to your sorta, kinda question, is that, no, there isn't any quantification of redshift. But then, their shouldn't be from your model of the orbitals.

  24. #54
    Join Date
    Nov 2002
    Posts
    6,238
    Quote Originally Posted by caveman1917 View Post
    That indeed seems to be the gist of it. If one correctly changes everything to shrinking coordinates, so will the descriptions of the forces change, but that would be pretty meaningless even though there's nothing "wrong" with it per se. And since shrinking coordinates don't correspond to measureables, whenever you want to actually calculate predictions for experiments you'll have to change back to more usual coordinates, thus the entire thing is just a null-operation anyway.

    But if one is expecting different results that are in some way measureable, then one is not "just" changing coordinates.
    Yeah, that's why I keep hammering on alpha.

  25. #55
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    a long way away
    Posts
    8,522
    Quote Originally Posted by caveman1917 View Post
    But if one is expecting different results that are in some way measureable, then one is not "just" changing coordinates.
    And, conversely, if one is predicting different results, then it must also be possible transform back to the "normal" (expanding) coordinate system and predict the same thing.

  26. #56
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Posts
    1,012
    Quote Originally Posted by Strange View Post
    And, conversely, if one is predicting different results, then it must also be possible transform back to the "normal" (expanding) coordinate system and predict the same thing.
    I agree with you and "caveman" and I think Sahula may have said the same that switching from expansion to contraction coordinates shouldn't make a hoot of difference to our observations or measurements. This much agreement can't last.

    The apparent advantage of expansion theory is that it is intuitively simple. The Big Bang was the 'Mother of All' explosions. But those more familiar with the theory caution us our intuition is misleading. The BB was not a 3-D explosion scattering ejecta into pre-existing space. It was 4-D space itself expanding from within and there is no objective center of expansion and no motion outward towards an identifiable edge. This is a subtle but important distinction between every-day expansion cosmological expansion that is hard to get one's head around because an expanding 4-D space is beyond human experience. Expansion theory loses its intuitive simplicity at this point and, once established, it is hard to get the explosion analogy out of one's head.

    The Atlantic Daily article mentioned one advantage of the contracting “clumping” model. The clumping model needs no dark energy to explain accelerated expansion. Material contraction works with gravity so acceleration is to be expected of a gravitational collapse. Accelerated contraction produces the illusion of an accelerated expansion and it takes no energy to accelerate an illusion. On the other hand, the expansion model requires an influx of dark energy to explain accelerated expansion so here we have a dilemma. It would take some length to explain so I'll skip the explanation, but I think the contraction model illustrates why neither model should require dark energy. The expansion model only needs dark energy because those doing the calculations are still laboring under the old notion of expansion as some kind of an explosion and they fail to realize the fine distinction between an explosion into space and space expanding from within.

    Having two equivalent models allows us to look at phenomenon from more than a single point of view and that gives us perspective. We can be more confident of our conclusions when both models agree and things that may seem difficult to comprehend in one model may seem simple in the other so two models are better than one. It is not a matter of one being right and the other wrong.

  27. #57
    Posting the first draft of the shrinking ruler model here has accomplished more than I expected. I appreciate your comments. It is time for me to review my path and revise my model with what I have learned. I might be back to this forum but not to this thread for another round and I hope you will be there with your insights. Again, thank you and I wish you the bests.

  28. #58
    hmmm thats a shame.i quite enjoyed the read.
    but just for my pennies worth.
    imo through no knowledge at all,i say both are correct,expansion and contraction
    depending on your point of viewing.
    im interested to learn how/which direction/where, you look BACK in time for data.
    im assuming one looks "OUT" to the edge, the last star out so to speak ,but which way is that?

    when using "the man walking down the road" thingy,
    lets say the road is 100m and he is 60m down it
    is he returning or walking away from origin?

    forgive my small mind

    two models are for sure better than 1
    but they possibly are both 1 which will then give you 3 maybe

    the electron size possibly does change at some point maybe more than once.for it not to i have to except the nucli stays the same also.not sure if i can.
    orbits must change.

    but maybe not

  29. #59
    Join Date
    Oct 2001
    Location
    Clear Lake City, TX
    Posts
    9,042
    Quote Originally Posted by Summerwind View Post
    Posting the first draft of the shrinking ruler model here has accomplished more than I expected. I appreciate your comments. It is time for me to review my path and revise my model with what I have learned. I might be back to this forum but not to this thread for another round and I hope you will be there with your insights. Again, thank you and I wish you the bests.
    Missed this.

    As the OP has decided to end the discussion, this thread is closed.
    Never attribute to malice that which can be adequately explained by ignorance or stupidity.
    Isaac Asimov

    Moderation will be in purple.
    Rules for Posting to This Board

Similar Threads

  1. Replies: 14
    Last Post: 2012-Jan-09, 08:57 PM
  2. Universe expanding, or are we shrinking?
    By Aaron in forum Astronomy Cast
    Replies: 20
    Last Post: 2008-May-17, 04:01 PM
  3. Replies: 6
    Last Post: 2005-Nov-14, 07:35 PM
  4. The measuring stick astronomers use
    By seeker372011 in forum Space/Astronomy Questions and Answers
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: 2003-Oct-16, 09:17 AM
  5. Ever Shrinking Universe???
    By BruceHinton in forum Against the Mainstream
    Replies: 8
    Last Post: 2001-Nov-30, 07:05 PM

Tags for this Thread

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
here
The forum is sponsored in-part by: