Results 1 to 21 of 21

Thread: Space Doesn't Expand and New Proof of Hubble's Law

  1. #1

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

    Hello^^;
    I apologize for my poor English.

    Mainstream article for 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. 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.
    Scientist 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 pedantic 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 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]
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SRUqQM2FfNU


    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. 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.

    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.




    [LaTeX ERROR: Image too big 810x20, max 650x600]



    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.
    Last edited by icarus2; 2012-Mar-19 at 04:15 PM.

  2. #2

    Derivation of Hubble's law

    [ 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.













    [LaTeX ERROR: Image too big 720x22, max 650x600]
    -------------------------

    [ Relative Velocity ]
    [LaTeX ERROR: Image too big 690x22, max 650x600]


    [ Relative Distance ]
    [LaTeX ERROR: Image too big 830x22, max 650x600]


    1) When is zero.



    Therefore,


    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.






    Hubble's law is valid.


    3) When is big.



    [LaTeX ERROR: Image too big 830x22, max 650x600]

    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.
    Last edited by icarus2; 2012-Mar-17 at 05:49 PM.

  3. #3
    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) This means that 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.


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


    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.


    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 red shift deviation.

    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.

    9. If this model is true, all content containing Hubble's law, red shift, scale factor in astronomy and cosmology should be reviewed.

    Have a nice day!


    --- Icarus2

    Space Doesn't Expand and New Proof of Hubble's Law
    http://vixra.org/abs/1203.0044

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    a long way away
    Posts
    8,522
    Quote Originally Posted by icarus2 View Post
    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.
    Don't forget it was predicted by Einstein earlier.

    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.
    Don't forget that "space expands" is a poor analogy.

    A recent study put some other interpretation on the expansion of space.
    What recent study is that?

    If force does not exists, it is natural that any physical quantity has the same value, so "maintenance" is the most natural value.
    Wrong. That is an extremely unlikely value that would require a precise balancing of mass and energy density.

    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.
    The rate can be calculated based on the observed mass of the universe.

    [B]3.We have never observed the expansion of space.
    Of course we have. You started out with the evidence for expansion.

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

    Balloon analogy is just a pedantic metaphor, not a precise explanation.
    It is a very poor analogy (not pedantic and not a metaphor). And it certainly isn't intended to be a precise explanation. Do you think it is?

  5. #5
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Posts
    540
    For the record, this appears MUCH easier to follow than your post last month.

    It appears to me you are stating that your theory does not have expansion of space-time, but rather dispersive mass transfer from the initial Big Bang event.

    Thus Hubble's law is an actual Doppler shift caused by diffusion.

    Q1) Is this correct?

    Your derivation limits its scope to the classical limit. It would seem that this model would differ with the expansion model at distant locations, where the speeds become relativistic. In the diffusion model, , should depend on rapidity, , at distant quasars, where it appears to depend only on v.

    Q2) Is this an incorrect way to apply special relativity to your theory, or are objects near the Hubble horizon much farther away than we currently estimate them?

  6. #6
    Yes, the idea of expansion of space is nonsense which should never have taken hold - indeed I'm planning to start a thread in this forum about this myself.

    Yes, we would see the same if the big bang occurred at a central point rather than taking place everywhere.

    What you get wrong is the assumption that this idea will produce different results for large distances, and/or significant accelerations/decelerations. This just comes from approximations in your calculations.

    So expansion from a centre would look just the same as expansion 'everywhere'. This means that you can't find out where the centre really is. So people think of the universe looking the same everywhere rather than there being a mysterious edge which we can't see, but that is a matter of choice rather than physics.

    Hence getting rid of the idea of expansion of space isn't going to make any difference at all to cosmology (the idea isn't used in serious cosmological calculations anyway)

  7. #7
    Quantropy If you are thinking of starting your own thread then do so. Please do nothijack someone elses thread with your own ATM Ideas.

    Thank You
    Rules For Posting To This Board
    All Moderation in Purple

  8. #8
    Quote Originally Posted by Strange View Post
    Don't forget it was predicted by Einstein earlier.
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cosmological_constant
    ===========
    Einstein abandoned the concept after the observation of the Hubble redshift indicated that the universe might not be stationary, as he had based his theory on the idea that the universe is unchanging
    ===========

    Einstein believed stationary universe.

    Quote Originally Posted by Strange View Post
    What recent study is that?
    A diatribe on expanding space
    http://arxiv.org/abs/0809.4573

    The kinematic origin of the cosmological redshift
    http://arxiv.org/abs/0808.1081v2

    Others,
    "Expansion of the universe" and "expansion of space" isn't the same concept.

  9. #9
    Quote Originally Posted by utesfan100 View Post
    It appears to me you are stating that your theory does not have expansion of space-time, but rather dispersive mass transfer from the initial Big Bang event.

    Thus Hubble's law is an actual Doppler shift caused by diffusion.
    Q1) Is this correct?
    Yes!
    Quote Originally Posted by utesfan100 View Post
    Q2) Are objects near the Hubble horizon much farther away than we currently estimate them?
    Maybe, object close than we currently estimate them.

  10. #10
    Quote Originally Posted by quantropy View Post
    What you get wrong is the assumption that this idea will produce different results for large distances, and/or significant accelerations/decelerations. This just comes from approximations in your calculations.
    Thanks, I'm sorry. I can't English well.
    In my opinion,
    I disagree with your thought.

    In expansion of space,

    But, Doppler shift of light,

    Difference generated from the red shift eq.
    The two equations show similar results in close galaxies(within z=2, error <5%), but show difference in far galaxies.

    Quote Originally Posted by quantropy View Post
    So expansion from a centre would look just the same as expansion 'everywhere'. This means that you can't find out where the centre really is. So people think of the universe looking the same everywhere rather than there being a mysterious edge which we can't see, but that is a matter of choice rather than physics.

    Hence getting rid of the idea of expansion of space isn't going to make any difference at all to cosmology (the idea isn't used in serious cosmological calculations anyway)
    So expansion from a centre would look just the same as expansion 'everywhere'.
    ==> I agree it. Expansion was occurred at whole universe.
    But, I disagree with other sentence.

    We can define the center of the universe and find it.

    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 deviation of Hubble's law

  11. #11
    Quote Originally Posted by icarus2 View Post
    In expansion of space,

    But, Doppler shift of light,
    There is nothing to say these aren't simply different expressions for the same thing. In fact the second is the special relativistic version of redshift, and will only agree with the first in a universe without gravity or dark energy (known as the Milne universe), but if you add in effects of gravity or dark energy on redshift then I would think you can get it to agree with the first when these are present.

    But more generally, you need to be clear about what you are claiming. It is one thing to say that 'expansion of space' is a deceptive term which should be dropped. It's quite another to say that there is a centre to the universe and that we can find out where it is. In the latter case you are not pointing out a flaw in the existing model, you are proposing a new model of the universe which could be tested by experiment - comparing the redshift of galaxies in different parts of the sky. This means that you should be describing precisely what differences in redshift you would expect, and compare this with current observations

  12. #12
    Join Date
    Nov 2002
    Posts
    6,238
    Quote Originally Posted by icarus2 View Post
    Hello^^;

    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.
    As was pointed out earlier, a value wasn't chosen, it was observed.

    Quote Originally Posted by icarus2 View Post
    3.We have never observed the expansion of space.
    Define this please. I would say we have, we've seen galactic clusters moving apart.

    Quote Originally Posted by icarus2 View Post
    4.Expansion of the universe and expansion of space isn't the same concept.
    Agreed.

    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.
    Again, agreed.

    Quote Originally Posted by icarus2 View Post
    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.
    Well, I didn't see any data, in any of your posts, indicating that the Earth is at the center of the universe. If you want to use the current data, that data also proves that Hubble's Law is a natural result of a coordinate choice in general relativity with a horizon at a ~13.8 Billion Light years.

    Quote Originally Posted by icarus2 View Post
    II. Proof of Hubble's law through dynamics

    1. After inflation of early universe has almost finished, particles started to have some velocity.
    Hold on. Inflation is the exponential expansion of space in the early universe. If you accept expansion of space for inflation, why don't you accept it afterword? Otherwise, are you redefining inflation? If so, you should use a different term, it could be confusing.

    Quote Originally Posted by icarus2 View Post
    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.
    Why naturally? What specifically provides the higher velocity the further away?

    Quote Originally Posted by icarus2 View Post
    A. Big bang simulation in the zero energy 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.
    Again, why? Just because you assert this, doesn't mean it actually happens.

    Quote Originally Posted by icarus2 View Post
    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.
    So, something at the center would have no momentum? Which means it wouldn't spin when contracting, right?

    Quote Originally Posted by icarus2 View Post
    C. Velocity distribution when some kind of anti-gravitational source exists

    Snip...

    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.
    You made such a big deal out of claiming we have never seen the expansion of space (#3 above). Well, can you point out to us where exactly someone, somewhere, has observed a anti-gravitational source?

    Quote Originally Posted by icarus2 View Post
    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.
    Nope, you still haven't shown why exactly the velocity of an object further away should be faster than object near the center, except by asserting it. I don't see why something close to the center can't be going quite fast.


    Quote Originally Posted by icarus2 View Post
    2. Derivation of Hubble's law in space without expansion

    snip....

    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.
    You know, I didn't see any calculation showing in your posts. Where did this figure come from?

    Quote Originally Posted by icarus2 View Post
    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.
    You say that if (a)t is small... what is (a)t ? You don't define it anywhere in this post. Could you explain where you got it from and how you got it into your equations?

  13. #13
    Join Date
    Nov 2002
    Posts
    6,238
    Quote Originally Posted by icarus2 View Post
    [B][COLOR="#FF0000"]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.
    So, I'm thinking, from this comment, that you haven't actually compared your idea to the actual data, right?

    Quote Originally Posted by icarus2 View Post
    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 red shift deviation.
    So, I'm thinking, from this comment, that you haven't actually compared your idea to the actual data, right?

    Quote Originally Posted by icarus2 View Post
    8. The change of red shift eq. influences the "discovery that the universe accelerating expands." Therefore, there is necessity to review accelerating expansion.
    How does your idea explain the Type 1a Supernova data that has been reported since 1998?

    Quote Originally Posted by icarus2 View Post
    9. If this model is true, all content containing Hubble's law, red shift, scale factor in astronomy and cosmology should be reviewed.
    So, I'm thinking, from this comment, that you haven't actually compared your idea to the actual data, right?

  14. #14
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Posts
    540
    Quote Originally Posted by icarus2 View Post
    Thus Hubble's law is an actual Doppler shift caused by diffusion.
    Q1) Is this correct?
    Yes!
    This should produce an anisotropy in the composition of the universe.

    If the expansion is a diffusive process it should be more concentrated at the location of the original singularity. This should, increase the density and temperature of the matter near the center of the universe.

    Neucleogenesis depends only on the ratio of baryons to thermal energy, so the observed isotropic universe would require this to be the same for all regions of space.

    Q1) Is this a natural conclusion of your analysis?

    If the densities are lower, then the rate of reaction should be slower, requiring more time to reach a given aged state. Further, the effects of time dilation further slow the process at relativistic distances from the center. This combines to suggests that the center of the universe should appear older than the edges.

    Q2) Would you agree that ruling out such an age gradient in the universe would rule out your model?

    Q3) In which direction is the center of the universe?

  15. #15
    I'm sorry. I can't English well.

    Quote Originally Posted by Tensor View Post
    As was pointed out earlier, a value wasn't chosen, it was observed.
    No. We must explain the reason of expansion speed of space get a specific value.

    Quote Originally Posted by Tensor View Post
    Define this please. I would say we have, we've seen galactic clusters moving apart.
    Yes. we've seen galactic clusters moving apart. But we have not observed the expansion of space.

    Quote Originally Posted by Tensor View Post
    Hold on. Inflation is the exponential expansion of space in the early universe. If you accept expansion of space for inflation, why don't you accept it afterword? Otherwise, are you redefining inflation? If so, you should use a different term, it could be confusing.
    Your point is right.
    In my hypothesis, "inflation" means an accelerating expansion in early universe.

    To explain the flatness and horizon problem with the original inflation, expansion faster than light was assumed. However, positive energy and negative energy are cancelled in the zero energy universe. So, the universe is flat. Therefore to explain flatness, there is no need to assume expansion faster than light.

    The horizon problem occurs from the Hubble radius which is derived from the assumption that space expand.
    If particles don't have velocity faster than light, all areas in the early universe will be inside the area of light(radiation) and are all causally connected. Therefore, thermal equilibrium takes place. Horizon problem doesn't occur and expansion faster than light isn't needed.

    Quote Originally Posted by Tensor View Post
    Why naturally? What specifically provides the higher velocity the further away?
    ======
    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.
    ======
    Don't you think the above explanation is spontaneous or naturally?

    Quote Originally Posted by Tensor View Post
    You know, I didn't see any calculation showing in your posts. Where did this figure come from?
    [3] Bradley W. Carroll, Dale A. Ostlie. Introduction to Modern Astrophysics. 2nd Edition. Pearson Education, Inc..(2007)

    Quote Originally Posted by Tensor View Post
    You say that if (a)t is small... what is (a)t ? You don't define it anywhere in this post. Could you explain where you got it from and how you got it into your equations?
    a(t) is acceleration term.

    Quote Originally Posted by Tensor View Post
    So, I'm thinking, from this comment, that you haven't actually compared your idea to the actual data, right?
    If this model is true, red shift comes from the Doppler shift of light and implies that the existing equation of red shift should be revised.

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

    ===
    In the two model, within z=2, error <5%, but show difference in far galaxies.
    ===
    [3] Bradley W. Carroll, Dale A. Ostlie. Introduction to Modern Astrophysics. 2nd Edition.

    ===
    The Doppler redshift and the cosmological redshift are governed by two distinct formulas. The first comes from special relativity, which does not take into account the expansion of space, and the second comes from general relativity, which does. The two formulas are nearly the same for nearby galaxies but diverge for distant galaxies.
    ===
    [4] Charles H. Lineweaver and Tamara M.Davis. In Misconception about the Big Bang. : http://www.mso.anu.edu.au/~charley/p...DavisSciAm.pdf 42P
    Last edited by icarus2; 2012-Mar-24 at 12:59 PM.

  16. #16
    Join Date
    Nov 2002
    Posts
    6,238
    I'll get back to the rest of your post later, but I'll hit a couple of points.

    Quote Originally Posted by icarus2 View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Tensor
    You know, I didn't see any calculation showing in your posts. Where did this figure come from?
    [3] Bradley W. Carroll, Dale A. Ostlie. Introduction to Modern Astrophysics. 2nd Edition. Pearson Education, Inc..(2007)
    Yes, but that figure is based on the expanding space model. You can't use it in your model, because the expanding space model is wrong according to you. How do you get that number using YOUR idea. We already know about the number from the expanding space idea. We don't know how you get that figure using your idea.

    Quote Originally Posted by icarus2 View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Tensor
    You say that if (a)t is small... what is (a)t ? You don't define it anywhere in this post. Could you explain where you got it from and how you got it into your equations?
    a(t) is acceleration term.
    Ok, you've defined it. That still doesn't show how it was derived and how that derivation gets into your equations. Could you please do so?


    Quote Originally Posted by icarus2 View Post
    If this model is true, red shift comes from the Doppler shift of light and implies that the existing equation of red shift should be revised.

    The two equations show similar results in close galaxies, but show difference in far galaxies.
    Neither of these answered my questions on if you have compared you idea to actual data. Not to mention, I see no explanation on how your idea explains the Type 1a supernova data. When can we expect that?

    Quote Originally Posted by icarus2 View Post
    ===
    The Doppler redshift and the cosmological redshift are governed by two distinct formulas. The first comes from special relativity, which does not take into account the expansion of space, and the second comes from general relativity, which does. The two formulas are nearly the same for nearby galaxies but diverge for distant galaxies.
    ===
    [4] Charles H. Lineweaver and Tamara M.Davis. In Misconception about the Big Bang. : http://www.mso.anu.edu.au/~charley/p...DavisSciAm.pdf 42P
    Yes, and Lineweaver and Davis are showing why the Doppler redshift is wrong. Since you provide this as an example. Please show where Lineweaver and Davis made a mistake in their presentation. If you can't, then this paper doesn't support your contention, it refutes it.

  17. #17
    Quote Originally Posted by utesfan100 View Post
    This should produce an anisotropy in the composition of the universe.

    If the expansion is a diffusive process it should be more concentrated at the location of the original singularity. This should, increase the density and temperature of the matter near the center of the universe.

    Neucleogenesis depends only on the ratio of baryons to thermal energy, so the observed isotropic universe would require this to be the same for all regions of space.

    Q1) Is this a natural conclusion of your analysis?
    For the Flatness and Isotropy in CMB
    In the zero energy universe, positive energy and negative energy are cancelled. Therefore the universe is flat. Also, isotropy originated from locally energy conservation (pair creation in local domain).

    The horizon problem occurs from the Hubble radius which is derived from the assumption that space expand.

    If particles don't have velocity faster than light, all areas in the early universe will be inside the area of light(radiation) and are all causally connected. Therefore, thermal equilibrium takes place. Horizon problem doesn't occur and expansion faster than light isn't needed.

    =====
    the expansion is a diffusive process ---> it should be more concentrated at the location of the original singularity.
    =====
    The problem(or viewpoint) is not clear. Maybe, depends on scale or viewpoint. I agree that expansion was occurred at whole universe.

    But, if we can observe the whole universe, we could observe both isotropy and anisotropy.

    Quote Originally Posted by utesfan100 View Post
    If the densities are lower, then the rate of reaction should be slower, requiring more time to reach a given aged state. Further, the effects of time dilation further slow the process at relativistic distances from the center. This combines to suggests that the center of the universe should appear older than the edges.

    Q2) Would you agree that ruling out such an age gradient in the universe would rule out your model?
    In my opinion, age gradient(?) is non-existing.
    If it is thought that density and temperature gradually becomes lower from a higher condition than a critical density in which a reaction takes place, the problem you assume won't occur.

    Quote Originally Posted by utesfan100 View Post
    Q3) In which direction is the center of the universe?
    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.

    In my guess, the center of universe position in the direction of smallest(or even) deviation of Hubble’s law.

    Have a nice day!

    ---Icarus2

  18. #18
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Posts
    540
    Quote Originally Posted by icarus2 View Post
    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.

    In my guess, the center of universe position in the direction of smallest(or even) deviation of Hubble’s law.
    Is there any evidence that an anisotropy of the type you predict actually exists? Can you express an estimate of the direction this points in terms of any standard celestial coordinate system, to within 60 degrees?

  19. #19
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Posts
    540
    I had planned to attack this theory based on the concept that it introduces a preferred frame effect. The same argument lead me to conclude the standard model of cosmology must have a preferred frame effect.

    This interpretation of the standard model was not shown false.

    http://www.bautforum.com/showthread....rame-dependent

  20. #20

    Center of the universe

    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,


    [LaTeX ERROR: Image too big 830x22, max 650x600]

    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 C 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.)

    Quote Originally Posted by utesfan100 View Post
    Can you express an estimate of the direction this points in terms of any standard celestial coordinate system, to within 60 degrees?
    Sorry!, I have no data and ability(?).
    Last edited by icarus2; 2012-Apr-08 at 03:23 PM.

  21. #21
    Join Date
    Nov 2002
    Posts
    6,238
    Quote Originally Posted by icarus2 View Post
    I'm sorry. I can't English well.

    No. We must explain the reason of expansion speed of space get a specific value.
    Why?

    Quote Originally Posted by icarus2 View Post
    Yes. we've seen galactic clusters moving apart. But we have not observed the expansion of space.
    Why can't galactic clusters moving apart be interpreted as an expansion of space?


    Quote Originally Posted by icarus2 View Post
    Your point is right. In my hypothesis, "inflation" means an accelerating expansion in early universe.
    This term (along with a(t)) are already defined within the physics community. By using these terms with different meaning from those established meanings, it appears that you are trying to confuse people into thinking that your definition of the term and the common definition of the term are the same. If the definition of your term is different, you should strongly consider changing the names and symbols of those terms.

    Quote Originally Posted by icarus2 View Post
    To explain the flatness and horizon problem with the original inflation, expansion faster than light was assumed. However, positive energy and negative energy are cancelled in the zero energy universe. So, the universe is flat.
    Well, when exactly do the positive and negative energy cancel each other? And what spectral index does your idea predict?

    Quote Originally Posted by icarus2 View Post
    Therefore to explain flatness, there is no need to assume expansion faster than light.
    Since faster than light expansion is not forbidden in an FLRW metric, why is this a problem?

    Quote Originally Posted by icarus2 View Post
    The horizon problem occurs from the Hubble radius which is derived from the assumption that space expand. If particles don't have velocity faster than light, all areas in the early universe will be inside the area of light(radiation) and are all causally connected. Therefore, thermal equilibrium takes place. Horizon problem doesn't occur and expansion faster than light isn't needed.
    You keep saying it isn't needed, but don't show why it can't happen.

    Quote Originally Posted by icarus2 View Post
    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.
    ======
    Don't you think the above explanation is spontaneous or naturally?
    No. What prevents faster particles in the far area from moving into the middle and close areas? See, you don't have any kind of mechanism for keeping those particle from staying in those areas, you just claim they do. In actuality, those particles would have to have a random distribution of their motion. If you are claiming they maintain they are causally connected and able to maintain thermal equilibrium. This means we should see many galactic clusters moving toward us. We don't.

    There are still open questions in post #16 from the 24th of March also.

Similar Threads

  1. [does space expand or are things just moving?]
    By Jens in forum Space/Astronomy Questions and Answers
    Replies: 75
    Last Post: 2011-Feb-14, 03:31 PM
  2. Could space expand faster than the 'space distance' between matter.
    By steve000 in forum Space/Astronomy Questions and Answers
    Replies: 5
    Last Post: 2008-Jan-18, 01:08 AM
  3. Does the 'space' in an empty universe expand?
    By Nereid in forum Space/Astronomy Questions and Answers
    Replies: 29
    Last Post: 2007-Jan-25, 01:38 AM
  4. Could Space Itself Expand To Nothingness?
    By Plat in forum Against the Mainstream
    Replies: 46
    Last Post: 2005-Feb-08, 10:12 PM
  5. Even more proof Nancy doesn't know what she's talking about
    By ToSeek in forum Against the Mainstream
    Replies: 32
    Last Post: 2003-Aug-06, 03:43 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: