Page 3 of 3 FirstFirst 123
Results 61 to 90 of 90

Thread: Expansion of Universe and Lunar Distance

  1. #61
    Join Date
    Sep 2003
    Location
    The beautiful north coast (Ohio)
    Posts
    39,729
    Quote Originally Posted by Reality Check View Post
    Originally Posted by Hetman
    I am afraid that these are arguments like this:
    ...snipped trivial stuff and a bit of gibberish...
    Deliberately misquoting someone like that is rude. Hetman got an infraction for advocating ATM outside of the ATM forum, you get one for rudeness.
    At night the stars put on a show for free (Carole King)

    All moderation in purple - The rules

  2. #62
    Join Date
    Aug 2002
    Posts
    7,639
    Quote Originally Posted by Hetman View Post
    Standard non-empty universe and standard thermodynamics is not negotiable - neither here nor in the ATM.
    Not at all, if you actually have a well thought through model that goes against ATM, with the appropriate math and explanations and think you can defend it, then go ahead and open your discussion there.
    All comments made in red are moderator comments. Please, read the rules of the forum here and read the additional rules for ATM, and for conspiracy theories. If you think a post is inappropriate, don't comment on it in thread but report it using the /!\ button in the lower left corner of each message. But most of all, have fun!

    Catch me on twitter: @tusenfem
    Catch Rosetta Plasma Consortium on twitter: @Rosetta_RPC

  3. #63
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Posts
    2,914

    False Prophet

    Quote Originally Posted by Hetman View Post
    Standard non-empty universe and standard thermodynamics is not negotiable - neither here nor in the ATM.

    In the given link are factual errors, unfortunately - in particular:
    definition of the curvature of space is only one, not two alternatives.
    http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/co..._faq.html#FLAT

    You did read the above, right?

    "In 2004 Prof. Wright was elected as a Fellow of the American Association for the Advancement of Science, in 2007 he was elected as a Fellow of the American Academy of Arts and Sciences, and in 2011 he was elected to the National Academy of Sciences."

    Please, I'd like to here more about the errors in the above author's tutorial.

    Thanks, 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

  4. #64
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Posts
    211
    Quote Originally Posted by tusenfem View Post
    Not at all, if you actually have a well thought through model that goes against ATM, with the appropriate math and explanations and think you can defend it, then go ahead and open your discussion there.
    That's right, we can discuss, but only the mechanism of the energy dissipation - propose methods of implementation of the observed phenomena.

    By contrast, the fact the dispersion/dissipation is indisputable, and this means that we should calculate the density of matter (physical condition of intergalactic space) directly from the observed redshift, and not some of the Doppler velocity.

    The same applies to the law of gravity: the mechanism is subject to discussion, but the very fact of its existence is indisputable.

  5. #65
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Posts
    4,376
    Quote Originally Posted by Hetman View Post
    By contrast, the fact the dispersion/dissipation is indisputable,
    As a cause for redshift? No, it isn't. There is no mechanism for dispersion or "dissipation" by intervening matter to cause a red shift. Thus, no way to use redshift to estimate density of matter.

  6. #66
    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Location
    The Wild West
    Posts
    7,794
    Quote Originally Posted by Hetman View Post
    We simply observe the redshift of distant galaxies.
    Why? Probably because the cosmos is not empty. After all dissipation of energy is a completely natural phenomenon...
    I believe this "redshift alternative" has been previously debunked in this thread. If redshift is caused by "dissipation" of light, how is it we can see objects more than 10 billion lightyears away in perfect focus?

    Also, if the mainstream interpretation of redshift is wrong, which I presume implies the universe is not expanding, why do Ia supernovas exhibit time dilation?
    Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not his own facts.

  7. #67
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Posts
    211
    Quote Originally Posted by cjameshuff View Post
    As a cause for redshift? No, it isn't. There is no mechanism for dispersion or "dissipation" by intervening matter to cause a red shift. Thus, no way to use redshift to estimate density of matter.
    It does not matter that such a mechanism is currently unknown.
    And this is the norm rather than the exception - we do not know the mechanisms of many other important phenomena, including the gravity, which is perhaps the key here.

  8. #68
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Posts
    211
    Quote Originally Posted by Cougar View Post
    I believe this "redshift alternative" has been previously debunked in this thread. If redshift is caused by "dissipation" of light, how is it we can see objects more than 10 billion lightyears away in perfect focus?

    Also, if the mainstream interpretation of redshift is wrong, which I presume implies the universe is not expanding, why do Ia supernovas exhibit time dilation?
    Interpretations are needed only for unrecognized phenomena.
    After a full recognition the interpretations automatically disappear - they are no longer needed.

  9. #69
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    a long way away
    Posts
    9,089
    Quote Originally Posted by Hetman View Post
    It does not matter that such a mechanism is currently unknown.
    But as we have a known mechanism, why bother inventing an unknown one?

  10. #70
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Posts
    211
    Quote Originally Posted by Strange View Post
    But as we have a known mechanism, why bother inventing an unknown one?
    The mechanism must take into account the presence of matter, and the idea of stretching of space totally ignores this fact.

    Besides stretching the space is not a mechanism, but the math - the transformation of space.
    It is known that such transformations have no effect on the physical processes - the principle of relativity.

    You might as well suggest an inverse transformation:
    contraction of matter - from atoms to the galaxies, rather than stretch the distance between them.

    The final result will be identical, despite the evident global stationarity.

  11. #71
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Posts
    4,376
    Quote Originally Posted by Hetman View Post
    The mechanism must take into account the presence of matter, and the idea of stretching of space totally ignores this fact.
    What is there to take into account? The redshift due to the presence of matter is 0.


    Quote Originally Posted by Hetman View Post
    Besides stretching the space is not a mechanism, but the math - the transformation of space.
    It is known that such transformations have no effect on the physical processes - the principle of relativity.
    This is just confused and wrong. The principle of relativity applies to systems in uniform relative motion, not to systems undergoing expansion or contraction.

  12. #72
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Posts
    211
    Quote Originally Posted by cjameshuff View Post
    What is there to take into account? The redshift due to the presence of matter is 0.
    We do not know the cases of lossless transmission of energy through areas filled with matter, because it is impossible under the laws of thermodynamics.

    Quote Originally Posted by cjameshuff View Post
    This is just confused and wrong. The principle of relativity applies to systems in uniform relative motion, not to systems undergoing expansion or contraction.
    The general principle of relativity does not care about such trifles.
    Processes does not depend entirely on methods of formulation: a frame of reference, adopted coordinates, units of measurement, etc.
    It is a mathematical principle, a fundamental and obvious.

    This variant is probably consistent with all observations - local and global:
    galaxies grow continuously, and hence the observed redshift.

  13. #73
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Posts
    4,376
    Quote Originally Posted by Hetman View Post
    We do not know lossless power transmission through areas filled with matter.
    I didn't say it was lossless. There are losses due to scattering and absorption. These don't produce a red shift.

    Redshift is a very particular phenomenon, doppler shift due to an object moving away. Spectral lines and such remain intact and have the same relative locations, they are simply shifted toward longer wavelengths. Reddening by preferential scattering of short wavelengths or absorption and re-emission at cooler temperatures does not shift the spectrum and can not be confused for redshift.


    Quote Originally Posted by Hetman View Post
    The general principle of relativity does not care about such trifles.
    They're hardly trifles, but that's otherwise right, it says nothing about them. It is only concerned with the relative motion of the systems, and does not apply to expansion or contraction.


    Quote Originally Posted by Hetman View Post
    Processes does not depend entirely on methods of formulation: a frame of reference, adopted coordinates, units of measurement, etc.
    It is a mathematical principle, a fundamental and obvious.
    We're not talking about changing units of measurement, we're talking about expansion of space. Distances between objects not bound to each other are getting larger with time. Your claim is essentially that the physical behavior of a system doesn't depend on density...which is simply wrong, and not what the principle of relativity means.

  14. #74
    Join Date
    Aug 2002
    Posts
    7,639

    hetman if you believe that redshift, as it is observed in astrophysics, can be caused by scattering and other interactions with matter, then take itto ATM and present your model there. And don't forgetcto take into account what cjameshuff just told you about spectral lines, and the still focussable distant universe.
    All comments made in red are moderator comments. Please, read the rules of the forum here and read the additional rules for ATM, and for conspiracy theories. If you think a post is inappropriate, don't comment on it in thread but report it using the /!\ button in the lower left corner of each message. But most of all, have fun!

    Catch me on twitter: @tusenfem
    Catch Rosetta Plasma Consortium on twitter: @Rosetta_RPC

  15. #75
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Posts
    211
    Quote Originally Posted by cjameshuff View Post
    Redshift is a very particular phenomenon, doppler shift due to an object moving away. Spectral lines and such remain intact and have the same relative locations, they are simply shifted toward longer wavelengths. Reddening by preferential scattering of short wavelengths or absorption and re-emission at cooler temperatures does not shift the spectrum and can not be confused for redshift.
    Energy dissipation is inevitable during transmission by any medium.

    Assume for simplicity that the medium is in equilibrium, the incoming stream must affect them, the entropy increases, which is already irreversible.

    Quote Originally Posted by cjameshuff View Post
    We're not talking about changing units of measurement, we're talking about expansion of space. Distances between objects not bound to each other are getting larger with time. Your claim is essentially that the physical behavior of a system doesn't depend on density...which is simply wrong, and not what the principle of relativity means.
    What is the stretching space, and why this would the electromagnetic waves get longer?
    These waves are not oscillations of space, this idea presupposes.

  16. #76
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Posts
    209
    Quote Originally Posted by Hetman View Post
    Energy dissipation is inevitable during transmission by any medium.

    Assume for simplicity that the medium is in equilibrium, the incoming stream must affect them, the entropy increases, which is already irreversible.
    Unfortunately, due to personal reasons, I didn't follow this thread for a couple of days and was surprised how it developed... Althouh somehow away from OP, still interesting.
    So, as it was mentioned above, during my studying, I always wondered about "entropy" and that it is supposed to "always increase".
    If this is the case, why do we observe every lifeform (plants or animals) to exhibit patterns that are anything but disorganized. Why do systems (gravitational, pressure, electrostatic or whatsoever) seek an equilibrum, if entropy tells us, that everything seeks for a "chaos" rather than being "well-done"? Entropy, therefore, I never could really "accept" as a concept. But, I'm afraid, this may become a more different thread than it already is... Just take this as marginal note

  17. #77
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Posts
    1,677
    Quote Originally Posted by caveman1917 View Post
    Rather than say that galaxies recede because space expands, space expands because galaxies recede. I can frame my example of throwing the ball away in terms of an expanding space between me and the ball. But that picture only works in so far as nothing intervenes in the ball moving away from me. There is no universal law saying that the ball must constantly try to move away from me, it just happens to do so because it was doing so in the past.
    The phrase "space is expanding" leads to confusion because it carries with it the implication that particles at rest with respect to each other will move apart. The way caveman describes expansion get's rid of this problem. He seems to be saying that the expansion is "inertial" and that the momentum was imparted at the Big Bang. Once matter is moving apart it continues to move apart except as affected by some other force like gravity. So once you grab the escaping ball, the ball comes to rest relative to you and will remain with you indefinitely, even if you release your grip on the ball.

    There is no force causing things to move apart. They were just initially moving apart. Consider this from Ned Wright pages:

    Are galaxies really moving away from us or is space just expanding?

    This depends on how you measure things, or your choice of coordinates. In one view, the spatial positions of galaxies are changing, and this causes the redshift. In another view, the galaxies are at fixed coordinates, but the distance between fixed points increases with time, and this causes the redshift. General relativity explains how to transform from one view to the other, and the observable effects like the redshift are the same in both views.
    Consider the 2D balloon analogy. The problem with viewing expansion the second way is that people tend to think that each particle of matter is stuck in a certain spot on the expanding balloon. But they are not stuck, they adhere to the surface without any friction in this analogy. So if two particles of matter on the balloon are static relative to one another and the balloon is large, their separation is not affected by the expansion of the balloon. The surface of the balloon being friction-less cannot carry them apart.

    Here's something interesting that just occurred to me. Let's suppose that the expansion of the balloon accelerates (dark energy). Those two particles (at respective rest) will still not begin to move relative to one another. If this analogy is correct for dark energy, then the idea of a "big rip" seems like nonsense.

    -----

    Probably incorrect: This view of the analogy does not explain how light waves get longer as they travel, except as a Doppler shift.
    Last edited by TooMany; 2012-May-05 at 11:23 PM. Reason: Probably incorrect.

  18. #78
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Posts
    17,367
    Quote Originally Posted by Relative View Post
    So, as it was mentioned above, during my studying, I always wondered about "entropy" and that it is supposed to "always increase". If this is the case, why do we observe every lifeform (plants or animals) to exhibit patterns that are anything but disorganized.
    Because they're not a closed system, and entropy can be decreased locally at the expense of increasing total entropy. Life ultimately gets energy from the sun, and the Earth loses energy to deep space, increasing entropy. It won't last forever: The sun will eventually stop fusing hydrogen, and life on Earth won't last that long.

    "The problem with quotes on the Internet is that it is hard to verify their authenticity." — Abraham Lincoln

    I say there is an invisible elf in my backyard. How do you prove that I am wrong?

    The Leif Ericson Cruiser

  19. #79
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Posts
    4,376
    Quote Originally Posted by Van Rijn View Post
    Because they're not a closed system, and entropy can be decreased locally at the expense of increasing total entropy.
    And life is really effective at this. Those forms with advantages in tapping existing energy sources and converting them to low-energy disorganized waste, heat, and copies of themselves will outcompete others, and without competition or attrition will expand exponentially to consume whatever's available. It's gotten to the point where at least one life form has even developed the capability to extract nuclear energy from heavy elements by splitting them into ones with lower energy content, far faster and more completely than would occur on any lifeless world.

  20. #80
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Posts
    209
    Quote Originally Posted by cjameshuff View Post
    And life is really effective at this. Those forms with advantages in tapping existing energy sources and converting them to low-energy disorganized waste, heat, and copies of themselves will outcompete others, and without competition or attrition will expand exponentially to consume whatever's available. It's gotten to the point where at least one life form has even developed the capability to extract nuclear energy from heavy elements by splitting them into ones with lower energy content, far faster and more completely than would occur on any lifeless world.
    Well. I don‘t only mean "locally" (one of your aguments) life forms. If entropy was dominating we shouldn‘t find ANY structure, neither in cosmic scale, we observe the opposite: Galaxies are very large structures, which never could have been developed, if „chaos“ was the main concern.
    If the law of conservation of energy is valid, and in contrast entropy is considered to always grow, then we must ask a.) what is its reason and b.) what is its reciprocal and do we find an appropriate counterpart? Do we find something like that?
    "The only thing to always grow" for human beings seem to be time. So is "Entropy" related to it?
    Last edited by Relative; 2012-May-07 at 05:13 PM.

  21. #81
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Posts
    4,376
    Quote Originally Posted by Relative View Post
    Well. I don‘t only mean life forms. If entropy was dominating we shouldn‘t find any structure, neither in cosmic scale.
    This is not so. Firstly, the laws of thermodynamics do not forbid local and temporary decreases in entropy, they do not mean that every process must immediately result in higher entropy. Second, galaxy and star formation represents an increase in entropy. An assortment of dense objects with mid-high nuclear masses is a lower energy and higher entropy state than a diffuse, uniform cloud of hydrogen gas. You are assuming increase in entropy means loss of structure, which just isn't true...in fact, it can be seen as fundamentally the opposite, as increasing entropy means the system takes more information to describe.

  22. #82
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Posts
    12,769
    Quote Originally Posted by Relative View Post
    If entropy was dominating we shouldn‘t find ANY structure,
    Entropy doesn't "dominate". It just is. The fact that
    the entropy of any closed system can only increase does
    not mean that entropy dominates everything else that
    is going on. There are a lot of different interactions
    possible in the Universe, and they happen, along with
    the inevitable increase in entropy.

    Quote Originally Posted by Relative View Post
    ... neither in cosmic scale. But we observe the opposite.
    Galaxies are very large structures, which never could have
    been developed, if „chaos“ was the main concern.
    There is no "main concern". That is an idea you invented.
    The entropy of any closed system -- presumeably including
    the Universe as a whole -- inevitably increases when the
    energy in that system is tossed about by interactions.
    Nothing prevents orderliness from appearing out of the
    mess. Overall the Universe becomes more disordered,
    but that is not obvious when the most visible parts are
    highly ordered.

    Quote Originally Posted by Relative View Post
    If the law of conservation of energy is valid, and in contrast
    entropy is considered to always grow, then we must ask
    a.) what it is reason
    What is the reason entropy always grows?

    That is a question which can probably only be answered
    through experience. Play with energy and matter and
    carefully observe how they interact. If you pay attention
    to the relevant interactions, you will see why entropy
    must always grow. A verbal description only works for
    someone who already understands it.

    Quote Originally Posted by Relative View Post
    and b.) what is its reciprocal and do we find an appropriate
    counterpart? Do we find something like that?
    I don't understand these questions. Interpreting "reciprocal"
    very literally, perhaps the term "enthalpy" is what you want.
    You can look that up.

    Quote Originally Posted by Relative View Post
    "The only thing to always grow" for human beings seem to
    be time. So is "Entropy" related to it?
    Time is a factor in everything that happens. Everything.
    But time isn't the *only* factor in *anything*. So noticing
    that time is involved in entropy doesn't tell you anything
    about entropy that doesn't apply to every other process.

    -- Jeff, in Minneapolis
    http://www.FreeMars.org/jeff/

    "I find astronomy very interesting, but I wouldn't if I thought we
    were just going to sit here and look." -- "Van Rijn"

    "The other planets? Well, they just happen to be there, but the
    point of rockets is to explore them!" -- Kai Yeves

  23. #83
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Posts
    209
    Ok. thanks both of you.
    So, my last question: Would you consider then, the "overall entropy" in the entire universe not to change, let's say just eventually decreases when whe observe "locally patterns" and, on the other hand, therefore increases somewhere else. So, literally, do you think entropy is a universal unchangeble constant?

  24. #84
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Falls Church, VA (near Washington, DC)
    Posts
    4,977
    Quote Originally Posted by Relative View Post
    Ok. thanks both of you.
    So, my last question: Would you consider then, the "overall entropy" in the entire universe not to change, let's say just eventually decreases when whe observe "locally patterns" and, on the other hand, therefore increases somewhere else. So, literally, do you think entropy is a universal unchangeble constant?
    No, as I understand it the total entropy can remain constant or increase, but not decrease.

  25. #85
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Posts
    12,769
    The entropy of a very small system could decrease just by
    chance, but that would be rare, completely unpredictable,
    and momentary. The more elements in a system, the less
    likely its entropy is to decrease.

    -- Jeff, in Minneapolis
    http://www.FreeMars.org/jeff/

    "I find astronomy very interesting, but I wouldn't if I thought we
    were just going to sit here and look." -- "Van Rijn"

    "The other planets? Well, they just happen to be there, but the
    point of rockets is to explore them!" -- Kai Yeves

  26. #86
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Posts
    4,376
    Quote Originally Posted by Relative View Post
    Ok. thanks both of you.
    So, my last question: Would you consider then, the "overall entropy" in the entire universe not to change, let's say just eventually decreases when whe observe "locally patterns" and, on the other hand, therefore increases somewhere else. So, literally, do you think entropy is a universal unchangeble constant?
    It's not a conserved quantity at all. It can't be destroyed, but is created by any irreversible process. In any closed system, it will tend to increase. It is a statistical quantity, random fluctuations can briefly reverse it, but will not continue to do so. And it is not required to be uniformly distributed, especially in systems not in thermodynamic equilibrium...the universe isn't even close.

  27. #87
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Posts
    123
    Quote Originally Posted by Relative View Post
    If „nothing can exceed speed of light“, this should hold true for the expansion of the (observable) universe itself. ...
    As Cougar indicated, this is not an accurate representation of things per our current standard model. Numerous high z objects have been located throughout the universe that are receding from us well in excess of twice the speed of light. Furthermore, those objects have always been receding from us faster than the speed of light.

    Here are references if you would like to learn more about this (both from Davis and Lineweaver, the 2nd is a more technical description):

    http://space.mit.edu/~kcooksey/teach...icAmerican.pdf
    http://www.mso.anu.edu.au/~charley/p...neweaver04.pdf

  28. #88
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Posts
    123
    Quote Originally Posted by Relative View Post
    Galaxies are very large structures, which never could have been developed, if „chaos“ was the main concern.
    This is really a meaningless statement (that is not intended as an insult, and hope you are not easily offended).

    The mere existence of structures as we define them does not go against the 2nd law. Similarly, while the 2nd law is manifest, I would not call it "the main concern" in physics.

    When one says "entropy increases" in a context such as this, the best way to translate that is to say "the total number of possible states of the system increases". (For example, a system at absolute zero would have only 1 possible state.) Using terms like "order" or "chaos" tends to mislead conversations such as this one in ways that are not useful (since they lead to meaningless statements).

  29. #89
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Posts
    209
    Quote Originally Posted by DrChinese View Post
    As Cougar indicated, this is not an accurate representation of things per our current standard model. Numerous high z objects have been located throughout the universe that are receding from us well in excess of twice the speed of light.
    Well, as far as I understand: z is the relation of (lamda(obeserved)- lamdba0))/lambda0. For the microvave backgound to be 1089. But not greater than ∞. Otherwise the wavelenght is less than zero and, therefore, not observable. By the way, I haven't heard about a z which supports that conclusion. Actually we are dealing with 8.6 to somewhat 10.3 for z.
    Second, to cite one of the mentioned papers, "...the Hubble distance is not fixed, because the Hubble constant, on which it depends, changes with
    time. In particular, the constant is proportional to the rate of increase in the distance between two galaxies, divided by
    that distance."
    That's exactly what it is all about. Let's call the current constant k. The "rate of increase" (this is (1/k)/k) is "divided by" 1/k: So, (1/k^2)/(1/k). That is simply 1/k.
    Last edited by Relative; 2012-May-12 at 12:02 AM.

  30. #90
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Posts
    209
    Quote Originally Posted by DrChinese View Post
    For example, a system at absolute zero would have only 1 possible state.
    Where did you get this from? As far as we know, at absolut zero there are still protons, neutrons end electrons, all of which representing different (energy) states.
    And, if we go to "common temperatures", why do 3H and 3He (and some hundred other isotopes in the chart of nuclides) only have one (known) state, inspite of not being observed at absolute zero

Similar Threads

  1. Lunar Distance
    By HUb' in forum Off-Topic Babbling
    Replies: 39
    Last Post: 2012-Sep-30, 04:54 PM
  2. ? Laser lunar distance charts ?
    By HUb' in forum Space/Astronomy Questions and Answers
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: 2012-Mar-04, 06:13 PM
  3. Acceleration of the expansion of the Universe and open Universe?
    By cosmos0 in forum Space/Astronomy Questions and Answers
    Replies: 10
    Last Post: 2011-Jul-26, 02:51 PM
  4. The distance between planets and the universe's expansion
    By GSV Sleeper Service in forum Space/Astronomy Questions and Answers
    Replies: 7
    Last Post: 2009-Apr-22, 07:24 PM
  5. Expansion of Distance Between Galaxies Question
    By Eric12407 in forum Space/Astronomy Questions and Answers
    Replies: 10
    Last Post: 2006-Mar-02, 01:24 PM

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: