1. ## Monday madness ... there is no redshift?

OK ... on my way into work today ... listening to baba o'rielly by the who on 104.3 a big ? popped into my mind. Again my wording of these things are not the best so please be patient.

1) Gravity is the curvature of space-time- the way I envision it is that space time gets compressed near a massive object ( I know this will be argued against and I am not sure that we need to argue this here as it is not the main part of the effect that I am going to show. ) If we picture a straight line through space, the line would curve towards a gravity source.

2) lets for a moment picture an anti-gravitational source ( I will remove it in a second but it helps me describe what I am saying ) the straight line would move away from the anti-gravity source.

3) Lets remove the anti-gravity reference and say that the natural curvature of space time is similar to a constant anti-gravitational source at all points that does not have gravity ( there are other ways of looking at this but again this helps me paint the picture that I am trying to paint ). So at all points of gravity a line will be curved towards the gravity source and everywhere else there will be a tendency to curve away from the net of all gravity sources, and at certain points we would be in equilibrium.

4) Now this is where interesting thoughts appear in my mind as the song blasts through the radio :
Teenage wasteland
It's only teenage wasteland
a) Could the curvature of the universe be slightly curved to produce a constant redshift and illusion of constant universal expansion.
b) Could the "normal" state of the universe be slightly different than what we are seeing. this thought is a little difficult to explain but could light have a tendency to go towards 0 energy with 0 amplitude ( I keep getting this term wrong ) and infinite wavelength? Thus when we see the redshift this may be because we are in a unnatural state either from gravity or other forces that cause us to see an illusion of redshifting light? Now what makes us think that this light is redshifted? Is it because close light is more blue? Could the natural state be at red-shift at the edge of our visible universe ... and the only reason that we see the light within our visible universe is because we are in a blueshifted state ? I know this wording sticks but lets discuss.

Also I am equally ballanced between a and b at this point.

2. I am impatient, to put it mildly.

You have given us a blizzard of questions over the past few weeks, many of which seem like paraphrases of one another. There is so much clutter that I cannot remember what you said about your background, if any, in basic math and physics. Many of your questions are about things that are at the Ph.D. level of study. My personal experience is that mathematics and physics courses are brutally unforgiving of missed prerequisites.
Last edited by Hornblower; 2008-Apr-28 at 08:01 PM. Reason: Fix a typo

3. Originally Posted by Hornblower
I am impatient, to put it mildly.

You have given us a blizzard of questions over the past few weeks, many of which seem like paraphrases of one another. There is so much clutter that I cannot remember what you said about your background, if any, in basic math and physics. Many of your questions are about things that are at the Ph.D. level of study. My personal experience is that mathematics and physics courses are brutally unforgiving of missed prerequisites.
OK thanks!

But without any detail ... could either A or B be possible? and if so which one would seem more likely.

4. Banned
Join Date
Dec 2006
Posts
13,423
Originally Posted by tommac
But without any detail ... could either A or B be possible?
A does not match observation and B does not match physics.

5. Originally Posted by Neverfly
A does not match observation and B does not match physics.
Regarding A, how would one go about observing this? And are you referring to that we see the universe as being flat?

6. Hey, you said no detail!

7. Banned
Join Date
Dec 2006
Posts
13,423
Originally Posted by captain swoop
Hey, you said no detail!
Exactly!

8. Originally Posted by captain swoop
Hey, you said no detail!
Hah ... but I never said that I wouldnt follow up. I just asked for an answer without details ... he gave it ...

9. Banned
Join Date
Dec 2006
Posts
13,423
Originally Posted by tommac
Hah ... but I never said that I wouldnt follow up. I just asked for an answer without details ... he gave it ...
http://www.bautforum.com/against-mai...ml#post1229457

10. Originally Posted by tommac
Hah ... but I never said that I wouldnt follow up. I just asked for an answer without details ... he gave it ...
I will be interested to see what details are posted, and then how you reject, accept or perceive those details! I'll grant you, one thing about your postings Tommac, your determination!
keeps me entertained even if you do loose me most of the time! good luck m8

11. Originally Posted by Neverfly
OK I will give a full read of this before posting anything else.

12. Originally Posted by Neverfly
OK I read this whole thread. Some of the math went over my head but I get the main idea of what was being said. I think Fortis made some good points and probably won the debate. ( and as a true ATMer myself this is a powerful statement )

However, I am not sure of the exact correlation to that thread with regards to 4a of my proposal.

a) Could the curvature of the universe be slightly curved to produce a constant redshift and illusion of constant universal expansion.
I guess what I am asking is .... Could the state of the universe be in a constantly expanding state. I think where I am going with in this but am not sure how to work mathmatically is:

In 4 dimensional space-time ( hah ... or 5 dimensional space-time-contraction kind of joking here ) could expansion be constant? Could space be shaped in a way that in a field of low gravity that space time expands. Is a mathmatical solution possible where all points in a 4 dimensional geometry that there is expansion in all directions.

Like the ant on a baloon ... since the outside of the baloon has convex curvature the farther one goes on the baloon the more evident is that the universe is expanding for the ant ( who is used to flat geometry and is now using very high tech devises to measure distances along the surface ).

I do not see the reference to this approach in the thread you posted.

The point is of a convexly ( I am sure this is the wrong terminology but I am meaning that the curvature due to gravity is concave and this expansion is the opposite of the curvature due to gravity ) curved space-time.

I think mathmatically this would be hard to prove, as the expansion of 4d space-time is real in the same way that the curvature of space-time near gravity is real.

If I missed this can you please point me to the exact quote?

Neverly, I read your reference and am asking you politely to not be a wiseguy on your response here. I will read stuff and I am trying to understand but to some extent it is distracting when there are responses that do not have the answer, I would prefer that you not reply if your only reply is to tell me that someone has already answered this question. However if it is with a reference I will read that.
Last edited by Jim; 2008-Apr-29 at 08:57 PM. Reason: edited for Rule 3 violation

13. ( and as a true ATMer myself this is a powerful statement )
Don't you need to know what the Mainstream is before you can be ATM?

14. Originally Posted by tommac
Tommac, please refamiliarize yourself with Rule 3 Language. This is a warning.

15. ## No

Originally Posted by tommac
a) Could the curvature of the universe be slightly curved to produce a constant redshift and illusion of constant universal expansion.
Not if general relativity is correct. Redshifts induced by curvature are gravitational redshifts. We can observe the gravitational redshifts of Sol (i.e., Lopresto, Chapman & Sturgis, 1980), and of Earth (i.e., Cranshaw, Schiffer & Whitehead, 1960), and we can compare the observations with direct calculations from general relativity. Gravitational redshifts are miniscule, except in the close vicinity of a large mass. Cosmological redshifts, on the other hand are huge by comparison, with the largest galaxy or QSO redshifts around 7. A curvature redshift that large would require a gravitational field of truly immense proportion throughout the universe, which would make itself dynamically obvious. There is no such field. Hence, there can be no such curvature redshift.

16. Originally Posted by Jim
Tommac, please refamiliarize yourself with Rule 3 Language. This is a warning.
Well it seems to be his habit of not actually answering a question but just posting a wise RTFM remark. He posted for me to read something ... out of respect and desire to learn I read it and I had a question but was worried all I would get is a distracting post telling me that someone has answered me already.

17. Thanks Tim ... but just one more question about this ... is gravitational redshift small becuase it is created from and near a gravitational source?
What we see from gravitational redshifting is when we are in a gravitational well right? That is not what I am talking about.

What I am suggesting is that it is not us in a gravitational well ... but that the universe is curved in such a way that it has the oposite effect ... This could cause much larger redshifts because of the constant shifting over long distances.

Originally Posted by Tim Thompson
Not if general relativity is correct. Redshifts induced by curvature are gravitational redshifts. We can observe the gravitational redshifts of Sol (i.e., Lopresto, Chapman & Sturgis, 1980), and of Earth (i.e., Cranshaw, Schiffer & Whitehead, 1960), and we can compare the observations with direct calculations from general relativity. Gravitational redshifts are miniscule, except in the close vicinity of a large mass. Cosmological redshifts, on the other hand are huge by comparison, with the largest galaxy or QSO redshifts around 7. A curvature redshift that large would require a gravitational field of truly immense proportion throughout the universe, which would make itself dynamically obvious. There is no such field. Hence, there can be no such curvature redshift.

18. again ... what 4a states is that there is a 4dimensional curvature such that at all points in space-time there appears to be an expansion.

19. Originally Posted by tommac
Well it seems to be his habit of not actually answering a question but ...
Which has nothing to do with Rule 3 Language. Read it... now.

20. Banned
Join Date
Dec 2006
Posts
13,423
Tommac, sometimes someone else can answer a question far better than I can. Others may be more patient too. Like Grant Hutchison and Tim Thompson.
Far more knowledgeable and better at explaining.

I don't usually answer questions except when
a.) No one else is around and folks would like some kind of response even if it's small - better than nothing.
b.) I get bored and test my limits to see how many people will correct me

In case you haven't noticed, folks read my posts not for their content- but rather the amusement factor- like reading a Donald Duck Comic Book.
Most people put me on ignore. The rest ignore without the button, the remaining few have a .45 caliber cartridge with my name written on the side of it in permanent marker.
But just for the record- I was not being sarcastic- I was trying to steer you in a certain direction. And you seem to be a bit steerable. You're reading more, your threads are developing into reasonable discussions, some very good ones etc- so relax a bit.
I may be a pain in the butt sometimes but I'm not a Monster either.

21. Originally Posted by Jim
Which has nothing to do with Rule 3 Language. Read it... now.

I guess I miss the point.

22. post reported.

Originally Posted by Neverfly
Tommac, sometimes someone else can answer a question far better than I can. Others may be more patient too. Like Grant Hutchison and Tim Thompson.
Far more knowledgeable and better at explaining.

I don't usually answer questions except when
a.) No one else is around and folks would like some kind of response even if it's small - better than nothing.
b.) I get bored and test my limits to see how many people will correct me

In case you haven't noticed, folks read my posts not for their content- but rather the amusement factor- like reading a Donald Duck Comic Book.
Most people put me on ignore. The rest ignore without the button, the remaining few have a .45 caliber cartridge with my name written on the side of it in permanent marker.
But just for the record- I was not being sarcastic- I was trying to steer you in a certain direction. And you seem to be a bit steerable. You're reading more, your threads are developing into reasonable discussions, some very good ones etc- so relax a bit.
I may be a pain in the butt sometimes but I'm not a Monster either.

23. ## Curvature

Originally Posted by tommac
Thanks Tim ... but just one more question about this ... is gravitational redshift small becuase it is created from and near a gravitational source? What we see from gravitational redshifting is when we are in a gravitational well right? That is not what I am talking about.
Au contraire, that is exactly what you are talking about, you just don't know enough to realize it. In general relativity, curvature is gravity, they are exactly the same thing. The universe has a large scale curvature that is described by the Ricci tensor & the Ricci scalar curvature, which I believe we have mentioned before (way too many threads to keep track). But they are very small compared to the curvature induced by gravity anywhere near just about any mass. Gravitational redshifts are small, compared to cosmological redshifts, because that's the way things are. Curvature induces very small redshifts in general relativity. So no matter how you cut it, any argument that any significant part of the observed cosmological redshift is generated by curvature is also an argument that general relativity is false.

24. Banned
Join Date
Dec 2006
Posts
13,423
Oh, I'm sorry.

If I make a mean angry post and say nothing good and all bad about you will you not report that post then?

I'm totally confused...

Oh, sidenote...: I have to retract some of my earlier compliments as you seem to have started two brand new shiny threads in Q&A on topics that could have been discussed in your existing threads.

25. Originally Posted by tommac
I guess I miss the point.
Check you PMs.

26. I get you ... but what I am saying is the curavture not near a small but massive object but rather over a large space of trillions of light years.

Originally Posted by Tim Thompson
Au contraire, that is exactly what you are talking about, you just don't know enough to realize it. In general relativity, curvature is gravity, they are exactly the same thing. The universe has a large scale curvature that is described by the Ricci tensor & the Ricci scalar curvature, which I believe we have mentioned before (way too many threads to keep track). But they are very small compared to the curvature induced by gravity anywhere near just about any mass. Gravitational redshifts are small, compared to cosmological redshifts, because that's the way things are. Curvature induces very small redshifts in general relativity. So no matter how you cut it, any argument that any significant part of the observed cosmological redshift is generated by curvature is also an argument that general relativity is false.

27. reported ... in the future please pm

Originally Posted by Neverfly
Oh, I'm sorry.

If I make a mean angry post and say nothing good and all bad about you will you not report that post then?

I'm totally confused...

Oh, sidenote...: I have to retract some of my earlier compliments as you seem to have started two brand new shiny threads in Q&A on topics that could have been discussed in your existing threads.

28. Banned
Join Date
Dec 2006
Posts
13,423
Originally Posted by tommac
reported ... in the future please pm
Or do you mean PM only sometimes?

I'm still confused...

29. Originally Posted by Neverfly
Or do you mean PM only sometimes?

I'm still confused...