Jump to content


Photo
- - - - -

The Universe not expands


  • This topic is locked This topic is locked
19 replies to this topic

#1 lbiar

lbiar

    Thinking

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 106 posts

Posted 28 May 2010 - 07:10 AM

I have a blog against the expansion of the universe, with arguments that show this is impossible.

I'm against universe expansion and big-bang and according to visual expansion

I write also over the evidences for the Big Bang.

I have arguments, Hypotheses and info for scientists in: The Universe not expands (the page is only for this work).

I like your feedback.

Thanks.

#2 sanctus

sanctus

    Resident Diabolist

  • Administrators
  • 4231 posts

Posted 28 May 2010 - 11:34 AM

Welcome, the first thing it should be "The universe doesn't expand" (or "does not" if you want to emphasize the not;-)).

Otherwise, I read a bit through the main page. I have to admit I don't feel to read through all your pages and links to them to find why the universe doesn't expand in your opinion. You just say in the abstract (without "s" ;-))

Currently, astronomers believe the universe is expanding because all the evidence seems to point in that direction (I argument this evidences), but such expansion is impossible according to the hypotheses presented. These hypotheses are accordingly in concordance with accepted laws of standard physics.

But if you make such a claim against mainstream science, you should at least say in the abstract in one sentence why. At least the most important argument for you you should cite, that is my view at least.

Anyway I went to read 2a. There is no problemthere neither a violation the postulate nothing travels faster than c. You have to consider that this postulate is for things moving in spacetime and by your example this is not broken. You add just 2 things:
velocitiy of the galaxy in spacetime (always smaller than c and has to be so) PLUS the velocity due to expansion of spacetime itself. This sum is allowed to be bigger than c without any violation of the laws of physics we know so far.
There are even papers published on this, I recall reading one, but don't have time to look for it now.

#3 lbiar

lbiar

    Thinking

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 106 posts

Posted 28 May 2010 - 12:01 PM

But if you make such a claim against mainstream science, you should at least say in the abstract in one sentence why. At least the most important argument for you you should cite, that is my view at least.


I will try this point.

Thanks.

#4 sanctus

sanctus

    Resident Diabolist

  • Administrators
  • 4231 posts

Posted 28 May 2010 - 12:56 PM

And what about my comment on 2a?

#5 lbiar

lbiar

    Thinking

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 106 posts

Posted 28 May 2010 - 05:37 PM

And what about my comment on 2a?


I needed time to think in it. (do you know that is better sometimes think the answer).

You have true, the argument 2a is a few bad write, I need to re-write it.

The idea is:

The theory admit that expand at more speed that c, but the universe in the first 13.7 billion years don't like to exceed this speed: we see the radiation of cosmic microwave background (CMBR) at that distance and time, and according to Hubble's law if any star is farther need to speed up to a older bodies (the CMBR is older to any star) (I write over it in the same argument 2a).

By that any theory that may increase light speed but that the real universe don't like exceed seem near a paradox or that reality and theory are differents.

Now according to accelerated expansion probably this expansion speed exceed light speed and by that we (and in the past) are privileged showing the CMBR, probably in the futur (maybe in millions years) this CMBR will not show. - remember the Hubble's law and making actual acceleration probably exceed light speed.

By other side is very curious that the universe like expand exact (o very few less) of light-speed, and how this is speed equivalent (in expansion there is not speed) this means a decreasing expansion by unit of space. (a space that expand at light speed the expansion is decrasing) and also is very curious that in a universe without expansion we sould see the same years (we see an universe of 13.7 billion years and with a size of 13.7 billion light years and always during this time expandind at this equivalent speed).

The universe take in consideration to be obstinate in this how this: expand all the 13.7 billion years just at light speed (or very few more) and show this size equivalent and the relation that an universe without expansion would show the same.

Consider that there are not objects more distant, the CMBR is before stars.

Is strange that the universe don't expand at constant expansion and expand at light speed equivalent, the first year (considering 1 light year) would expand at 100% and today expand at 1/13700379000 .

Is also strange that the physic law (I say instantaneous because I don't think any physic law is according to this expansion decreasing) that regulate the expansion now change to accelerating. Also is strange that expansion has not exceed ligh speed in the 13.7 billion years olders.

Also is strange that the theory admit more expansion speed and the universe is obstinate in not exceed light speed by radius (the vision and optic effect make the same). And in this obstination need to make decreasing expansion for give to our eyes a equivalent speed constant and according to Hubble's law.

All this is possible, the theories admit all this, but at least is strange.

My arguments and hypotheses speak over it, for example a solution to accelerate expansion in What happens really?


Thanks.

(maybe that in weekend I answer later).

#6 Boerseun

Boerseun

    Phantom Cow of Justice

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 6062 posts

Posted 28 May 2010 - 11:53 PM

Hi Ibiar, and welcome to Hypo.

You are not the first to claim an opposing theory to expansion. Others have tried and fought valiantly. They have all lost the fight, because the evidence supports expansion.

However, this is not to say that it will be the same in your case. You might be sitting on the Holy Grail that will for once and for all debunk expansion as a myth. The only problem is that I cannot make head or tail of your linked page.

I will not deliver any criticism on your page or your reasoning behind your theory, because I quite simply cannot, based on the evidence at hand. I do however recommend that you maybe go and look for a good translator in your area, or on the internet. There are lots of freelance translation services available on the web.

So take it as a friendly hint - you will lose the biggest chunck of your potential audience by expecting them to slog through the document as it currently is. I found it completely unreadable.

#7 lbiar

lbiar

    Thinking

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 106 posts

Posted 29 May 2010 - 05:28 PM

You are not the first to claim an opposing theory to expansion.


This don't means neither true nor false.

Others have tried and fought valiantly. They have all lost the fight, because the evidence supports expansion.


This means probably the people initially think I'm in error. Bad start for me.


because the evidence supports expansion.


I speak in my work over evidence: Information for scientists « The Universe not expands , I don't see any evidence, only that is visual expansion and I'm according to this, but visual expansion don't means real expansion (maybe this disturb you).

With your permission I like to say that theories without proofs and many times againts physic laws or according to physic laws unknowns cannot to be evidences, for example: blackbody CMB (is only theorical and never show), Deuterium from Three Minutes (is only a theory), inflationary, ... and I treat over this and other evidences in my page.

Probably you see evidences, but I don't see that (many times different people don't see the same from an act or theory).

The only problem is that I cannot make head or tail of your linked page.


Probably you have true, is in part cause of I need help.

I will not deliver any criticism on your page or your reasoning behind your theory, because I quite simply cannot, based on the evidence at hand


If you like we can speak over the evidence, for me is a good discusion and can learn many things over that.

I do however recommend that you maybe go and look for a good translator in your area, or on the internet. There are lots of freelance translation services available on the web.


You have true, my english is very bad, but in this momment I can't use that services, the text is open, ....

So take it as a friendly hint - you will lose the biggest chunck of your potential audience by expecting them to slog through the document as it currently is. I found it completely unreadable.


Sorry another time, is a problem.

I'm treat this problem when I can resolve it. I'm according to you. Unfortunately I can't today.

Thanks.

#8 lbiar

lbiar

    Thinking

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 106 posts

Posted 29 May 2010 - 05:42 PM

Welcome, the first thing it should be "The universe doesn't expand" (or "does not" if you want to emphasize the not;-)).

Otherwise, I read a bit through the main page. I have to admit I don't feel to read through all your pages and links to them to find why the universe doesn't expand in your opinion. You just say in the abstract (without "s" ;-))


Thanks by the help, yesterday I don't understand you help me with this text.

I have changed the text of the web to "The universe does not expand"

I appreciate any help, and also gramatical.

Thanks.

#9 lbiar

lbiar

    Thinking

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 106 posts

Posted 30 May 2010 - 03:47 AM

A short explanation of my arguments against expansion of the universe (I need to add this to my work)

(my arguments in few words) (note: I'm according to visual expansion of the universe)

The evidence: I take it from Frequently Asked Questions in Cosmology and I speak over this in Information for scientists « The universe does not expand : Evidence for the Big Bang?

over the evidence I need to say that here I don't see evidence (I see evidence of visual expansion of the universe.

I treat these evidences in 3 parts.

Before speak over the evidence, I need to say that from a fact not all the people think the same. An example: many people think miracles where the scientifics don't think this.

3 parts of evidence:

a - any of theirs are evidences over visual expansion of the universe, like Hubble's law, time delay and also redshift spectral.

I need here speak over that visual expansion is not real expansion, and visual is not evidence of real.

I'm according to visual expansion.

examples: a ship far of the coast seem disapear or came down in the sea, but this is not evidence of that really occur that, in nightfall the sun seem red but this is not real, by perspective things farther seem little, ... and many other examples

b - anti-evidences: that really are evidences against expansion: Homogeneity (really the far universe would be more dense because according to theory the space in all places is expanding and far universe is past), Isotropy (the same problem), anisotropy (1 degree is equivalent to 1100 and by that there is real not anisotropy).

c - evidences from theories without proof and many times with physic laws unknown (they can to real evidence): Radio source (I can explain from a not expanding universe how the old universe without galaxies yet with also many gas), blackbody CMB (blackbody is only theoretical and nobody has demonstrated), Deuterium, 3He, 4He, and 7Li abundances (from theoretical First Three Minutes) this is theoretical and abundances, but also against it blackbody was also many abundances (telescopes see by all sides in CMB, but it's only theoretical and without any proof)

Here I can put many examples: the theoretical form of a Martian can't to be the evidence of existence of Martian, ...

Here the parts of my argument here:

1 - visual expansion how I speak before.

2 - All we receive from universe (apart of any particle from near universe) always is only light, and the light is curved by gravity, this is not only a theory, it's demonstrated.

3 - all is an optic effect: if in the Hubble's law that relationated distance-speed-and also time, we change speed by visual speed, we can see that Hubble's law is near an optic effect like perspective.

- perspective relations distance-visual size.

- Hubble's law show that if in a real expansion we only can to be at center of a universe with spherical expansion and without motion: Why?: we see the blackbody CMB in all directions and near light speed, by that if we have motion in any direction we could not to see the blackbody CMB in the opposite direction. Against this is correct always how an optic effect and blackbody CMB probably is a far and old universe yet without galaxies and with many gas and millions of stars (for example).

by this Hubble's law really is evidence of a visual expansion but against a real expansion.


by 1,2 and 3 all only can be an optic effect where the light is curved by gravity and give an effect like red-shift and visual expansion.

I speak over this in my hypothesis I write in The universe does not expand and Hypotheses « The universe does not expand

#10 Boerseun

Boerseun

    Phantom Cow of Justice

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 6062 posts

Posted 30 May 2010 - 10:09 PM

I still can't make head or tail of your argument, but what I can see is that what you're proposing is similar to the tired light models that's been around since the late 1920's.

If you're talking about the light being "bent" by gravity over distance, then it will only "slow it down" because the gravitational pull is equal in all directions throughout the empty space of the universe, statistically speaking. It won't bend left or right unless in express reaction to a specific gravity source - which would result in gravitational lensing, which we do see - but not in such a way as to account for redshift.

Then you should also keep in mind that gravity won't "slow down" light like you might slow down a bicycle, it saps energy from light by lowering the frequency we view it at. But it still moves at the same speed. So if you propose that gravity redshifts light over galactic distances, fine - but in the universe, there is generally as much gravitational pull in front of you than there is behind you - the equal spread of mass and matter in all directions will exactly counter whatever redshift that may be caused by matter lying in the direction of origin.

Theories have been put forward to give an alternative explanation of the Hubble Flow. Tired light is merely one of them. But no single theory comes close to the consistency of the universal expansion - which points to some sort of an event in the past that we might call the "Big Bang".

#11 lbiar

lbiar

    Thinking

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 106 posts

Posted 30 May 2010 - 11:24 PM

I still can't make head or tail of your argument, but what I can see is that what you're proposing is similar to the tired light models that's been around since the late 1920's.


I'm against that of tired light that don't explain visual expansion, time delay and redshift spectral.

My work has 2 parts, in the first and title I only argument against universe expansion (big-bang, ...) and how people think in the evidences of big-bang I speak against that evidences. Also I give 20 arguments against expansion or creation of space and more, ...

This first part is the more important, here I treat to demonstrate that the expansion real of the universe is impossbile.


In the part 2 I give hypotheses over a new universe without expansion, ...

I can not know any solution and to know that a alternative is not the solution. I give here a hypothesis.

I speak over that the only solution to visual expansion is that really is that light is curved and all is a visual effect.

A visual effect (like perspective) is very similar to a spherical effect (expansion visual, ...) but it's flat how is the universe (parallel lines continuously not maintain the same distance), and a expansion real only would to be spherical according to Hubble's law and by that not flat.

The solution (1 probably hypothesis) I give is that light is curved by gravity and gravity is growing any second, this make that each second the curve is growing, this growing is micrometric (it's not apreciate in distances of many light years) but it great distances of millions of light years is apreciated. The increment maybe in the order or billion part of a second or arc or less. This increment grow each second the curve of the light and give it a effect how redshift because each second the way that travel the light is a few more long (here the example of the pages of a book, where each page is a few less long because the radius of the arch is a few more long).

Why increment gravity: is easy, in a universe without expansion, this in many billions years was not gravity, later grow slowly, today grow in more increment (galaxies, black holes, black matter, ...) and any time grow more, this is also compatible with the visual acceleration of the universe.

This hypothesis, probably bad explain is in The universe does not expand and Hypotheses « The universe does not expand

pd: my explanation don't need expand or create nothing, don't need theoretical energies neither elements neither matter, neither objects, ... don't need theories without physic laws unknown, don't need a universe determined to expand at light speed equivalent (a expansion has not speed) in all their existence that means that the expansion need to be decreasing by unit of space, ...

pd2: in my page over http://bigbangno.wor...bigscience.html (information for scientists) I also speak over "Scientific skepticism or rational skepticism" that I think it need to be more important agains ideas how the expansion of the universe and big-bang.



Thanks.

#12 lbiar

lbiar

    Thinking

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 106 posts

Posted 31 May 2010 - 01:28 PM

I would like make a pray:

I need feedback, by that if you make me a question, I give you an answer (good o bad) but I need obtain feedback over my answer: errors, ....

Until now you make me a question, I give an answer and then you (in general) make me another question. So there is not avance for me and there is not feedback.

Thanks.
  • ronthepon likes this

#13 Boerseun

Boerseun

    Phantom Cow of Justice

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 6062 posts

Posted 01 June 2010 - 01:16 AM

I would like make a pray:

I need feedback, by that if you make me a question, I give you an answer (good o bad) but I need obtain feedback over my answer: errors, ....

Until now you make me a question, I give an answer and then you (in general) make me another question. So there is not avance for me and there is not feedback.

Thanks.

I doubt if anybody here can help you. I, for one, can't - simply because I can't make head or tail of what you're asking, stating, proposing or explaining.

Here's a tip:
Join a Science forum where your home language is the lingua franca. Ask them to review your theory. Once that's done, contact a good translation service. Then we might be able to help you.

I mean this in the kindest possible way. I won't join a Russian science site and insist on them going through my theory if it is written in incoherent, barely legible Russian. If I really want a Russian's opinion, I will fine-tune my theory in my own language, have it reviewed in my own language, and then have it translated by somebody who can actually speak Russian.

I can't help you any further than this. I also cannot comply with your request - because I simply can't understand what you write.

#14 ronthepon

ronthepon

    An Intern!!

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2132 posts

Posted 01 June 2010 - 07:02 AM

Ibiar, your article is a long one, and I haven't been able to read the whole thing.

But I'm going to comment on some of the arguments against the Expansion of the Universe theory you've given:


1a: Space cannot be created or destroyed.


Yes, we may know that energy and mass probably cannot be observed or destroyed. But there is no real law about space being created or destroyed. That is a hypothesis that you have assumed. Only if it could be proved, would it have sufficient validity to discredit the bbt. Unfortunately for your theory, bbt, which has a lot of credence right now, requires that space (as in empty space) be non-conserved.

Furthermore, even the conservation principle for energy-mass does not have it's roots in some deeper laws. It is somewhat axiomatic, the (partial) proof of which may be assumed in the fact that no violation has been or can be expected to be observed.


2a: Why universe expand just (or near) at 2x light speed?

It does not. The 2x light speed is only of the cosmological horizon, and the boundary of the 'observable universe'.

As to the rest of this argument, an explanation can be found in 'metric expansion of space'. Be sure to go through it.


3a – Expansion (unknown force) has more power that gravity (know force)

This is a problem if you consider the descriptive, but possibly inaccurate concept of there being a 'force' that pulls objects apart in space, leading to expansion. This force would be a result of a cosmological constant. This would be a force that is directly proportional to the distance between objects.
Even if it did exist, it would not be observable in the lab because the distance in the lab are very small.

However, if you wish not to use the concept of this force, you could also consider the explanantion that objects move apart simply because the frames of space they are present on moves apart. That is to say that more space is generated between them.

Have a look at 'Local peturbations' and 'Friedmann–Lemaître–Robertson–Walker metric'.



I'll get to your other arguments later. Some are really good, and I don't really have a counter argument right now...

#15 lbiar

lbiar

    Thinking

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 106 posts

Posted 01 June 2010 - 07:29 AM

Ibiar, your article is a long one, and I haven't been able to read the whole thing.

But I'm going to comment on some of the arguments against the Expansion of the Universe theory you've given:


1a: Space cannot be created or destroyed.


Yes, we may know that energy and mass probably cannot be observed or destroyed. But there is no real law about space being created or destroyed


Thanks by your notes.

How you say there is not law against this, but many thing are not a law and by that not means that it is probably. Also big-bang theory speak over mass creation.

I consider that create space is the same that create anything from nothing, I can't obtain a law that say this, but ...

In all forms, you have reason I can't prove that space can¡t be created. But not always that don't exist a law means that anything is possible and probably.

Create things from nothing is against our senses, mathematics, ...

2a: Why universe expand just (or near) at 2x light speed?

It does not. The 2x light speed is only of the cosmological horizon, and the boundary of the 'observable universe'.

As to the rest of this argument, an explanation can be found in 'metric expansion of space'. Be sure to go through it.


Thanks. Here really you give me arguments.

In Observable universe - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia say:

"The comoving distance from Earth to the edge of the visible universe (also called the particle horizon) is about 14 billion parsecs (46.5 billion light-years) in any direction.[5] This defines a lower limit on the comoving radius of the observable universe, although as noted in the introduction, it is expected that the visible universe is somewhat smaller than the observable universe since we see only light from the cosmic microwave background radiation that was emitted after the time of recombination,"

I say, the cosmic microwave background radiation is older that any star, by that how Hubble's law relations distance - speed - and also time, show that can't to be stars more farther, and that would be any body (recombination, ..) that exceed light speed, but also we need to note that the cosmic microwave background radiation has a speed a few lower that light speed and there is space for that.

And is curious that just we can see the background radiation, that this is before any stars and that expand (equivalent speed) at near light speed.

But all this is theory, and a theory without proofs.

In a universe without expansion we should see the same distance.

Also if the universe expand at light speed equivalent, really need to expand decreasing by unit of space: what do you think may be the explanation for this intention of the universe in grow decreasing but seeming at light speed?

3a – Expansion (unknown force) has more power that gravity (know force)


Few need to say here, I say that there are solution and theories for all, but seem strange, why don't contract the universe because really there are not forces that expand it and in the past the universe was 100,1000, 1e15 times little (calculus in 3d is that half in any axis is really 2x2x2 = 8 times less).

The theories of expansion and big-bang have not answer here, apart of black energy that is only theorical without any proof.

Sorry if disturb. Sorry also if my answer is not all the serious that would be. (I have answer quickly).

Also I remember that your notes (guarantee by theories) are not prouves, there is no one proof, ... And all with many doubts and seem all against physic laws, Scientific skepticism, mathematics (creation from nothing), rationality, ... and more.

Also I remember that what you say is true, but also all that you say have not proofs and I think against it and I have arguments against that.

Why the universe enjoy showin us an imagen of the universe that correspond well with an optic effect (we see same years from first stars how we could see without expansion of the universe), creating physic laws we unknow for expand decreasing but that we can see that the universe expand according to Hubble's law?

How we can see the cosmic microwave background radiation according to hubble's law if we are not without movement and in the centre of the universe? If we move in any direction we could not see the background radiation in the opposite side.

How can to see that the universe have Homogeneity, Isotropy (evidences for the big-bang) and that expansion need not homogeneity and not isotropy (I speak over that in my pages). In a universe in expansion the light we receive from start at more distance of 1/2 total size become from a past where the expansion was the 1/2 and by that need to be double concentrate in any axis, but how is 3d is really 2x2x2= 8 times more concentrate, also farther that 3/4 would be 4x4x4=64 times and so. - http://bigbangno.wor...rgs.html#tag21a

Thanks.

pd: I really have not any proof, but also there is not any proof according to expansion and Big-bang and I give many doubt reasonable, I insist, the big-bang and expansion have not given any proof, they need give the proof, with my reasonable doubt is sufficient.

In a judgement, ... the proof need to be given for what say that anything occurs, here the astronomers say that expansion occurs but never have given any proof.

You ask me for a proof, really is near you ask to me for any proof. Is how if you ask me for a proof that don't exist the martians. Because really the science don't have given any proof over expansion, by that all are theories.

In a real science work (Scientific skepticism or rational skepticism) my reasonable doubts would be more that sufficient to demand any proof to the scientifics that affirm the expansion. And always without any proof take how few probably. In reality the theories of expansion and big-bang is the science at the wrong side. (Burden of proof)

(I agree a critic of all this note).

#16 lbiar

lbiar

    Thinking

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 106 posts

Posted 01 June 2010 - 02:12 PM

How people don't read my work and don't understand me (or more probably I write very bad how many people say) I have put a new thread with title: "cosmic joke: Hubble's law" in this forum, http://hypography.co...html#post298188

#17 modest

modest

    Creating

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 4959 posts

Posted 01 June 2010 - 03:17 PM

The theory admit that expand at more speed that c, but the universe in the first 13.7 billion years don't like to exceed this speed: we see the radiation of cosmic microwave background (CMBR) at that distance and time, and according to Hubble's law if any star is farther need to speed up to a older bodies (the CMBR is older to any star) (I write over it in the same argument 2a).

By that any theory that may increase light speed but that the real universe don't like exceed seem near a paradox or that reality and theory are differents.


I have a hard time understanding you. Why do you say "the universe in the first 13.7 billion years don't like to exceed this speed". I have a feeling that you are mixing up two different kinds of velocity. Try reading,

Posted Image

Worldlines of comoving observers are plotted and decorated with small, schematic lightcones. The red pear-shaped object is our past light cone. Notice that the red curve always has the same slope as the little light cones. In these variables, velocities greater than c are certainly possible, and since the open Universes are spatially infinite, they are actually required. But there is no contradiction with the special relativistic principle that objects do not travel faster than the speed of light, because if we plot exactly the same space-time in the special relativistic x and t coordinates we get:

Posted Image


The grey hyperbolae show the surfaces of constant proper time since the Big Bang. When we flatten these out to make the previous space-time diagram, the worldlines of the galaxies get flatter and giving velocities v = dDnow/dt that are greater than c. But in special relativistic coordinates the velocities are less than c. We also see that our past light cone crosses the worldline of the most distant galaxies at a special relativistic distance x = c*to/2. But the Hubble law distance Dnow, which is measured now, of these most distant galaxies is infinity (in this model). Furthermore, this galaxy with infinite Hubble law distance and hence infinite Hubble law velocity is visible to us, since in this model the observable Universe is the entire Universe. The relationships between the Hubble law distance and velocity (Dnow & v) and the redshift z for the zero density model are given below:

Cosmology Tutorial - Part 2

~modest