Jump to content


Photo
- - - - -

An Alternative To What Dr. Edwin Hubble Saw

Expansion of the Universe

  • Please log in to reply
19 replies to this topic

#1 RodneyBelieves

RodneyBelieves

    Thinking

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 19 posts

Posted 07 January 2019 - 01:38 PM

Observed expansion motion may not be an actual expansion of space, it could be a moving apart of mass in space from a center at divergent angles in a specific pattern. There is a simple pattern of motion from a center that would offer every observer within the illusion of center, all other objects receding directly away from him. This simple motion could explain why local expansion motion is barely observable without any twisting of the idea. This model suggests that this is because as the Universe gets very old, objects of common velocity (away from center) are those that are now "local", therefore relative expansion motions of close-by objects are slight. The older the Universe, the more slight, therefore, more and more undiscernible. Objects of higher or lower velocity than the observer have simply moved away with time, so the further away the faster. The observed motions comply with the Hubble formula. The reason all objects appear to be moving away from each other is simply an illusion within the pattern of motion away from center, seen by every observer within, no matter where you put him (or her).
 
 
 
Actual motion of all objects away from a center:
actualmotion.jpg
 
 
Relative motion (observed motion) from anywhere within the expansion  Every observer perceives himself at the center of an expansion.
(in this pattern of motion, all observations of expansion from any position within expansion will match what would be seen if the observer were standing at true center looking at the same configuration of object placement. He is not at true center, but he is seeing the universe around him as if he were.)
relativemotion.jpg
 
 
 
I built a simulator based on a simple pattern of motion away from a center.  My whole website is really just what came out of running it.  Most of the observations I thought would eliminate my simulator but when I googled what was being offered I found out were actually being observed.  Here is what my simulator offers so far concerning current actual observations:
 

·         An illusion of center, no matter where the observer is or when.

·         The actual velocity of every object depends on its distance from center, increasing the further out.

·         The relative velocity between any two objects also depends on their distance apart, increasing the further apart they are.

·         The pattern of actual and relative motions are all relatable using Hubble Law, and the Hubble Value at any moment in time.

·         Expansion motion is far easier to measure the greater the distance observed.

·         Expansion motion is more difficult to measure in “local” objects, and the scope of “local” expands with expansion age. The reason offered by this simulation is that objects with expansion motion higher or lower have simply moved away from us.  Those closer to us ("local") are moving with nearly the same expansion motion, therefore, relative motion is increasingly slight.

·         If an observer is out of sync in the pattern, acceleration shows up in the observed (relative) expansion motion, when there is none in the actual expansion motion.  With distance, the acceleration becomes less measurable. With great distances, it disappears altogether.

·         If expansion started out homogeneous at center the disk will remain homogeneous throughout expansion, and preserve this expansion pattern and its illusions, even with clumping of mass due to gravity.

·         The Hubble Value reduces with each tick of the clock, as the density of the universe drops.

·         With increasing age, the Hubble Value will appear to become stable (a constant), for long periods, depending on the sensitivity of measurements.

·         Light from distant objects, emitted from their past, and from an earlier expansion period (under a different Hubble value), will offer a value (velocity and distance relationship) consistent with the time it is observed rather than the time it was emitted.

·         Gravitational Lensing can produce two images of the same object.  This simulator suggests that both will present any observer with the same value of H, no matter how much time is between their observations.  It also suggests that lensing could be used to determine the distance the light travel of each image without knowing the distance of either path of light.

·         Dark Flow is an observation reported by NASA of local expansion within the broader expansion.  This model predicts such a localized motion and it is an illusion.

 
 
Motion concept:
concept.jpg
 
 
If you are willing to offer comments, please see the website I created to explore this idea...

Attached Thumbnails

  • image009.jpg

Edited by RodneyBelieves, 03 May 2019 - 09:55 AM.

  • Bradpitt4 likes this

#2 sanctus

sanctus

    Resident Diabolist

  • Administrators
  • 4228 posts

Posted 09 January 2019 - 04:48 AM

And how do you explain accelerated expansion with this? You found a way (maybe) to explain expansion, not acceleraed expansion.



#3 sanctus

sanctus

    Resident Diabolist

  • Administrators
  • 4228 posts

Posted 09 January 2019 - 07:40 AM

Flummoxed, I interpreted the OP as stating everyone is in their own center (illusion of center) not that there is an actual center, that is why I did not pick up on it.



#4 RodneyBelieves

RodneyBelieves

    Thinking

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 19 posts

Posted 09 January 2019 - 09:54 AM

The universe does not have a centre. It is expanding like the surface of a balloon, the following is not the utube link I was looking for, but it is close enough.

Please drop the term big bang and replace with boundless inflationary stage, and forget the singularity it is considered to be a region of space in modern ideas that underwent expansion. . I hope it is not teaching you to suck eggs.

After Dr. Hubble saw distant galaxies moving away from us, science began trying to explain it. We appeared to be at the center of expansion, but they knew we just weren't. They could come up with no other explanation other than space is expanding everywhere, pushing all space around every expanding point away from it. "That is the only explanation", I read from a grad student.  That is where your balloon analogy was born, they "found" an explanation of how space is expanding that would offer an illusion of center.  I believe there is a better explanation, more reasonable, of why we appear to be at center. It is indeed an illusion caused by this simple pattern of motion with all mass moving away from a true center, which might not be a forced expansion at all (or it could be).


Edited by RodneyBelieves, 11 January 2019 - 11:20 AM.


#5 RodneyBelieves

RodneyBelieves

    Thinking

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 19 posts

Posted 09 January 2019 - 09:55 AM

And how do you explain accelerated expansion with this? You found a way (maybe) to explain expansion, not acceleraed expansion.

 

And how do you explain accelerated expansion with this? You found a way (maybe) to explain expansion, not acceleraed expansion.

When I started out, I believed what science told me, that the universe was accelerating.  Maybe you didn't read to the end, I know it's long.  I point out that if objects are moving out of sync, the pattern presents the observer with the illusion of acceleration.  Also, the slowing down of observed passage of time, due to the speed of light delaying observation of events, could throw off estimates of distance if based on pulsating rates or other time sensitive methods if you are not aware that actual motion might be at a divergent angle from you.  Science believes what they see, objects actual motion is moving directly away, when they might not be.

 

If this is what is going on, and space is expanding (though with this pattern it would not have to be for observers to perceive themselves at center), then acceleration of expansion is still possible. But, as I point out at the end, that alters the Hubble formula to estimate age of the universe.  This whole simulation could be done using an accelerated expansion, pulling each axis at an accelerated rate, and all the illusions and the validity of the Hubble formula would remain intact. (I did a steady rate only because I became convinced that science has just put so much effort into proving space is expanding like a loaf of bread that it has proven it so, when it might not be.)  The other difference will be that all objects will appear to be accelerating away from every other.  In that simulation, the acceleration observed will increase with distance away from the observer.  At each pause, the Hubble formula will work just fine to help the observer calculate the velocity or distance to any object.  At the advanced age of our Universe, for us, the motion is as paused.

 

Thank you for your kind response and for taking time to look at this.


Edited by RodneyBelieves, 09 January 2019 - 10:16 AM.


#6 RodneyBelieves

RodneyBelieves

    Thinking

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 19 posts

Posted 11 January 2019 - 11:14 AM

And how do you explain accelerated expansion with this? You found a way (maybe) to explain expansion, not acceleraed expansion.

Concerning acceleration, I am apparently not the only one who doubts...

 

 

 
An excerpt from the article...
 
Five years ago, the Nobel Prize in Physics was awarded to three astronomers for their discovery, in the late 1990s, that the universe is expanding at an accelerating pace.
 
Their conclusions were based on analysis of Type Ia supernovae — the spectacular thermonuclear explosions of dying stars — picked up by the NASA/ESA Hubble Space Telescope and large ground-based telescopes. It led to the widespread acceptance of the idea that the universe is dominated by a mysterious substance named ‘dark energy’ that drives this accelerating expansion.
 
Now, a team of scientists led by Professor Subir Sarkar of Oxford University’s Department of Physics has cast doubt on this standard cosmological concept. Making use of a vastly increased data set — a catalogue of 740 Type Ia supernovae, more than ten times the original sample size — the researchers have found that the evidence for acceleration may be flimsier than previously thought, with the data being consistent with a constant rate of expansion.


#7 exchemist

exchemist

    Creating

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2816 posts

Posted 11 January 2019 - 11:48 AM

 

Concerning acceleration, I am apparently not the only one who doubts...

 

 

 
An excerpt from the article...
 
Five years ago, the Nobel Prize in Physics was awarded to three astronomers for their discovery, in the late 1990s, that the universe is expanding at an accelerating pace.
 
Their conclusions were based on analysis of Type Ia supernovae — the spectacular thermonuclear explosions of dying stars — picked up by the NASA/ESA Hubble Space Telescope and large ground-based telescopes. It led to the widespread acceptance of the idea that the universe is dominated by a mysterious substance named ‘dark energy’ that drives this accelerating expansion.
 
Now, a team of scientists led by Professor Subir Sarkar of Oxford University’s Department of Physics has cast doubt on this standard cosmological concept. Making use of a vastly increased data set — a catalogue of 740 Type Ia supernovae, more than ten times the original sample size — the researchers have found that the evidence for acceleration may be flimsier than previously thought, with the data being consistent with a constant rate of expansion.

 

Thanks for posting an interesting link.

 

However it seems to me that the good Prof - even though he is from my alma mater - is perhaps inappropriately applying the 5 sigma convention, normal  in his own discipline (particle physics), to astronomy. For most of experimental science, 3 sigma is generally taken as pretty conclusive. More here from Wiki: 

QUOTE

In statistics, the 68–95–99.7 rule, also known as the empirical rule, is a shorthand used to remember the percentage of values that lie within a band around the mean in a normal distribution with a width of two, four and six standard deviations, respectively; more accurately, 68.27%, 95.45% and 99.73% of the values lie within one, two and three standard deviations of the mean, respectively.

In mathematical notation, these facts can be expressed as follows, where Χ is an observation from a normally distributed random variable, μ is the mean of the distribution, and σ is its standard deviation:

Pr ( μ − 1 σ ≤ X ≤ μ + 1 σ )

≈ 0.6827

Pr ( μ − 2 σ ≤ X ≤ μ + 2 σ )

≈ 0.9545

Pr ( μ − 3 σ ≤ X ≤ μ + 3 σ )

≈ 0.9973

 

In the empirical sciences the so-called three-sigma rule of thumb expresses a conventional heuristic that nearly all values are taken to lie within three standard deviations of the mean, and thus it is empirically useful to treat 99.7% probability as near certainty.[1] The usefulness of this heuristic depends significantly on the question under consideration. In the social sciences, a result may be considered "significant" if its confidence level is of the order of a two-sigma effect (95%), while in particle physics, there is a convention of a five-sigma effect (99.99994% confidence) being required to qualify as a discovery.

The "three-sigma rule of thumb" is related to a result also known as the three-sigma rule, which states that even for non-normally distributed variables, at least 88.8% of cases should fall within properly calculated three-sigma intervals.

UNQUOTE

 

By his own admission, his analysis of this bigger data set still gives a result approaching 3 sigma confidence (99.7%, given a normal distribution) that the expansion is accelerating. So he has hardly found the evidence absent!   


Edited by exchemist, 11 January 2019 - 03:10 PM.


#8 Dubbelosix

Dubbelosix

    Creating

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3041 posts

Posted 11 January 2019 - 12:16 PM

 

Observed expansion motion may not be an actual expansion of space, it could be a moving apart of mass in space from a center at divergent angles in a specific pattern. There is a simple pattern of motion from a center that would offer every observer within the illusion of center, all other objects receding directly away from him. This simple motion could explain why local expansion motion is barely observable without any twisting of the idea. This model suggests that this is because as the Universe gets very old, objects of common velocity (away from center) are those that are now "local", therefore relative expansion motions of close-by objects are slight. The older the Universe, the more slight, therefore, more and more undiscernible. Objects of higher or lower velocity than the observer have simply moved away with time, so the further away the faster. The observed motions comply with the Hubble formula. The reason all objects appear to be moving away from each other is simply an illusion within the pattern of motion away from center, seen by every observer within, no matter where you put him (or her).
 
If you are willing to offer comments, please see the website I created to explore this idea...

 

 

This is an old chestnut - the real question is, how do you distinguish expanding space from simply things moving in space?

 

There is one problem, if you take the redshift seriously enough and Hubbles law to boot, the further a galaxy is, the faster it recedes, and it encodes for the most furthest galaxies, to move faster than light. But of course, those signals are from the past as well and so need to be interpreted correctly.



#9 RodneyBelieves

RodneyBelieves

    Thinking

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 19 posts

Posted 11 January 2019 - 02:11 PM

This is an old chestnut - the real question is, how do you distinguish expanding space from simply things moving in space?

 

There is one problem, if you take the redshift seriously enough and Hubbles law to boot, the further a galaxy is, the faster it recedes, and it encodes for the most furthest galaxies, to move faster than light. But of course, those signals are from the past as well and so need to be interpreted correctly.

 

 

This model I present would not be valid if it were not true that the more distant an object the more discernable the relative motion, that is the greater it will be.  This model demands that the further away a galaxy, the faster it will be observed moving. The relative motion is increasing with distance, and that relative motion is the same everywhere within this universe, including dead center. The closer objects are to each other the relative motion becomes increasingly undiscernible. As expansion ages the more distance an object would have to be for it's observed motion to be undiscernible. This is what is being observed today.  This model offers a different explanation than anything I've read -- The objects that have always been moving at more discernible relative motions (faster) have  moved further and further away from each other with time. Therefore, the further away, the greater that relative motion has always been and the more discernable. This is a feature of divergence from a center with time., but the actual motions of each object does not change (other than the effects of gravity, which my simple math showed might cause an illusion of acceleration (where there is none) but will not alter the illusions of center - recession of all objects away from all others the same everywhere).  In this model, this "steady speed" expansion can be an actual expansion of space or just inertia, or could work if it is an acceleration.  This motion also will maintain distributions of materials throughout history, only gravity changing local densities.

 

I am not a scientist; how does expansion violate the speed of light?  Did Einstein suggest that two objects could not recede from each other faster than the speed of light?  Do Einstein’s equations apply a speed limit to "relative velocity"?  That makes no sense.  As long as each object is obeying the speed limit, how is this a problem? Is relative velocity an "entanglement"?  Can’t two beams of light head away from each other and each moving at the speed of light?  The light emitted from two objects will simply never reach the other.   Relative motion is simply an observed feature. How can there be a speed limit for relative motion?  I don’t understand this problem.

 

Having said that, if space is actually expanding and current explanations present such a problem, then so will this model (unless the motion I present is steady after all).  That problem will simply exist in my expanding universe also.  What I am offering here is that there might be unobserved “actual” motions going on that would be most difficult to discern and explain the illusion of center.  If this motion is driven by an actual expansion of space, then even the CMB would be caught up in it, our motion against that would also be relative, and we would have little hope of discerning our own actual expansion motion.  This motion could be what is going on and it makes more sense than "space is being generated constantly", especially since after 30 years Dark Energy has yet to move a needle or cause a flash of light in a fluid.

 


Edited by RodneyBelieves, 11 January 2019 - 02:31 PM.


#10 RodneyBelieves

RodneyBelieves

    Thinking

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 19 posts

Posted 11 January 2019 - 02:19 PM

After Dr. Hubble saw distant galaxies moving away from us, science began trying to explain it. We appeared to be at the center of expansion, but they knew we just weren't. They could come up with no other explanation other than space is expanding everywhere, pushing all space around every expanding point away from it. "That is the only explanation", I read from a grad student.  That is where your balloon analogy was born, they "found" an explanation of how space is expanding that would offer an illusion of center.  I believe there is a better explanation, more reasonable, of why we appear to be at center. It is indeed an illusion caused by this simple pattern of motion with all mass moving away from a true center, which might not be a forced expansion at all (or it could be).

Flummoxed:

 

 

Concerning the balloon analogy: what I am offering is that many current ideas and theories don't have hard proof.  Among my experiences in the years of completing a degree in physics, 35 years ago, there was a single day that has molded a part of my understanding of scientific work. That day, our instructor drew a straight line on the board and randomly placed dots above and below it. He then proceeded to show us a technique to create a function that would yield the positions of those dots. You could do it with any combination of dots, but the more dots the more complicated the final function. I was so impressed that I played around with this new knowledge for days.  Over time, what struck me, was that the functions were meaningless, yet they yielded my dots, every one of them and in the right positions.  Even back then, I knew that science could be like that function, if you are not careful.  Sometimes, over time, that function can become facts and bias.  Every scientist must always be willing to look under every rock for answers, especially if underneath the rock you currently hold is still just a formula.



#11 RodneyBelieves

RodneyBelieves

    Thinking

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 19 posts

Posted 11 January 2019 - 04:46 PM

And how do you explain accelerated expansion with this? You found a way (maybe) to explain expansion, not acceleraed expansion.

I have been thinking about your question of acceleration within this model.  I just came up with how to word it to you:

 

If you scan my website for "Gravity and a new illusion, Acceleration"

you can read how I came to what I am about to say...

 

In this model, all objects are expanding away from a center at steady rates.  That rate depends on distance from center, and the pattern of motion presents all observers within the view of that expansion as if they were standing at center.  Therefore, the illusion of being at center, yet he is not, (unless he is by chance standing at center).

 

This works as long as all objects stay at the correct velocity for their distance from center, even with delays of observation due to the speed of light.  As long as the pattern is maintained, the illusion of center will be also, that is, recession of all objects from all others.  I suggest in my paper that even gravity will not disrupt this pattern enough to remove the illusions within it. It turns out that two objects, each moving at their correct speeds, will have a center of moment that is always moving at the correct speed for its distance from center, even as gravity begins pulling the two together.  However, during the pull together, each object will become out of sync, though together they are in-sync.  Objects bound together by gravity will as a unit conform to the pattern.  

 

Here is where acceleration is seen; if an object (or bound objects) get out of sync within the pattern (that is, develop a "wrong" velocity for the pattern away from center) this will generate an illusion of acceleration away for every observer who looks at it. If the observer is the one out of sync in the pattern, every object he looks at will appear to be accelerating, but the "actual" motion of the objects involved, away from true center, will not be an acceleration.  Acceleration of the object will be an illusion for the observer. 

 

In other words:

 

In this model, if the objects get out of sync in the pattern, the "actual" motion of the objects will remain a steady rate, but the relative motion between the objects will be an acceleration. 

 

Of course, it is the relative motion that the observer is measuring.


Edited by RodneyBelieves, 11 January 2019 - 04:52 PM.


#12 pascal

pascal

    Questioning

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 185 posts

Posted 12 January 2019 - 12:50 PM

And how can we be sure that mass/energy isn't 'shrinking', along with local spacetime, to keep interparticle distances 'constant' (at least by our usual yardsticks, which also shrink, keeping pace with other materials). This would be logically equivalent to expanding spacetime at large scales. The difference is that we don't hold that mass/energy is expanding at large distances from us.

 

Jess Tauber



#13 RodneyBelieves

RodneyBelieves

    Thinking

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 19 posts

Posted 14 January 2019 - 12:48 PM

And how do you explain accelerated expansion with this? You found a way (maybe) to explain expansion, not acceleraed expansion.

Your question about acceleration has opened a new door for my simulations.  I have struggled with science declaring that expansion is accelerating. I had not given much thought to my model explaining acceleration, but I had seen an acceleration under the right circumstance. In my model, that acceleration is presented to the observer within the relative motion, but there is no acceleration of the expansion motion. Until now, I never made that connection to what is being observed. But now, I wonder.

My website had already offered an explanation of acceleration, but I had missed the connection to claims of the expansion of our Universe. My website is me exploring motion away from center in this particular pattern, and letting the math take me where it would.  In the early days of working on this, I was not well versed in observations beyond what I heard that Dr. Hubble found.  As this model suggested other observations, like local expansion motion growing increasingly difficult to discern as expansion aged, I would read and learn, that observation is offered. Those verifications caused me to kept going.  All along, I was trying to get someone with more strength than me to help, but none were interested in even hearing this.

Thanks to you, I am now returning to my simulations and revisiting the acceleration of relative motion, after all, relative motion is what is observed.  After you helped me see this possible connection to current theories, that our Universe expansion is accelerating, I added a new paragraph to my website:

The objects, their “actual” expansion motion, are not accelerating, but the relative motion between the observer and the observed objects, “observed” motion, is.  If earth is caught up in a giant orbit around a distant center of momentum, while the CoM might not be out of sync, certainly earth is to some degree.  The size of that acceleration will depend on the level of that degree. The acceleration should change over time as the earth moves to different positions in its various orbit, and orbits within orbits.

Today, I began to explore further this relative motion acceleration that came from this pattern.  I began a new simulation of motion with just the observer out of sync in the pattern, which I feel is likely since earth is not at the center of momentum of all that we are orbiting, and since observation of distance bodies is mostly an observation of Center of Momentums, which should be mostly in sync.  This new simulation so far is indeed showing observations of acceleration of relative motions when there is none in the objects themselves. It is also adding a new twist; in my original simulations the delays of observation due to the speed of light, when everything is in sync, time viewed from the object is slowed down. That slow-down was constant for each object, but dependent on each objects relative velocity to the observer.  When the observer is out of sync, it looks like that observed slow-down is changing at a steady rate with time.

What I am offering is all just math, learning about the observations as I go, but now, even the observation of acceleration is adding to my encouragement.  Once again, what came out of the math is supported by what is observed (but not so much by current theories).  I need someone stronger than me to do this, or help me know to drop it

.


Edited by RodneyBelieves, 14 January 2019 - 01:13 PM.


#14 RodneyBelieves

RodneyBelieves

    Thinking

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 19 posts

Posted 30 January 2019 - 04:19 PM

And how do you explain accelerated expansion with this? You found a way (maybe) to explain expansion, not acceleraed expansion.

 

 

Your question motived me to revisit my discovery of an observed acceleration within the relative motion between objects involved in a steady rate expansion.  It also motived me to add simulations of this pattern of motion as if the actual expansion of the sphere is an acceleration.

I just added some updates to my website:  I discovered that the acceleration observed within the “relative motion” (within a steady rate expansion) between two receding objects diminishes with increased distance.

My model also suggests that the acceleration observed within relative motion (whether steady rate expansion or an accelerating expansion) alters the H value calculated from observation. It makes it too high or too low, depending on the situation.

Here is what is strange:

In a steady rate expansion, the Hubble Value at any given moment of expansion is H = 1/t, where t is the age of the expansion process (which means H decreases with age).  For an expanding acceleration, the Hubble Value turns out to be H = 2/t.  (The H value does not describe the actual motion from center within this pattern, but the relationship between objects at any “frozen” moment during expansion. It can be used to evaluate the motion of the objects involved in expansion at that moment. In other words, the data from any object can provide an H that can be used to evaluate the speed or distance of any other, at that moment in expansion.  I also note in my data that the rate of change of the H value slows with time, meaning, with an advanced in age expansion you might have to wait a long time to observer H changing.)

The problem my simulation presented is that if observed motion (relative motion) is an acceleration, either because the expansion itself is an acceleration or the broken pattern of a steady rate expansion present motion as an acceleration, the H value calculated form observation is skewed, high or low. This at first seemed to eliminate this model, the H values calculated couldn't be used toward other objects at the same moment in expansion.   Interestingly, this affect from observed acceleration, whether generated by actual acceleration or is just in the relative motions of a steady rate expansion, reduces with distance between the objects. At great distances the H calculated approaches the current H of expansion for a steady rate expansion, H = 1/t (for both forms of expansion!)  For both situations of observed acceleration, this correction does begin to offer an H that confirms Hubble Law for that moment, but the altered H never quite reaches the correct value.  It approaches it as distance increases (and therefore relative velocity), but remains slightly high or low. This means that  an accelerating expansion motion will present the observer with H = 1/t.  Extreme distant objects, an therefore greater relative velocities, remove the affect of acceleration on the calculated H value.  Whether steady rate or accelerating expansion, for distant objects where expansion motion is most discernible, both forms of expansion will appear to be steady rate.  The affects on acceleration within relative motion diminish with distance and velocity, due to the speed of light delays on the data.

There is an observation in our current Universe that might support this.  The current H value calculated from observations is higher than what is derived from the CMB.  If the orbit of our earth is moving us in the opposite direction as the expansion motion of our “Super Group”, then we our out of sync, too slow, in our position within the motion of this expansion pattern.  Science offers that earth is moving around 300kil/s against the CMB and our Super Cluster is moving around 600kil/s. That situation matches one of my simulations (now included on my website), and that simulation suggests that the H value calculated from observations will be high, slightly high for more distant objects.

Therefore, this model may have yet another possible hit toward observations.  Still working on this...


Edited by RodneyBelieves, 30 January 2019 - 05:36 PM.


#15 marcospolo

marcospolo

    Explaining

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 606 posts

Posted 11 February 2019 - 07:31 PM

After Dr. Hubble saw distant galaxies moving away from us, science began trying to explain it. We appeared to be at the center of expansion, but they knew we just weren't. They could come up with no other explanation other than space is expanding everywhere, pushing all space around every expanding point away from it. "That is the only explanation", I read from a grad student.  That is where your balloon analogy was born, they "found" an explanation of how space is expanding that would offer an illusion of center.  I believe there is a better explanation, more reasonable, of why we appear to be at center. It is indeed an illusion caused by this simple pattern of motion with all mass moving away from a true center, which might not be a forced expansion at all (or it could be).

Hubble did not "see" an expanding universe at all. He had reading of what is called red shifted spectrum lines.  His INTERPRETATION of the observation, was that is was like the Doppler effect for sound.

There are other explanations for this observation, that do not conclude an expanding universe. Also an accelerating expanding universe is also an interpretation of some data. The interpretation DEPENDS on a bunch of prior ASSUMPTIONS. 

 

One big problem with those assumptions is that the critical constant g,  the gravitation constant is just a pure guess. and has not been verified. The premise for a gravitation constant is not even on solid ground. The theory that gravity is the force that dictates the shape of the universe is also just an unfounded guess.

We have no idea what gravity is.  Quantum explains nothing, it just adds more assumptions and guesses into the mess we call Cosmology.

 

And finally about the balloon idea, every balloon has a center. Each dot on the balloon moves away from the others, but there is always a place within the balloon that is central to all.



#16 RodneyBelieves

RodneyBelieves

    Thinking

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 19 posts

Posted 04 March 2019 - 02:29 PM

Hubble did not "see" an expanding universe at all. He had reading of what is called red shifted spectrum lines.  His INTERPRETATION of the observation, was that is was like the Doppler effect for sound.

There are other explanations for this observation, that do not conclude an expanding universe. Also an accelerating expanding universe is also an interpretation of some data. The interpretation DEPENDS on a bunch of prior ASSUMPTIONS. 

 

One big problem with those assumptions is that the critical constant g,  the gravitation constant is just a pure guess. and has not been verified. The premise for a gravitation constant is not even on solid ground. The theory that gravity is the force that dictates the shape of the universe is also just an unfounded guess.

We have no idea what gravity is.  Quantum explains nothing, it just adds more assumptions and guesses into the mess we call Cosmology.

 

And finally about the balloon idea, every balloon has a center. Each dot on the balloon moves away from the others, but there is always a place within the balloon that is central to all.

 

And I am offering that it a red shift due to  relative motion between objects diverging away from a center in a specific pattern.  It seems to offer every observation people have told me it has to offer, so far.

 

Interesting comment about gravity.  I just days ago posted, on a physics "help with questions" page, questions about acceleration within expansion because I wanted to know the specific observations that led Cosmology to postulate it.  Someone mentioned that the Hubble Value should not be called a constant.  I then wondered out loud if G might not be a constant.

 

"For that matter, the Hubble Value likely is decreasing so slowly it could take hundreds or thousands of years to measure it. What if G is not a constant, changing likewise so slowly it could take thousands of years for us to see it? You know, if gravity propagates at the speed of light, maybe the massive size of a black hole could be an indication of it. The outer stars would be feeling the gravity of the black hole that was generated thousands of years ago, when G was bigger. The inner stars would be experiencing the current G.  "

 

I was then threatened with censorship or banning.  I offered that my comment was not trying to question G as a constant, but a way to examine it as one:

 

"I'm sorry. I guess I don't understand the difference between scientific exploration and person ideas. Ibix prompted we me to wonder about constants. I googled constants, and found that some scientist wondered about G being a constant, set up experiments, and in addition examined measurements that went back 20 years. In their experiments, they did detect some fluctuations of G that suggested its value could be somehow influenced by the positions of our sun and planets. But, they did not suggest yet that G might not be constant. They did however offer the 20 year consistent number as comfort that it is. That got me thinking. If G is not a constant it could take hundreds or thousands of years for us to measure it, like the Hubble Value. I wondered how we could test G better. It is so weak that I wondered how to magnify it so we could examine it easier (when something is very small, magnify it to see). To do that, you'd need something very massive that would make gravity strong, and easier to see fluctuations, even small ones.. The problem is, even so, if G is change of thousands of years you'd still have a problem. That made me think about black holes, and millions of stars circling them, and galaxies millions of light years across. From that, I posted my idea to use a black hole and galaxies to wonder about G. I don't believe G is constant or not.

I just want you to understand, I didn't post that as an idea about gravity, just a wondering about how we could test G as a constant. It's hard to know when you cross the line verses thinking outside the box. I am very grateful for the willingness to help and don't want to offend anyone. "

 

I was made to understand that a "nobody" like me can't offer anything of value.


Edited by RodneyBelieves, 04 March 2019 - 02:32 PM.


#17 fahrquad

fahrquad

    All I know is that I know nothing.

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1209 posts

Posted 04 March 2019 - 02:41 PM

I recall a Science Fiction short story I read about 45 years ago where life on Earth was considered an infestation and the rest of the universe was moving way from us to avoid contamination.  I cannot recall the title or author after all these years.  A rather different explanation for the expansion of the universe IMHO.