Is Newtonian Mechanics an advantage or a limitation in astrophysics?

[Mike C]

I think that the steady state universe has been well put to bed and you dont need einstein to tell you that, observation has refuted SSU's over and over again.... including the microwave background radiation that we observe all around us.

 

See my post below on the BBU:

 

http://hypography.com/forums/alternative-theories/11875-big-bang-erroneous.html

 

Mike C

[coldcreation]

.

 

 

 

Hilton?

 

Is there any body out there?

 

 

 

I'm curious to here your take on Euclid's fifth or parallel postulate (correspondingly: parallel lines are everywhere equidistant).

 

 

It is evident that Einstein’s relativity arose as a general theory that in principle holds true for all coordinate systems, i.e., with respect to all local and global geometrical configurations of spacetime: the previous theory applied only to inertial systems (special relativity). GR offers the possibility of coalescence of different strategies when considering large-scale homogenous fields as well as those that are not homogenous.

 

Is Newtonian Mechanics an advantage or a limitation regarding coordinate systems for a non-homogenous regime?

 

 

In my opinion, if the choices consisted solely of deciding whether to use Kleinian special relativistic geometry in a four-dimensional “field-free” Minkowski spacetime metric, or the general relativistic Riemannian distribution of the manifold, there is no contest: the latter would prevail.

 

However, bear in mind, the Riemannian multi-dimension spaces of constant positive curvature are precisely what led to the globally homogenous spherically symmetrical finite universe with an attitude: the infamous boundary condition.

 

This is where the illustrious framework of Lobachevsky’s non-Euclidean space, and to a certain extent de Sitters hypersphere, may be considered very closely as more realistic representatives of the global properties of the universe. A metrically homogenous world is obtained by the equivalence of all points, in all directions—since the change is a continuous transformation—there is no reason why the hyperbolic curvature should not be everywhere continuous in a homogenous playing field.

 

We have previously seen that there is evidence of change in the look-back time, from the topological point of view, that will furnish us with very important information about the development of the cosmos (viz SNe Ia). Today these observations have been interpreted as acceleration in the velocity of expansion.

 

 

Finally, Hilton, are we not in possession of a four-dimensional singularity-free non-expanding, non-contracting continuum, the physical attributes of which are described by general relativity and are observed in nature?

 

 

 

 

CC

[Hilton Ratcliffe]

Hi CC and everyone else,

 

Thank you all for your contributions. Instead of sitting here consumed by guilt at not attenting to this thread, I should get off my backside and do something! I really would like to keep it going because I am learning so much from it, and because there seems to be an interest in agricultural astrophysics :hihi:. I am going to have to weigh that against other streams in my life, because I don't want to insult you guys by responding flippantly to your obviously very genuine, well-meant, and well-taken points of view. Believe it or not, I have been going through the posts of the last two months, and fully intend to come back with some responses to the good points that have been raised.

 

CC, with the greatest respect, your last post consists of precisely the arena of purely mathematical argument that I wish at all costs to avoid for the rest of my life. Maybe I'm mentally deficient in some or many ways, but to me, if I look at it long enough, it reduces to psycho-babble that is meaningless in the world as I experience it. Remember, I am without apology an agricultural astrophysicist, and am trying to look at the problems in a practical, physically verifiable way. To paraphrase Modest, I am looking for engineering solutions to engineering problems. Would a shifting spanner or a vise-grip be better for loosening this nut? This has nothing to do with how intricately I can twist space in my imagination. The example of 1a SNe is a very good example of how mathematical sophistry together with model-dependent bias can lead us up the garden path.

 

To me, the first step would be to return to Euclidean geometry, because it is real-world. As I stated in the opening paragraph of this thread, I am looking for answers in the world I am sentiently aware of, that common reality that sends us both signals of various types that our perception must interperet. The world is a roulette wheel. Where is the ball going to land? That is where I want to stack my chips.

 

Euclid's 5th, like Beethoven's, is beautiful. Nothing wrong with it. I find the reasons given for the rejection of Euclid's postulates tiresome. If lines intersect anywhere at all, then they are obviously not parallel!

 

Don't get me wrong - I greatly value your contributions to this thread, and hope we continue to find common ground despite missing each other now and again :).

 

A response to other earlier posts will follow shortly, or within the current decade at least!

 

Best

Hilton

[coldcreation]

CC, with the greatest respect, your last post consists of precisely the arena of purely mathematical argument that I wish at all costs to avoid for the rest of my life.

 

Hello Hilton, Hello all,

 

I was referring to observations (specifically regarding the deviation from linearity observed in the spectra of Type Ia SNe), not mathematics.

How does one determine the geometry of spacetime (whether it be Euclidean, Riemannian or Lobachevskian) other than by measuring the distance of celestial objects, standard candles, at great distances (assuming, indeed, SNe Type Ia can be used as standard candles)?

 

This has nothing to do with how intricately I can twist space in my imagination. The example of 1a SNe is a very good example of how mathematical sophistry together with model-dependent bias can lead us up the garden path.

 

I agree that the standard garden variety interpretation to which you refer is model-dependent and rests solely on ad hoc parameters (DE and DM) to fix it.

 

The garden variety couple; non-baryonic dark particles and the dark energy, have yet to observed or tested empirically. The story, quintessentially melodramatic, over-the-top backstage family squabbling, bitching, moaning and groaning in a luxurious Cambridge physics department, has just one running gag—anything this couple does in private is likely to be far more sensational than what they do on the Universal stage.

 

But let's take observations independently of a particular model: How do you determine distance without considering redshift or light curves?

 

How do you know Euclidean geometry is operational in the real world, in light of the fact that a deviation from linearity with respect to SNe Ia has been observed?

 

To me, the first step would be to return to Euclidean geometry, because it is real-world.

 

Again, how do you know Euclidean geometry represents the real-world?

 

Euclid's 5th, like Beethoven's, is beautiful. Nothing wrong with it. ... If lines intersect anywhere at all, then they are obviously not parallel!

...

 

Yes, beautiful they are indeed. But it has been shown that parallel lines can diverge or converge (from the perspective of any observer relative too his-her-its rest frame) and yet remain parallel in the real world (geodesics), both mathematically and (arguably) observationally.

 

How do you determine which geometry to use?

 

If your answer is: "by observation of the real world," then please tell me what you are observing (if it is not SNe Ia)?

 

Thanks in advance...

 

“The very name geometry indicates that the concept of space is physiologically connected with the Earth as an ever present body of reference…The purely logical (axiomatic) representation of Euclidean geometry has' date=' it is true, the advantage of greater simplicity and clarity…The fatal error that logical necessity, preceding all experience, was the basis of Euclidean geometry and the concept of space belonging to it, this fatal error arose from the fact that the empirical basis, on which the axiomatic construction of Euclidean geometry rests, had fallen into oblivion. [Furthermore']…we have not yet arrived at a new foundation of physics concerning which we may be certain that the manifold of all investigated phenomenon, and of successful partial theoretical systems, could be deduced logically from it.” (Einstein 1936, see 1954, p. 297, 298, 301)

 

 

 

 

CC

[Mike C]

Hello Hilton, Hello all,

 

I was referring to observations (specifically regarding the deviation from linearity observed in the spectra of Type Ia SNe), not mathematics.

How does one determine the geometry of spacetime (whether it be Euclidean, Riemannian or Lobachevskian) other than by measuring the distance of celestial objects, standard candles, at great distances (assuming, indeed, SNe Type Ia can be used as standard candles)?

 

The SN 1a's are not credible IMO because of the large variations in the white dwarf stars as to mass and temperatures.

Especially to their temperatures that vary from about 3,000K to as high as 100,000K.

With such departures from this/these standards, how can you consider them to be 'standard candles' for distance measurements?

 

Also the theory about the cause of these explosions that use hydrogen gases is fallacious because no residual remains of hydrogen has been observed.

Only recently, has a report surfaced of one observation detecting hydrogens presence.

 

Also, no figures have been given about how much 'added expansion' by this dark energy contributed to the Hubble expansion?

 

So, IMO, the SN 1a's are not credible.

 

Mike C

[PhysBang]

The SN 1a's are not credible IMO because of the large variations in the white dwarf stars as to mass and temperatures.

Especially to their temperatures that vary from about 3,000K to as high as 100,000K.

With such departures from this/these standards, how can you consider them to be 'standard candles' for distance measurements?

The one big reason would be that we don't really know whether or not SNe Ia are white dwarf novas.

 

The basis for the calibration is empirical evidence, not the theory of white dwarf stars.

Also, no figures have been given about how much 'added expansion' by this dark energy contributed to the Hubble expansion?

Actually, that's exactly what is given in every paper discussing the cosmological results of SNe Ia observations. That's the point of the observations. They get a measurement of just how much dark energy has influenced the expansion.

 

And, nicely, this amount matches what they get from the details of the CMB!

[Hilton Ratcliffe]

Hi CC,

 

Thanks again for your challenging questions.

 

CC said: I was referring to observations (specifically regarding the deviation from linearity observed in the spectra of Type Ia SNe), not mathematics. How does one determine the geometry of spacetime (whether it be Euclidean, Riemannian or Lobachevskian) other than by measuring the distance of celestial objects, standard candles, at great distances (assuming, indeed, SNe Type Ia can be used as standard candles)?

 

I read your post as questioning the geometry of the Universe. That's maths. The geometry of space is axiomatic. We don't have to try to figure it out. When we do make tests of our ideas, it would be advisable IMO to test them on things that are as near as possible. That way we reduce the variables and uncertainty.

 

CC said: But let's take observations independently of a particular model: How do you determine distance without considering redshift or light curves? How do you know Euclidean geometry is operational in the real world, in light of the fact that a deviation from linearity with respect to SNe Ia has been observed?

 

We can only determine distance with any certainty for objects close enough to triangulate. Then we have period-brightness (less certainty) and finally redshift (negligable certainty).

 

Again, how do you know Euclidean geometry represents the real-world?

 

By looking at things. It's obvious.

 

But it has been shown that parallel lines can diverge or converge (from the perspective of any observer relative too his-her-its rest frame) and yet remain parallel in the real world (geodesics), both mathematically and (arguably) observationally.How do you determine which geometry to use?

 

I note your disclaimer of "in the real world" (my emphasis in the quote). It seems you are comparing real and unreal phenomena. I refer to and work and live in the real world only, although I use conceptualisation as a tool (never as an argument). Parallel lines are explicitly always equidistant from one another. If they converge or intersect, then they are not parallel lines. Period. I don't have to choose which geometry to use. Nature made the choice for me.

 

If your answer is: "by observation of the real world," then please tell me what you are observing (if it is not SNe Ia)?

 

I observe inter alia, the walls of my house, my keyboard, my cat's tail. I don't have to look at far away things to get the answer. And, in my view, observation of motion illustrates that space and time are not fused.

 

Best

Hilton

[Hilton Ratcliffe]

Hi PhysBang,

 

I don't recall seeing you post here before. If this is your first post, welcome!

 

Actually, that's exactly what is given in every paper discussing the cosmological results of SNe Ia observations. That's the point of the observations. They get a measurement of just how much dark energy has influenced the expansion.And, nicely, this amount matches what they get from the details of the CMB!

 

Some of the assumptions in your statement are debatable. Not all papers analysing these data agree as you suggest. The functions of DE and expansion itself in any cosmological phenomenon are unproven. Although we are at risk of taking this thread away from an assessment of the limitations of NM in astrophysics, perhaps some limited digression and commentary on prevailing methods of analysis in astrophysics are appropriate.

 

The issue here as I understand it is whether or not the universe is undergoing systematic expansion, and whether or not SNe rise times support that contention. We need to check theoretical viability, accuracy and representivity of observational data samples, correctness of interpretation, and any occurrence of ambiguity in the results. It’s important to point out at the outset that I have no interest in fancy theories existing in conceptual isolation; our enquiry should be aimed at deriving an explanation for what happens in the real world, and that immediately requires that we accept the existence of such a thing as substantial reality independent of observation. The stars and galaxies that we are about to discuss are real things, not ideas or models. Do we have common ground?

 

The compelling elegance of Tom Andrews’ approach (Falsification of the Expanding Universe Model and Derivation of the Hubble Redshift and the Metric in a Static Universe, AIP: Proceedings of the First Crisis in Cosmology Conference CCC1) is that he invokes another class of standard candle, namely brightest cluster galaxies, and compares the light signatures with contemporary 1a SNe. If the anomalous dimming is caused by Big Bang’s postulated expanding space, then the effect should be seen in the light curves of all standard candles, not just 1a SNe. Right? Using two independent sets of data for expansion with a third set (compiled by Goldhaber) as a basis for examining time dilation, Andrews shows that the broadening effects in galaxy light is consistent with neither the expanding universe model nor the notion of time dilation, and in fact directly supports a static (non-expanding) universe model.

 

Another paper I would recommend is “Evidence for a Non-Expanding Universe: Surface Brightness Data from HUDF”, which was presented at CCC1 by Eric Lerner (No Big Bang : Contents). In it, Lerner tests Hubble Ultra Deep Field (HUDF) data against the Friedmann-Robertson-Walker (FRW) metric. His conclusions do not favour FRW cosmology, and need to be considered by anyone seriously investigating the origins and destiny of the Universe. As a matter of interest, this paper became a rallying cry for the Alternative Cosmology Group because the anonymous reviewers censoring arXiv at first arbitrarily rejected it. Eric had to apply a great deal of pressure to get it published, and his success here marked a watershed in the fight to get alternative views published alongside the orthodoxy.

 

An excellent summary of the principles of SNe light broadening and rise times is contained in Tom van Flandern’s article “Do Supernovas Prove an Expanding Universe?” (Meta Research Bulletin June 15, 2004). Quote: “There is no such thing as a standard single supernova (SN) lightcurve. SN of Type 1a are standard candles only in the sense that their intrinsic maxima are limited to a range of a couple of magnitudes, but this still covers a variety of light curve widths. More importantly, there is no correlation between lightcurve width and redshift beyond that expected from Malmquist bias (the tendency to see only the brightest objects in any class at the greatest distances). The correlation you speak of appears only when brightness is inferred using assumptions about the redshift-distance relation. In fact, it is precisely because the supernovae do not follow the expected behaviour that forces BB proponents to infer that the universe’s expansion is now accelerating.” Read the discussion for yourself at Paradoxes Resolved, Origins Illuminated - Tired light and supernovae and also TOPIC_ID=526. While you are there, take a look also at “Did the Universe Have a Beginning?” It examines 7 standard tests for expansion and the fit of their results in both expanding and static models.

 

Finally, read Jerry W. Jensen’s “Supernovae Light Curves: An Argument for a New Distance Modulus” at http://arxiv.org/ftp/astro-ph/papers/0404/0404207.pdf . Please pay particular attention to the section starting at the bottom of page 6, “Supernova 1a Rise Times”, and the part around figures 6 – 8 preceding it. Jensen’s convincing argument shows that the SNe data contain no evidence of time dilation. This is crucial, because if Ia SNe have no time dilation, that removes the implication that they moving away from us (or that the volume of space is increasing), and we may therefore with confidence deduce that the universe is not expanding. Quote (referring to Arp’s abundant evidence of AGN—QSO links): “That astronomers continue to doubt these convincing visual and tomographic radio images is one of the perplexing consequences of the power of preconceptions on the interpretive functions of the human mind.”

 

You will readily appreciate that since Big Bang's expanding universe, with all its nuances, was derived originally from General Relativity, which in turn is a superset of Special Relativity, the magnitude of the can of worms being opened by our challenge is daunting to say the least. The way to proceed is simply to take it one step at a time and carefully note the outcome each time, much as one would do in tackling a complex differential equation term by term. A clear example is that given by Yurij Baryshev—the Friedmann model does not permit large-scale structure, yet that is precisely we see for as far as our instruments can take us. Now we ask ourselves, which do we believe, the underlying mathematical constraint, or the observations obtained from every side?

 

Best

Hilton

[Mike C]

The one big reason would be that we don't really know whether or not SNe Ia are white dwarf novas.

 

The basis for the calibration is empirical evidence, not the theory of white dwarf stars.

 

Actually, that's exactly what is given in every paper discussing the cosmological results of SNe Ia observations. That's the point of the observations. They get a measurement of just how much dark energy has influenced the expansion.

 

And, nicely, this amount matches what they get from the details of the CMB!

 

Can you quote those figures?

 

The Hubble expansion was derived from numerous observations that numbered about 5-6.

The figures from the SN's (both) were off target the most from the average of all the others.

 

There was a post on this work involving the Hubble Expansion that I will have to track down.

I will repost it here when I find it.

 

Mike C

[Mike C]

Can you quote those figures?

 

The Hubble expansion was derived from numerous observations that numbered about 5-6.

The figures from the SN's (both) were off target the most from the average of all the others.

 

There was a post on this work involving the Hubble Expansion that I will have to track down.

I will repost it here when I find it.

 

Mike C

 

I found the post I mentioned above.

 

See below:

 

http://hypography.com/forums/astronomy-cosmology/10897-hubble-constant.html?highlight=Hubble+Expansion

 

Mike C

[PhysBang]

Can you quote those figures?

Why don't you read up here: Supernova Cosmology Project

The Hubble expansion was derived from numerous observations that numbered about 5-6.

The figures from the SN's (both) were off target the most from the average of all the others.

I have no idea what units you are talking about, nor what values you are talking about.

[coldcreation]

The SNe Ia data and its implications is largely off-topic in this thread, since it deals more with cosmology.

 

I am starting a new thread on-topic, as it is worthy of a more in-depth analysis.

 

 

CC

[Mike C]

Why don't you read up here: Supernova Cosmology Project

 

I have no idea what units you are talking about, nor what values you are talking about.

 

Did you read my post on the previous page at the bottom.

It gives the research involved into the Hubble Constant that involved the supernovas as well as others.

 

Mike C

[Mike C]

The SNe Ia data and its implications is largely off-topic in this thread, since it deals more with cosmology.

 

I am starting a new thread on-topic, as it is worthy of a more in-depth analysis.

 

 

CC

 

OK. This redshift idea needs some more research and discussion.

 

Mike C

[Mike C]

Why don't you read up here: Supernova Cosmology Project

 

I have no idea what units you are talking about, nor what values you are talking about.

 

That site you posted, shows how desperate they are to support the BBT and Einsteins 'Lamda' idea he needed to save his 'curvature of space'.

 

Those SN 1a's did not even extend beyond redshift 2, I believe.

Can you quote the largest RS that they detected?

And how does that compare to the HDF's RS's thar exceeded 7?

 

As I have said, the white dwarf stars have huge variations to be considered as 'distance candles'. And they do not know how they are caused?

The only concrete figure they provide is the 'trigger' mass of 1.44 SM's that inititiate the novas.

 

Mike C

[modest]

It seems you are comparing real and unreal phenomena. I refer to and work and live in the real world only, although I use conceptualisation as a tool (never as an argument). Parallel lines are explicitly always equidistant from one another. If they converge or intersect, then they are not parallel lines. Period. I don't have to choose which geometry to use. Nature made the choice for me.

 

Hello Hilton,

 

I just read:

The Ontology and Cosmology of Non-Euclidean Geometry

an essay by Dr. Kelley Ross.

 

When reading it you came to mind and I think you might find it some good food for thought. It asks a lot of good questions about the real-world and philosophical nature of non-Euclidean geometries and takes issue with physics' negligent attitude toward their implications especially as far as GR is concerned.

 

best wishes,

 

- modest

[Hilton Ratcliffe]

Hello Hilton,

 

I just read:

The Ontology and Cosmology of Non-Euclidean Geometry

an essay by Dr. Kelley Ross. When reading it you came to mind and I think you might find it some good food for thought. It asks a lot of good questions about the real-world and philosophical nature of non-Euclidean geometries and takes issue with physics' negligent attitude toward their implications especially as far as GR is concerned. best wishes - modest

 

Hi Modest,

 

Thank you very much for the link to Dr Ross's essay. I have printed it, and am going to settle down with a cup of tea, Pro 20 cricket on the box, to give it a good read. I see he is a prolific author of essays, so I may have my time cut out for a while. I really appreciate the reference.

 

Best

Hilton