coldcreation Posted January 19, 2006 Report Share Posted January 19, 2006 Unless ... notion about the non-expansion has more substance than the Redshift Z thread proposes, it goes in the dumpster ... What more or less (exactly) do you feel is missing from the Redshift z thread? cc Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lindagarrette Posted January 20, 2006 Report Share Posted January 20, 2006 The scientific method necessitates a falsifiable hypothesis, not just speculation. I see no evidence that supports the non-expansion theory which can be tested using the scientific method. That goes for most non-mainstream notions and pseudoscience as well. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
coldcreation Posted January 20, 2006 Report Share Posted January 20, 2006 The scientific method necessitates a falsifiable hypothesis, not just speculation. I see no evidence that supports the non-expansion theory which can be tested using the scientific method. That goes for most non-mainstream notions and pseudoscience as well. In 1977, G. F. R. Ellis wrote a paper titled Is the Universe Expanding? Ellis shows that “spherically symmetric static general relativistic cosmological space-times can reproduce the same cosmological observations as the currently favored Friedmann-Robertson-Walker universes.” In this case the systematic redshifts are interpreted as “cosmological gravitational red shifts” and the assumption of spatial homogeneity is replaced by the assumption that the universe is stationary. He adds that for this model to be viable “it is essential that local thermodynamic nonequilibrium processes be able to take place continually.” The key idea is that “there could be a continual circulation of matter taking place,” in this case it is possible to have nonequilibrium processes in a static universe. (See Ellis, G.F.R. 1977, Is the Universe Expanding?, General Relativity and Gravitation, Vol. 9, No. 2 (1978), pp. 87-94) Certainly a four-dimensional globally hyperbolic (curved), pseudo Riemannian spatiotemporal manifold is a plausible, testable, falsifiable and probable interpretation for the cause of redshift z. As a matter of fact, this hypothesis is being tested as we write. Observations support the general relativistic metric interpretation (see the SNe Ia data) without the need to supplement the material (and ethereal) universe with 96% artificial substances, vis dark energy 73% and cold dark matter 23% of the universe. (That adds up to 96% bunk). Question for you: (1) What scientific method can, even in principle, be used to discover the nature of nonbaryonic dark matter DM, or dark energy DE. (2) What can falsify the claim (even in principle) that dark matter or dark energy exists? (3) What direct evidence (I know the indirect already) is there that DE or DM exist? (4) What is the difference between pseudoscience and new physics, between DM, DE and metaphysics? (5) What is the difference between the speculation that DM, DE exist and speculation that there exist ghosts? (6) What physical process allows space to expand, grow? (7) What is a false vacuum physically? (7 bis) If you answer 'negative pressure,' what is negative pressure? Negative, in relation to what? (8) What set off expansion? If you can answer just one of these questions and back it up, publish your results in the next Apj. You'll pass peer review in a cold-snap. Cold conclusion: expansion, the big bang theory, inflation, there is no done-deal yet as far as cosmology is concerned. Coldcreation PS: Don't fight the chill Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Erasmus00 Posted January 20, 2006 Report Share Posted January 20, 2006 Ellis shows that “spherically symmetric static general relativistic cosmological space-times can reproduce the same cosmological observations as the currently favored Friedmann-Robertson-Walker universes.” In this case the systematic redshifts are interpreted as “cosmological gravitational red shifts” and the assumption of spatial homogeneity is replaced by the assumption that the universe is stationary. He adds that for this model to be viable “it is essential that local thermodynamic nonequilibrium processes be able to take place continually.” The key idea is that “there could be a continual circulation of matter taking place,” in this case it is possible to have nonequilibrium processes in a static universe. (See Ellis, G.F.R. 1977, Is the Universe Expanding?, General Relativity and Gravitation, Vol. 9, No. 2 (1978), pp. 87-94) What you seem to be saying is that if we throw out conservation of energy, then we can bring back Einstein's spherically symmetric cosmological model. This is very different then in the redshift z thread where you claim the metric of the universe is De-Sitter. Also, isn't the assumption of spatial homogeneity much more reasonable (at least from observation) then the assumption, apriori, that the universe is static? Certainly a four-dimensional globally hyperbolic (curved), pseudo Riemannian spatiotemporal manifold is a plausible, testable, falsifiable and probable interpretation for the cause of redshift z. Just above you claim spherical symmetry, now you claim hyperbolic space-time. Hyperbolic space-time models an expanding universe anyway, which you don't seem to want. -Will Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
coldcreation Posted January 20, 2006 Report Share Posted January 20, 2006 What you seem to be saying is that if we throw out conservation of energy, then we can bring back Einstein's spherically symmetric cosmological model. -Will No, not at all. Ellis and CC have two distinct models, just as there are distincts high-energy-hot-explosive-expanding-cooling models. This is very different then in the redshift z thread where you claim the metric of the universe is De-Sitter. Also, isn't the assumption of spatial homogeneity much more reasonable (at least from observation) then the assumption, apriori, that the universe is static? Just above you claim spherical symmetry, now you claim hyperbolic space-time. Hyperbolic space-time models an expanding universe anyway, which you don't seem to want. -Will There is no inconsistency between spherically symmetric and a hyperbolic metric. A hyperbolic universe is spherically symmetrical. Spherical symmetry is the same in all directions. It does not mean the universe is round (though Einstein's 1917 model may have been Gaussian or Reimannian, of the spherical geometry type, yet with no boundary condition). Anyway, the old spherical model is ruled out observationally. De Sitter was correct, as it turns out. So was Lobachevsky, the originator of hyperbolic geometry. He suspected that the real world (both micro- and macroscopically) would abide by non-Euclidean geometry, notably of the hyperbolic kind. Spatial homogeneity (see the perfect cosmological principle) means there is no evolution in the look-back time. I do not agree with Ellis on this point, nor with QSSC. This is not observed. What IS observed is hyperbolicity in the look-back time, both in light curves and redshift z (see SNe Ia data). Today, these observations are erroneously interpreted as accelerated expansion, due to some form(s) of kooky energy/matter. CC+ Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
coldcreation Posted January 21, 2006 Report Share Posted January 21, 2006 In 1977, G. F. R. Ellis wrote a paper titled Is the Universe Expanding? Ellis shows that “spherically symmetric static general relativistic cosmological space-times can reproduce the same cosmological observations as the currently favored Friedmann-Robertson-Walker universes.” In this case the systematic redshifts are interpreted as “cosmological gravitational red shifts” and the assumption of spatial homogeneity is replaced by the assumption that the universe is stationary. He adds that for this model to be viable “it is essential that local thermodynamic nonequilibrium processes be able to take place continually.” The key idea is that “there could be a continual circulation of matter taking place,” in this case it is possible to have nonequilibrium processes in a static universe. (See Ellis, G.F.R. 1977, Is the Universe Expanding?, General Relativity and Gravitation, Vol. 9, No. 2 (1978), pp. 87-94) Certainly a four-dimensional globally hyperbolic (curved), pseudo Riemannian spatiotemporal manifold is a plausible, testable, falsifiable and probable interpretation for the cause of redshift z. As a matter of fact, this hypothesis is being tested as we write. Observations support the general relativistic metric interpretation (see the SNe Ia data) without the need to supplement the material (and ethereal) universe with 96% artificial substances, vis dark energy 73% and cold dark matter 23% of the universe. (That adds up to 96% bunk). Question for you: (1) What scientific method can, even in principle, be used to discover the nature of nonbaryonic dark matter DM, or dark energy DE. (2) What can falsify the claim (even in principle) that dark matter or dark energy exists? (3) What direct evidence (I know the indirect already) is there that DE or DM exist? (4) What is the difference between pseudoscience and new physics, between DM, DE and metaphysics? (5) What is the difference between the speculation that DM, DE exist and speculation that there exist ghosts? (6) What physical process allows space to expand, grow? (7) What is a false vacuum physically? (7 bis) If you answer 'negative pressure,' what is negative pressure? Negative, in relation to what? (8) What set off expansion? If you can answer just one of these questions and back it up, publish your results in the next Apj. You'll pass peer review in a cold-snap. Cold conclusion: expansion, the big bang theory, inflation, there is no done-deal yet as far as cosmology is concerned. Coldcreation PS: Don't fight the chill Lindagarette? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Erasmus00 Posted January 21, 2006 Report Share Posted January 21, 2006 There is no inconsistency between spherically symmetric and a hyperbolic metric. A hyperbolic universe is spherically symmetrical. A hyperbolic universe can have symmetry, but not spherical symmetry. Spherical symmetry implies that if you rotate through an arbitrary angle about any axis things remain unchanged. This is simply not true of a de sitter metric. What IS observed is hyperbolicity in the look-back time, both in light curves and redshift z (see SNe Ia data). Today, these observations are erroneously interpreted as accelerated expansion, due to some form(s) of kooky energy/matter. They are interpreted as such because hyperbolic space implies an accelerating universe. (At least if you assume spatial homogeneity). I'm not entirely sure if you could set up a hyperbolic universe that doesn't expand if you do away with conservation of energy. I think that throwing away conservation of energy (which seems to be what your theory does) is more extreme then postulating forms of matter we haven't seen. -Will Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
coldcreation Posted January 21, 2006 Report Share Posted January 21, 2006 A hyperbolic universe can have symmetry, but not spherical symmetry. Spherical symmetry implies that if you rotate through an arbitrary angle about any axis things remain unchanged. This is simply not true of a de sitter metric. They are interpreted as such because hyperbolic space implies an accelerating universe. (At least if you assume spatial homogeneity). I'm not entirely sure if you could set up a hyperbolic universe that doesn't expand if you do away with conservation of energy. I think that throwing away conservation of energy (which seems to be what your theory does) is more extreme then postulating forms of matter we haven't seen. -Will Actually doing away with any conservation law is untenable in my book. It was Ellis that proposed that, not I. Don't forget that when considering hyperbolic spaces, the 2-dimensional analogy (a saddle shape or Pringles potatochip shape) does not jive with the 4-dimensional metric. In 2-D you are correct. The metric is not spherically symmetric. Though in 4-D (or even 3-D) the metric is spherically symmetric. We disagree about staticity in a hyperbolic universe. I see no reason why a hyperbolic manifold cannot remain stationary. In which case expansion and the big bang are dispensable. Coldcreation Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lindagarrette Posted January 21, 2006 Report Share Posted January 21, 2006 Lindagarette?What? Were those questions for me? I am not an expert in theoretical physics. I just read the books. So should you. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Erasmus00 Posted January 22, 2006 Report Share Posted January 22, 2006 We disagree about staticity in a hyperbolic universe. I see no reason why a hyperbolic manifold cannot remain stationary. In which case expansion and the big bang are dispensable. Simple, the Friedman equations. De-Sitter metrics expand. By the way, perhaps to clear up confusion, what is the exact metric you propose for your theory? -Will Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
coldcreation Posted January 22, 2006 Report Share Posted January 22, 2006 Simple, the Friedman equations. De-Sitter metrics expand. By the way, perhaps to clear up confusion, what is the exact metric you propose for your theory? -Will There is one class of de Sitter models that have been interpreted as expanding. But the original de Sitter models (both the empty one, and one that contained matter) were non-expanding models where the manifold was hyperbolic, as opposed to Einstein's spherical Reimannian geometry. This is not my thread, and so your question regarding my theory will not be elaborated upon here. Redshift z is the place for that, amongst others. cc Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
coldcreation Posted January 22, 2006 Report Share Posted January 22, 2006 What? Were those questions for me? I am not an expert in theoretical physics. I just read the books. So should you. Science doesn't even try to prove anything. It just tries to explain how things work and goes along with the theory that hasn't been disproved. Speculation is fine and dandy but worthless without real evidence. Real evidence is supported by recognized authorities who are nevertheless obligated to pursue alternatives until they are disproven. It's a wonderfully self-corrective system that keeps a lot of garbage theories from taking hold. Unless Southtown's notion about the non-expansion has more substance than the Redshift Z thread proposes,... ...I see no evidence that supports the non-expansion theory which can be tested using the scientific method. That goes for most non-mainstream notions and pseudoscience as well. . Quote: I had a feeling that was the case (you are no expert). And yet you permit yourself the type of frivolous entertainment noted in your quotes above. You can talk the talk. But walk the walk: zero. CC PS. I do more than read books, I write books. Maybe you shouldn't. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Harry Costas Posted February 2, 2006 Report Share Posted February 2, 2006 Hyperbolic Universe Please explain Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
coldcreation Posted February 2, 2006 Report Share Posted February 2, 2006 Hyperbolic Universe Please explain Sure. Recall the reason for studying supernovae type Ia (thought for good reason to be more or less standard candles). It was a search for the deceleration parameter, which would also give the geometry of the universe, flat (Euclidean), spherical (closed) or hyperbolic (open, or Pringles potato chip shape in reduced dimension). Whether the universe is expanding or not, the SNe Ia data rules out the flat and spherical model. If one were to draw a triangle of cosmic magnitude, one point of which was situated on a high-z SN Ia, the resulting sum of the angles would add up to less than 180 degrees. Note that hyperbolicity excludes the inflation scenario (where a flat universe now was predicted). Note too, that the acceleration interpretation for expansion excludes all of the Friedmann models, non of which predicted an accelerated expansion. Sure, the model too can be stretched when parameters such as dark energy and non-baryonic dark matter are employed. But that means 96% of the universe is made of something undetectable, like bunk (like god). Coldcreation Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Harry Costas Posted February 2, 2006 Report Share Posted February 2, 2006 If the universe is infinite. Than you would expect super cluster of galaxies to be at random. How does your hyperbolic universe work? I do not understand. I may be slow right now,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,TIME for sleep,,,,,,to dream Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
coldcreation Posted February 2, 2006 Report Share Posted February 2, 2006 see next post. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
coldcreation Posted February 2, 2006 Report Share Posted February 2, 2006 [/00000 Costas]If the universe is infinite. Than you would expect super cluster of galaxies to be at random. Random yes, but there are patterns too (physics in the Solar System is the same as physics everywhere else). 00[/00000 Costas]How does your hyperbolic universe work? It evolves from an infinite time in the past and tends to infinity in the future. Energy is conserved, entropy increases and zero temperature is unattainable. GR and QM are always operational. 00[/00000 Costas]I do not understand. Still? 00[/00000 Costas]I may be slow right now,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,TIME for sleep,,,,,,to dream Hasta siempre. cc Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.