From the University of Geneva and the “soon we’ll have ‘dark climate’ as a way of explaining the pause” department comes this bit of science which is fascinating, but like future climate predictions, is only as good as the assumptions and input to the model he created. Still, I trust astronomers more than I trust climate scientists, because they don’t have that “save the planet” paradigm going on.
A University of Geneva researcher has recently shown that the accelerating expansion of the universe and the movement of the stars in the galaxies can be explained without drawing on the concepts of dark matter and dark energy
For close on a century, researchers have hypothesised that the universe contains more matter than can be directly observed, known as “dark matter”. They have also posited the existence of a “dark energy” that is more powerful than gravitational attraction. These two hypotheses, it has been argued, account for the movement of stars in galaxies and for the accelerating expansion of the universe respectively. But – according to a researcher at the University of Geneva (UNIGE), Switzerland – these concepts may be no longer valid: the phenomena they are supposed to describe can be demonstrated without them. This research, which is published in The Astrophysical Journal, exploits a new theoretical model based on the scale invariance of the empty space, potentially solving two of astronomy’s greatest mysteries.
In 1933, the Swiss astronomer Fritz Zwicky made a discovery that left the world speechless: there was, claimed Zwicky, substantially more matter in the universe than we can actually see. Astronomers called this unknown matter “dark matter”, a concept that was to take on yet more importance in the 1970s, when the US astronomer Vera Rubin called on this enigmatic matter to explain the movements and speed of the stars. Scientists have subsequently devoted considerable resources to identifying dark matter – in space, on the ground and even at CERN – but without success. In 1998 there was a second thunderclap: a team of Australian and US astrophysicists discovered the acceleration of the expansion of the universe, earning them the Nobel Prize for physics in 2011. However, in spite of the enormous resources that have been implemented, no theory or observation has been able to define this black energy that is allegedly stronger than Newton’s gravitational attraction. In short, black matter and dark energy are two mysteries that have had astronomers stumped for over 80 years and 20 years respectively.
A new model based on the scale invariance of the empty space
The way we represent the universe and its history are described by Einstein’s equations of general relativity, Newton’s universal gravitation and quantum mechanics. The model-consensus at present is that of a big bang followed by an expansion. “In this model, there is a starting hypothesis that hasn’t been taken into account, in my opinion”, says André Maeder, honorary professor in the Department of Astronomy in UNIGE’s Faculty of Science. “By that I mean the scale invariance of the empty space; in other words, the empty space and its properties do not change following a dilatation or contraction.” The empty space plays a primordial role in Einstein’s equations as it operates in a quantity known as a “cosmological constant”, and the resulting universe model depends on it. Based on this hypothesis, Maeder is now re-examining the model of the universe, pointing out that the scale invariance of the empty space is also present in the fundamental theory of electromagnetism.
Do we finally have an explanation for the expansion of the universe and the speed of the galaxies?
When Maeder carried out cosmological tests on his new model, he found that it matched the observations. He also found that the model predicts the accelerated expansion of the universe without having to factor in any particle or dark energy. In short, it appears that dark energy may not actually exist since the acceleration of the expansion is contained in the equations of the physics.
In a second stage, Maeder focused on Newton’s law, a specific instance of the equations of general relativity. The law is also slightly modified when the model incorporates Maeder’s new hypothesis. Indeed, it contains a very small outward acceleration term, which is particularly significant at low densities. This amended law, when applied to clusters of galaxies, leads to masses of clusters in line with that of visible matter (contrary to what Zwicky argued in 1933): this means that no dark matter is needed to explain the high speeds of the galaxies in the clusters. A second test demonstrated that this law also predicts the high speeds reached by the stars in the outer regions of the galaxies (as Rubin had observed), without having to turn to dark matter to describe them. Finally, a third test looked at the dispersion of the speeds of the stars oscillating around the plane of the Milky Way. This dispersion, which increases with the age of the relevant stars, can be explained very well using the invariant empty space hypothesis, while there was before no agreement on the origin of this effect.
Maeder’s discovery paves the way for a new conception of astronomy, one that will raise questions and generate controversy. “The announcement of this model, which at last solves two of astronomy’s greatest mysteries, remains true to the spirit of science: nothing can ever be taken for granted, not in terms of experience, observation or the reasoning of human beings”, conclued André Maeder.
###
Kuhn strikes again!
It’ll be interesting to follow this development.
Ive never liked the dark matter/dark energy explanations. It just sounded too much like epicycles to me. Too ungainly and ugly.
I agree…it raise more questions and presents more problems than the ones they are intended to explain.
Epicycles were a reasonable second pass that didn’t upset the apple cart at the time. The Copernican system actually had more epicycles than the Ptolemaic. And along came Kepler.
Do you all know what a Keplerian Janitor is?
Now Maeder can work on the ‘dark gases’: how N2 and O2 – 99% of the dry atmosphere – do not interact with electromagnetic infrared radiation, at any temperature; contradicting QM and thermodynamics.
Always been slightly skeptical of dark energy and mass. I am no physicist but I believe an Italian scientist wondered if time could be speeding up recently (to explain dark matter and dark energy). Anchoring distance and time into a light year seems like an assumption. How would we know if the speed of light or gravity was constant?
Space-time expands faster than time, thus the recorded space-time of the Universe that we observe from within it should appear to be in a state of accelerated expansion.
There’s a strong connection between Dark Matter and the super massive black holes at the center of galaxies. Suppose galaxies exist within a tear in ‘flat’ space-time bounded by a central black hole and a complementary space-time distortion which we perceive as Dark Matter.
“There’s a strong connection between Dark Matter and the super massive black holes at the center of galaxies”
2 things created by mathematics that do not exist lol
Who has ever observed either? Not one person or instrument has ever observed a black hole or a galaxy
Observational science best evidence goes against black holes, 2 cases and some growing evidence.
1. Hydrogen cloud drifts past our alleged SM black hole in the center of the Milky way
2. and bad for relativity space-time, and black holes, stars that orbit the alleged SM black hole in the center of the Milky way do not in any way AT ALL have light distorted when they pass in close orbit, NO light distortion.
3. Growing evidence for condensed matter on our own star and if correct, it can never ever collapse into a black hole, black holes and stars are the exact same theory. (same condensed matter found on Jupiter as it happens, liquid metallic hydrogen.
*Black hole or dark matter, lol not “galaxy” 😀
Mark-Helsinki,
The central black hole, while not directly viewable, the gravitational influence of a very strong distortion in space-time has been unambiguously observed in the center of nearly all galaxies, including our own. Whether it’s a black hole singularity or not, it exhibits the theoretical gravitational signature of one. Similarly, another gravitational distortion surrounding galaxies has been detected and attributed to Dark Matter. he relative amount of Dark matter is roughly proportional to the relative size of the central black hole, hence the idea that the two are primordially connected.
Gravitational lensing effects have certainly been observed consequential to black holes and Dark matter. That’s one of the ways we know they are there.
Our star will not collapse into a Black Hole, but other more massive ones can and do, moreover; this has been observed as massive super nova and was predicted by theory long before being detected, as were other non obvious prediction of GR.
Mark-Helsinki,
The central black hole, while not directly viewable, the gravitational influence of a very strong distortion in space-time has been unambiguously observed in the center of nearly all galaxies, including our own.
**** Its not viewable AT ALL
**** Space time has not unambiguously observed at all, observational evidence FROM NASA fly in the face of 1. this distortion and 2 the massive “gravity” < a force we dont even know what it actually is.
Whether it’s a black hole singularity or not, it exhibits the theoretical gravitational signature of one.
**** No it doesn't, that is nonsense. There is no such thing as a singularity. Lets discuss what a singularity is..
** Infinitely hot, infinitely dense, Infinite space-space time curvature and it's volume is 0
****** physically impossibly by all physical laws we know to be as valid as we can know them to be.
Similarly, another gravitational distortion surrounding galaxies has been detected and attributed to Dark Matter. he relative amount of Dark matter is roughly proportional to the relative size of the central black hole, hence the idea that the two are primordially connected.
** More nonsense. Sorry but you are stating 1. we detect gravitational distortion and 2 making up the link without logic or observation. You are connecting one unobserved and evidenced mathematically created thing to a second unobserved mathematically created and physically impossible thing
**Primordially connected? Did you not know that there are several theories of black holes, so which one are you talking about because some theories claim them as eternal which nullifies your Primordial claim.
** You dont even know which type of black hole you are talking about
** You dont even know which universe theory you are talking about
Gravitational lensing effects have certainly been observed consequential to black holes and Dark matter. That’s one of the ways we know they are there.
*** try reading ffs, all lensing can be calculated by known observed and replicated refraction calculations
Our star will not collapse into a Black Hole, but other more massive ones can and do, moreover; this has been observed as massive super nova and was predicted by theory long before being detected, as were other non obvious prediction of GR.
** There is 0 evidence for this claim outside of equations (which are not evidence) mathematics is not science, but a tool, you cant create purely from mathematics and claim physicality, logical fallacy
***The fact condensed matter may well exist on our star makes star and black hole theory defunct.
I’m not sure how to say this politely. You have no clue, so please stop embarrassing us.
co2isnotevil:
Can space-time also expand slower than time? What are the measured physical variables that describe space-time? Exactly what do we know about space-time? We now know that we can detect wave variations in space-time but do we know anything else? If it exists, how do we feel it, taste it, measure it, smell it, etc.?
I think of the analogy of two planets sitting on a trampoline generating distortions in space-time (the fabric of the trampoline). Does a solar system cause a like distortion? How about a galaxy? How about the center of the universe? How does all this affect galaxies on the outer edge?
Jim,
Think of the Universe as a sphere whose radius is time, whose surface is the space where we exist and whose volume contains the past EM history of space stored as the fabric of space-time. Without this stored EM history, space-time would be imperceptible.
We don’t observe photons reflecting off the edge of the Universe, so space-time must be expanding at the speed of light. In fact, technically, we exist at the expanding edge of Universe. As time progresses and radius of space-time increases, space increases as t^2 while the history stored in space-time increases as t^3.
When we look out into space, we observe t=0 in every direction we look, thus our viewport into the Universe is reversed, where the singular starting point in time occupies the outer surface of a viewport enclosing the history of the Universe and owing to the restrictions of our light cone, we can observe only a single point in space and those points in space-time that fit to our light cone.
As t increases, the size of our viewport grows as t^2 while the volume of space-time we can observe grows as t^3 requiring more and more space-time history to be fit into a viewport that’s growing more slowly providing the illusion that the expansion of the Universe is accelerating.
That the explanation for the Universe requires something for what evidence of existence has not been found in decades is embarrassing.
André Maeder is a clear candidate for a Nobel prize.
+10
While laying waste to the career work of quite a few physicists and cosmologists.
So be it.
If it were politicized science as in global warming, there would be no change just a brush off and demotion or quiet firing of the upstart bomb thrower. Perhaps dark matter did not yet attain the status of the ether.
Dark Matter does not exist by the very physics that make the universe and everything in it exist.
Dark Matter does not exchange information with the physical universe around it
*100% reflective apparently (as it absorbs nothing) yet nothing it reflects can be detected
*Cannot be seen in any spectrum
*Does not physically interact with surrounding environment
*No radiation or radio active decay of any kind
*has no temperature
Bad science based on illogical mathematics
Bad metaphysics, too. Essentially dark matter is a “Substance” without “Causality”.
Dark matter is not fundamentally different from the neutrino, which is a known particle.
Dark matter does not exist, if you “believe” it does, it’s on you to evidence it
CERN also stated they found nothing in their search for this magical matter
Dark Matter is BUNK, Strange Matter is BUNK.
Does this mean we can stop cowering in the face of settled dark this and dark that science?
Don’t forget the 50 shades of grey 🙂
As for Black holes, lets not deny the origin of a black hole was bad mathematics
This black hole crap just ignored the falsification of it’s original evidence and just moved on as if the foundation of the whole theory is known to be complete bollocks
Both Black holes and Dark Matter were created with mathematics, they have never been observed or detected. From then to now, things have been interpreted in the context of these theories
Refraction of light is claimed to be Einstein rings caused by warped space time
Missing mass (that is not missing, no one has ever shown any matter is missing, it comes from mathematics)
Galaxy rotation \ observable (yet entirely guessed mass) are all results of mathematics, not science.
Mathematics cannot replace everything we cannot technically and logistically examine and observe, yet this is what makes up these nonsense theories.
If your theory does not make sense in plain language, the mathematics will not make sense, if you cant explain your theory in plain language you do not understand your theory
*as if the foundation of the whole theory is “NOT” known to be complete bollocks
Quick, someone tell PBS and BBC to back off the settled dark science presentations.
….productions
The Pulsar theory came from someone who just made a random guess when asked about it, everything from that point on was interpreted in the context of that guess
We now know the theory is nonsense, because they speed up and slow down and switch emission types, two things anathema to the Pulsar theory
Plus, Neutron stars cannot exist by known physics, do they invented strange matter, out of thin air
What did Hawking say, and was it Einstein too? you can’t create energy from nothing
*so, gawwwd the typos 😀 I suck
Just get rid of the greengrocers’ apostrophes and all will be forgiven.
Theoretical astromagimagicians create energy from nothing all of the time, the biggest fallacy being the “creation from nothing” religious bunk, the Big Bang
Newton was correct, attraction only exists between 2 masses, even two atoms
Einstein claimed the gravitation field exists with no mass present and is static.
lol
How does Newton predict the precession of the orbit of Mercury when Einstein does?
Newton comes within 43 arc seconds per century of the actual amount, which is probably less than measurement error in his time.
I love these fallacies, Newton was alive in the 1600s, and Einstein the the mid 1800s, and relativity came along in the 1900s, 200+ years later, and Einstein availed of more understanding and better astronomical observation and research of others to boot, all largely built on Newton[‘ s work(including basically taking Newton’s work and creating a pseudo theory that allowed for finer calculations)
Your question is rather ridiculous.
So you’re point is “How come Einstein took Newton’s work and made slight adjustment for finer calculations 2 over 200 years later”
lol
*your
How does Newton explain the Michelson-Morely experiment?
Why aren’t Maxwell’s Laws invariant under Newton?
Stop these cut and paste questions lol
Basically you explain nothing and throw rocks for me to deflect, you obviously do not understand either theory.
You clearly don’t understand Einstein.
Who is that directed at? If you mean me, then you clearly have no idea what Einstein’s equations resolve to for the universe, if not me, carry on.
Why does the accuracy of Quantum Electrodynamic predictions (The most accurate of all mathematical models) fair without using Einstein’s Relativity incorporated by Dirac. It’s what Feynman was a specialist in.
Why do they keep having to adjust the Newtonian predictions for Geopositionig satellites with General Relativity to keep them real?
“Why do they keep having to adjust the Newtonian predictions for Geopositionig satellites with General Relativity to keep them real?”
Because the speed of light is not constant in a rotating frame. The satellites are sending signals both co and contra rotational direction.
In fact geo-positioning can and has been worked out with Newton’s equations, Einstein’s are preferred.
Just as the Coriolis effect is actually a more complicated set of Newtonian calculations that have been reframed into a pseudo calculation, Newtonian forces converted into a pseudo force for ease of calculation, the Coriolis force is a pseudo force.
Your cut and paste rock throwing dogma protecting questions are laughable.
The same spam rock throwing, of things you dont even understand, lol, I despite cognitively weak cut and pasters who feel affronted by different scientific opinions.
The same logical fallacy and answered the same. Relativity is a slightly more accurate pseudo theory of Newton’s more coarse calculations. Being over 200 years earlier.
case in point, the solar system can exist in Newton’s laws, and Einsteins, but the mathematics become much more complicated once you move past two bodies in a solar system with Newton.
The same thing was done for the Coriolis effect, Newton’s laws explain it perfectly, but it is far more manageable if one uses pseudo calculations that treat the effect as one force.
Einstein’s calculations are easier than Newtons, and in some cases more accurate, NOT different, not alternate, just improved.
I am not that well versed in QED and not a great mathematician, but your cut and paste arguments you dont even understand yourself are funny
>>
Einstein’s calculations are easier than Newtons, and in some cases more accurate, NOT different, not alternate, just improved.
<<
The ten field equations of General Relativity are second order, nonlinear differential equations that have to be solved simultaneously. By comparison, Newton is orders of magnitude easier to solve and manipulate. This statement is simply wrong.
Jim
>>
Mike McMillan
November 25, 2017 at 5:56 pm
Because the speed of light is not constant in a rotating frame.
<<
To state that the speed-of-light changes when using relativity is surprising, because one of the principles of Special and General Relativity is that the speed-of-light is a constant. The corrections needed for satellites are due to GR and are because clocks run slower in a gravity field–a clock on the Earh’s surface is slower than one in orbit.
Jim
>>
Mark – Helsinki
November 26, 2017 at 2:36 am
In fact geo-positioning can and has been worked out with Newton’s equations, Einstein’s are preferred.
<<
In fact, Newton treats time as a absolute, so the GR adjustment to the satellite clocks is not possible with Newton.
Jim
Jim Masterson To state that the speed-of-light changes when using relativity is surprising, because one of the principles of Special and General Relativity is that the speed-of-light is a constant.
Special relativity applies only to inertial reference frames, and fails in an accelerating frame, such as one with gravity.
A rotating reference frame is an accelerating frame. Light paths curve, just as they do under gravity. The speed of light varies depending on direction. The speed of light is not a limit, as there is a radius in every rotating frame beyond which matter moves faster than c.
>>
. . . as there is a radius in every rotating frame beyond which matter moves faster than c.
<<
The reference frame beyond a certain radius may be moving faster than c, but the matter isn’t.
Jim
The reference frame beyond a certain radius may be moving faster than c, but the matter isn’t.
In the rotating reference frame of the earth, buildings, islands, and some thinking may remain static, but the stars are indeed moving through it much faster than light.
>>
. . . but the stars are indeed moving through it much faster than light.
<<
The stars couldn’t care less if the Earth was rotating or not. They are not moving faster than light.
Jim
Don’t worry about it. Even Einstein and Planck had trouble understanding rotating frames of reference.
>>
Don’t worry about it.
<<
Thanks, I was just beginning to hyperventilate.
Jim
The word I just came up with a word which describes Mark’s behavior pretty well: *pletive. Are you boozing, or why you lol on Einstein?
It appears I boozed too much to write. Apologies for that.
Why is Einstein’s philosophical theory wrong?
Well physics is why, there can be no physically real static field if there is no matter, no masses, it means there is no physics
Pure bunk
There can still be a solution to the Einstein equation where the right hand side (Energy Momentum tensor ) is zero. This is a possible end point of the \universe when all matter has become energy.
The energy momentum tensor IS 0 from the start.
There is your empty universe, (NOT) a universe full of energy, a static gravitational field has 0 energy.
🙂
Einstein creates an empty universe with a static field and then INSERTS matter with WORDS.
😀
You know nothing about the theory you are defending, but get your panties in a bunch. Einstein justice warrior 😛
As far as I know the Einstein field equations have exact solutions for two occasions. The first one is for a vanishing Energy Momentum tensor, the solutions are gravitional waves. The second one is for a point mass in a further empty universe. The solutions are found by Karl Schwarzschild.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Karl_Schwarzschild
but these theories have moved on from the bunk origins and along with dogma and denial have sent us backwards in understanding the universe.
If only Feynman was alive when Einstein was, and told him to ask stupid questions he obviously missed 😀
Dark mater is suppose to stop the Universe of flying apart, but that is a bit of nonsense as shown in this simple calculation
http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/CU.gif
Gibberish rabbit down hole mathematics
Newton and Einstein cannot be merged if one actually understands the conclusions of both of the sets of equations.
On Gravity the two theories are diametrically opposed.
The only reason Newton is used and not Einstein is there is no force in Einstein’s theory, none at all.
So Newton is mashed in with Einstein in a patchwork of bollocks.
There is no relativistic gravity, the universe does not consider or work on “Relative” positions or coordinates, it’s philosophical nonsense. The universe does not care (neither does physics) where one component is in relation to the other, the exact same physical outcome is the result, just because it looks different relatively speaking that does not change the physical reality.
In short, your relative position does not change what physically happens, it is a mirage. It cannot be translated into the physical, we merely refactor for relative positions, nothing has changed, we adapt our perception, the physics do not change, we do this mostly by pseudo calculations that combine our perception with physical reality to provide a solution we can work with.
Hi Mark
Thanks for your extensive comment.
Both, the Newton’s (when velocity is much smaller than speed of light) and the Einstein’s (when velocity is a significant fraction of the speed of light) equations are accepted to be ‘good’ until such time when some ‘unifying’ hypothesis is proved to work across whole range of velocities.
It is assumed that far distant parts of Universe are ‘moving apart’ at velocities which fall within ‘significant fraction of the speed of light’.
If that is correct then it is reasonable to assume that:
– if gravity force is instantaneous the Newton’s equation is applicable,
– if gravity force propagates with the near or at the speed of light (re. LIGO & gravity wave) the Einstein’s relativity equation might be the more appropriate one.
Mathematics is just a numerical tool applying the known or accepted principles, but on its own it does not prove that a hypothesis is correct.
vukcevic:
Your comment on mathematics being a tool to describe the physical world is +10. It applies to all kinds of models, the math proves nothing, at best it only shows that we can make math relate to physical observations (measurements).
vukcevic,
In the limit of small velocities, Einstein’s Special Relativity converge to classical physics, thus is the relevant unifying set of equations.
The same is true for General Relativity, which converges to Newtonian gravity in the limit as the mass density diverges away from that of a particle and distances, relative to the speed of light, are insignificant. Whether or not GR is a unifying theory depends on whether or not space-time curvature can be considered the fundamental constituent of all existence. At least it seems that everything can otherwise be quantified with a Stress-Energy tensor …
I have filed Dark Matter and Dark Energy away in the same drawer as Ptolemy’s Epicycles. In its day the Ptolemaic theory was useful. The Ptolemaic model was not seriously challenged for over 1,300 years and is still used in the construction of Planetarium projectors. However, it was still an error, like Flat Earth Theory.
Finally with fast computers and digital projectors, modern planetariums can now offer night time views of what the heavens look like from Mars or other non-Earth frames. The older elctromechanical projectors of the past are hard coded with carefully-crafted gears and servomotors to mechanically solve the 3 geometrical equation set of Ptolemy’s Earth-centric view.
Ptolemaic representations of the heavens from Earth’s reference are pretty good at showing seasonal and annual variations of the changing night sky. But move away from Earth, or try to move ahead many millennia to show how the relative motions of the stars will change the constellations, well Ptolemy cant handle those long term projections.
Just like climate models. They get it mostly right, because they’ve been tweeking on past observations. And becasue they see some correct features emerge from their models, the modellers believe the underlying assumptions must be correct. But move ahead a significant time, they fall apart. They have the wrong model. They incorporate and dial-in a CO2 centric climate system. Current GCMs are fundamentally flawed, just like Ptolemaic models are. Today’s GCMs and their modeler’s constant tweakings of them are the very definition of Cargo Cult Science.
This is an interesting theory, but how does it explain the gravitational lensing around the bullet cluster and others like it (two galaxies that have recently collided)? This seems like another form of MOND (Modified Newtonian Dynamics), and they have long been able to reproduce galactic rotation better than dark matter models, but have not been able to explain the lensing. Also, I did not hear an explanation of BAO (Baryon Acoustic Oscillation) which Dark Matter can explain.
I’m not saying this theory is wrong, or that Dark Matter and Dark Energy is right (especially since we have no idea what those things are), but this is just another model. Give it a decade and see if it can withstand the attacks coming its way; and there will be many vicious attacks. Then we will see.
There is an experiment, the Large Synoptic Survey Telescope (LSST), which will run for 10 years, starting in 2020. The goal is to image the entire sky in a 3 day period using a 144 Mpixel camera. This will generate 200 petabytes of data over the 10 year period. From the site:
The LSST will find thousands more gravitational lenses of all sizes and configurations
See https://www.lsst.org/science/dark-matter
Here is Andrew Connolly, an astronomer at Washington State U, with a TED talk on why they are building the LSST – hint it’s all about BIG DATA.
https://www.ted.com/talks/andrew_connolly_what_s_the_next_window_into_our_universe
I dunno much about all this astrology stuff but the pictures sure are purty….
Maeder is certainly not the first theorist to do away with dark matter, dark energy, and BBT.
Before him there were Hoyle-Narlikar cosmology, Machean cosmology, and, more recently (the most elegant so far), Shu’s 3-sphere cosmology.
All these theories explain and predict the observed phenomenae much better than current textbook-thumpers, and all of them say the same thing in different ways: mass, length, and time are in the process of continuous mutual transformation and change. On very large scales, the Universe is not linear, and it has no end in space or time in 3 dimensions.
Perhaps, the Universe is simpler than modern skullduggery artists can imagine.
nice to read these comments. last time i was active here 5 years ago opinion was shifting rapidly against dark matter and energy. Now most people here are against it, and even old stalwart Anthony is looking for alternatives. We all know which group are the prime instigators & drivers in this shift away from dark matter & energy.
I’ve been posting this since 1990s: look at your car’s rear-view mirror. What does it say? “OBJECTS ARE CLOSER THAN THEY APPEAR.” We look at the Universe through a curved mirror. (How many times I’ve been called a fool for this by various leifs and willises!)
When we are dealing with galactic distances, the farther from us, the more mass surrounds us, the slower is the pace of time, and characteristics of light change (thus, red shift).
Also, Einstein’s principle of equivalence needs a correction. It works within the human-scale of observation only.
Rocket acceleration and gravitational acceleration are different things, there is no equivalence between them if the observer uses precision plumb lines (pendants) and atomic clocks. If one installs, in the same windowless experimental chamber, three plumb lines on the ceiling (near the left wall, in the middle, near the right wall), and two atomic clocks (on the ceiling and on the floor):
1) Under rocket acceleration of 1g plumb lines will be parallel, and atomic clocks will be synchronous.
2) Under rotational acceleration of 1g (in the toroidal space station), plumb lines will point at the center of rotation (not parallel) but atomic clocks will be synchronous.
3) Under gravitational acceleration of 1g plumb lines will point at the center of the mass (not parallel), and the atomic clock on the ceiling will be ahead of the clock on the floor.
When we are dealing with galactic distances, the farther from us, the more mass surrounds us
Already Newton knew that there is no effect from mass surrounding us.
see e.g. http://www.sparknotes.com/physics/gravitation/potential/section3.rhtml
The scientific ignorance displayed in this post is amazing and scary.
Cosmology is easy to spitball, but hard to get right, and involves physics that mess with one’s everyday intuition. Those who really study it invariably come to realize that they initially had all kinds of incorrect ideas about the universe.
Sure, Leif, thump your textbook once more — maybe it will help you to feel omniscient.
P.S.
If all the people who proposed the ideas I find worth considering and mentioned in my post — Mach, Hoyle, Narlikar, Shu, Sinha, Loeb, and many others, with all their degrees, Nobel prizes, etc. — show “amazing and scary scientific ignorance,” then I hold Dr. Svalgaard’s opinion as a badge of honor.
I am not going to take a bait and engage in a meaningless, time-wasting link-listing competition, especially since Isaac Newton’s views on gravitation are… somewhat outdated?
Feht: “then I hold Dr. Svalgaard’s opinion as a badge of honor.”
What you are wearing looks more like a dunce hat…
Svalgaard: all you can do is insult people, whitout understanding their ideas, intentionally misunderstanding them, quoting them out of context, and posting lazy links to painful explanations of the obvious in order to pretend that those you insult don’t know the multiplication table.
Whereas it is you who never presented to me a clear argument in your own words — a neurotic old stick-in-the-mud with zero ideas of your own, a gadget techician posing as a scientist. You are not even a global warming skeptic but a fifth columnist here, as many have already noticed. Vade retro!
Ah, you could not keep away in spite of your promise of doing so…
You confuse me with someone else, Leif Svalgaard.
Cannot recognize your critics already, so many are they?
I never promised “to keep away,” and never will.
I said once that I don’t like to read your narcissistic posts, and that’s true, I usually skip them, but not when you are indulging your cantankerous self at my expense.
When you use electricity you don’t need any if this complicated nonsense.
When things don’t make sense, it’s time to question basic assumptions:
1.) Are the “laws” of physics invariant over space and time?
2.) Do we really know what space and time are?
3.) Is time really a dimension like space, or only something in our minds?
4.) Red-shifted light is red-shifted because of what exactly? Prove it.
5.) Does the universe have to obey mathematical theory? If so, why?
Good questions.
The red shift is an observation of physical reality. It just is. It’s not subject to “proof”, which in any case is not a scientific concept.
I should have said repeatable observation, ie a scientific fact.
Ronald’s question #4 was about the cause of the observed red shift, not about its existence.
Don’t prtend to be stupid, it’s an ugly strategy.
What is ugly is asserting that an observed physical phenomenon isn’t understood, when it is.
There is no mystery surrounding the cosmological red shift in an expanding universe.
Gabro,
No matter how often you thump the college textbook, it won’t become the holy thruth.
There are many respected scientists arguing against the conventional explanation of the red shift. Take your arguments to professor Shu, most respected physicist from Taiwan, and to Ari Loeb, dean of the Harward astrophysics department, discoverer of fast radio bursts and winner of mutiple prizes.
Apparent expansion of the Universe also can be explained in many different ways — for example, Narlikar and Sinha think so. Tell Narlikar that you know the whole truth. He’ll teach you a thing or two.
Recall the history of science, “Gabro,” and try to think. At any given moment, “consensus” of the scientists, in any given area, is wrong most of the time.
Alexander,
You are taking Avi Loeb’s name (mot Ari) in vain. He doesn’t say what you falsely claim he does regarding the cosmic red shift.
I’m not familiar with professor Shu from Taiwan or with “Narlikar and Sinha”.
You have absolutely nothing.
So, what is your justification, Gabro? The fact that you know nothing about prominent sceintists named in my post? Or a single typo (there is no editing of posts on this site)?
Professor Loeb does not support the Big Bang theory as a whole. Thus, dogmatic interpretation of redshift as a measure of the Universe’s accelerated expansion doesn’t stand a chance in his view.
>>
Are the “laws” of physics invariant over space and time?
<<
If they aren’t, then you’ll have to explain why it looks like distant stars are doing the same things our nearby stars are doing. You’ll also have to explain why the speed-of-light appears in Maxwell’s equations. (The ether theory solved this problem nicely, but Michelson-Morley 1887 ruined that idea.)
Jim