No more so than light coming from the center of the Milky Way. Gravitational redshift doesn’t explain why more distant objects are redshifted more.
The properties of dark energy are unknown. It’s really a placeholder term for “whatever invisible mechanism is causing the rate of expansion to increase”.
We didn’t even know that the expansion of the universe was accelerating until very recently. It may be decades before we figure out the mechanism.
I have no idea what you mean by this.
Gravity decreases with the square of distance. The metric expansion is constant. At short distances gravity wins. At longer distances expansion does.
And, technically, dark energy isn’t causing the expansion. It’s causing the *acceleration *of the expansion.
Remember, one of the reasons inflation was added to the model was to explain the homogeneity of the CMB. If the CMB turns out to be less homogeneous than we thought, then perhaps inflation isn’t necessary after all.
I’m curious … if the CMB isn’t the light from the cloud of hot plasma that filled the universe after the big bang, what do you propose that it is? Why is there a soft glow filling the entire sky out beyond the oldest galaxies?
Gravity as I understand it is the mass of an object weighing down the spacetime fabric instead of an actual force pulling things together.
I agree that gravity decreases with distance but are you saying that dark energy increases with distance or that dark energy is relatively weak overall and only manifests itself when the distance is great enough to negate gravity?
Would that not mean that the current accepted hubble constant is way off?
I am curious too but I have no answer for you but I will think about it.
It’s clear you’re not actually interested in debating the evidence. I’m not going to post in this thread any further. I’ve given you a video and plenty of literature to look at and you’ve dismissed it all with flippant responses that show you’re not really after a rigorous examination of counter-evidence to your claims. Instead, you’re just constantly moving the goalposts. Not sure why you’re wasting the time.
As a final point, yes, it does matter what material you’re citing and which scientists you’re referencing. In your case, you’re citing crackpots. That’s hugely important in assessing bias and credibility.
Dark energy doesn’t enter into it at all. Dark energy is a recent addition to the theory and is really just a placeholder term for “the invisible thing that is causing the expansion to accelerate”.
The metric expansion of space increases *linearly *with distance. The effects of gravity drop off *geometrically *with distance. Over short distances gravity dominates. Over long distances expansion does.
No. The hubble constant is the rate of expansion we observe now. It has nothing to do with the rate of expansion during inflation.
Good luck with that.
Honestly, I don’t know what you’re hoping to accomplish. You don’t even know enough about physics to understand most of what you’re trying to critique. This thread is like trying to argue who’s going to win the Superbowl with someone who hasn’t bothered to learn the rules of football.
He’s not right, but he’s not even wrong. He’s just, different.
I’ve been reading this thread since the beginning and I have no idea what point Jon55 is trying to make. If it is an attempt to criticize the Big Bang Theory it should be based on a basic understanding of physics. If it is a quest to understand the underpinnings of the Big Bang Theory it should be open to data and citations. If it is a screed against materialistic scientists it should be in a different forum.
I was attempting to explain why some people here seem to be directing frustration towards you. I thought you might be interested in seeing where that frustration was actually coming from. Apparently not.
Ok I was wrong there I was thinking how are you going to explain a flat universe without inflation.
So I will ask. How do you explain a nearly flat universe without inflation?
Also please explain the absence of monopoles.
Also how is it possible for regions seperated by billions of light years to have the exact same temperature?
I laid out my motives earlier in the thread to sum up my earlier posts on that topic…I get a kick out of it.
And it is funny that you say I dont understand anything about physics when earlier I remarked on how gravity was not actually a force and you replied that you did not know what I was talking about.
That is really old news much confirmed by experimentation.
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/aso/databank/entries/dp15ei.html
After thinking about the problems for 10 years, he published the general theory of relativity. In it, he suggested that gravity is not a force, as Newton had believed, but the result of a curvature of the space-time continuum – the four dimensional world in which we live. He used a thought experiment to compare the force felt from gravity with acceleration. Imagine you are in an elevator and feel what you believe is the force of gravity, holding you to the floor. According to Einstein, since you cannot see outside the elevator, you cannot tell if you are feeling the force of gravity or if the elevator is being pushed toward your feet. Einstein stated that the two forces are actually identical. Furthermore, if you were in the elevator accelerating upward and a beam of light entered the elevator parallel to the floor, the light beam would appear to bend downward. This meant that light, which ordinarily traveled in straight lines, could curve if it traveled across a gravitational field. This curving path of light meant that that “field” was really a curving of space, which Einstein found was inseparable from time. The curvature would be caused by bodies with great mass.
A weak gravitational field indicates nearly flat space-time, and there Newton’s theories seem to apply. But a strong gravitational field throws classical predictions off. Einstein postulated three ways this theory could be proved. One was by observing the stars during a total solar eclipse. The sun is our closest strong gravitational field. Light traveling from a star through space and passing the sun’s field would be bent, if Einstein’s theory were true. If you could see the star during the day, he predicted, it would be in a different place than at night. The only chance to see it during the day would be during an eclipse.
On March 29, 1919, that opportunity came. British Astronomer Sir Arthur Eddington traveled to Príncipe Island off the western coast of Africa. His team photographed starfields during the eclipse and compared the photos with those of the same starfield taken when the sun was not present. Eddington found the apparent location of the stars had shifted, just as Einstein predicted.
Well I am not right and never claimed to be. And yes different…you can even call me special if you want.
The point is I get a kick out of it. That is my new form reply to the oft asked question of why am I doing this. Also in your case two of the above would apply.
It is certainly not a rant you would not be asking if it was.
I am open to data and citations I just ask that they be specific. I dont know much about horse breeding but I can link to a wiki page with all the info. Back to motive I want to know why so many think (in thier own words) the Friedmann-Lemaitre model deserves its place as the undisputed frontrunner of a description of the last 13 and half billion years.
Your participation is not required but it would add to the fun factor.
Perhaps you could start by explaining to me how it is that the earth with a mass of 6,000,000,000,000 ,000,000,000,000 (6E+24) kilograms does not have the gravitational force to pop my eyeball but it can overcome the force that causes the metric expansion of space at a distance of over 2.5 million light-years.
Yet this same force is powerfull enough to push superclusters at c+ speeds.
You know I really was going to let it pass since you claim you are stepping off but I feel compelled to protest you calling people that you know nothing of childish names.
Where I am from to resort to name calling is to admit you dont have an argument and that is entirely beside the point.
Martin López-Corredoira and Carlos M. Gutiérrez have been published repeatedly in respected peer reviewed journals. I have skimmed over at least eight of their joint efforts myself spanning a period of over ten years.
Do you know what all that means?
It means they are respected members of the scientific community.
Here is a link to a bibliography that was compiled from the peer reviewed journals MNRAS, ApJ, ApJL, ApJS, AJ, PASP, A&A, Nature and Science.
On the page are listed two of the indviduals that you have seen fit to abuse. http://www.ing.iac.es/astronomy/service/papers.html
Kajal K. Ghosh, Lakshmi Saripalli, Poshak Gandhi, Cédric Foellmi, Carlos M. Gutiérrez and Martin López Corredoira, 2009, “Multiwavelength Study of the Bright X-Ray Source Population in the Interacting Galaxies NGC 5774/NGC 5775”, AJ, 137, 3263. [USA] (service:ISIS
Insult me all you want too (and Arp as well…he is used to it) I promise I could not care less about what you think of me but please quit going around calling these people, that you have not even bothered to read, crackpots.
Why what? Why a linear effect increase will eventually dominate over a geometric decrease? That’s just MATH.
In your previous post you were arguing that new data suggested that the CMB was LESS homogenous than previously thought. My answer was that if those measurements were correct then perhaps inflation is unnecessary. So then you respond by asking how I explain the homogeneity of the CMB without inflation.
Well, which is it? Is the CMB homogeneous or not?
I didn’t know what you meant by calling gravity an “aftereffect”.
Yes, the curved space model of gravity from relativity is, in general, better than the Newtonian model of gravity as a force. However, just as Newtonian mechanics are fine for solving many problems in physics, so treating gravity as a force is also fine for describing most situations.
If you prefer to visualize the Local Group as sliding together down a metrically expanding geodesic, please feel free do so. However since you seem unclear about a number of relatively basic ideas (like the relationship between force and acceleration, or the difference between linear and geometric), bringing relativity into the picture seemed like an unnecessary complication.
And I’ll say it again: You don’t know enough about physics to discuss these matters intelligently. You don’t have the basic background in things like Newtonian mechanics, thermodynamics, optics, relativity, and quantum theory to be able to distinguish between crackpot bullshit and real science. You don’t know enough of the underlying math to understand the significance of various quantitative observations. Essentially you’re arguing against the big bang theory armed only with gut instinct and a collection of random facts and factoids.
As already mentioned, this is a perfect example of why you’re not right, and you’re not even wrong. You’re raising completely nonsensical points because you don’t understand what it is you’re attempting to argue against.
Isn’t that actually evidence for the expansion of the universe? Distant regions have the same temperature because they were once very close to each other. It’s exactly what you would expect from an expanding universe.
Ah I see now. You think that because from our observational point we see redshift increasing roughly equal to the distance you think that the farther any two superclusters are from each other the faster space expands.
First we sit at no special observational spot and second that is not what the data implies at all.
If we sat on the other side of our observable universe and looked back to here current theory holds that we would see the same thing.
I dont know how else to put it. I do not know if your misunderstanding is that you think that the universe is linear? Or that you think all the matter and energy is moving in the same direction?
No one ever said that dark energy or whatever you would like to call it had any kind of linear effect.
That is not what wiki meant by this “They allow the expansion history of the Universe to be measured by looking at the relationship between the distance to an object and its redshift, which gives how fast it is receding from us. The relationship is roughly linear, according to Hubble’s law.” http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dark_energy
That just means that when you plot it on a graph you get a straight line.
Hah you tell me. I have been trying to tell you all along that the current model is full of contradictions and I am glad you finally spotted one for yourself.
Its not new data the Six Degree Field Galaxy Survey was completed in 2004 and the big hole was considered to be a problem with the data that was until WMAP spotted the same hole in the same place.
Overall to the best that NASA can determine the CMB is homogeneous but with some fairly glaring anomalies I just pointed out the biggest one that happened to be independently confirmed.
The problem should be obvious by now.
You can look at two different locations in the universe seperated by billions of light years and get the same exact temperature which indicates causal contact and supports inflation.
But then in a few places you have these big holes that are impossible under current inflationary theory.
You feigned ignorance to avoid confusing me?
What a novel concept.
I have explained alot more about the theory than you have but maybe you are just playing possum to avoid confusion.
Care to explain why it is nonsensical or do you just assert and move on?
Here is one paper by a who’s who list of observational scientists discussing what I was alluding too. http://wfirst.gsfc.nasa.gov/science/DETF_Report.pdf
“Over the last several years scientists have accumulated conclusive evidence that the Universe is expanding ever more rapidly. Within the framework of the standard
cosmological model, this implies that 70% of the universe is composed of a new,
mysterious dark energy, which unlike any known form of matter or energy, counters the attractive force of gravity.”
And here is another discussing the mechanism for stopping expansion at the local level. All of these papers discuss this but I dont think anyone is reading any of the papers I have linked too and all I get in return is wiki and assertions. Oh and I did get a youtube video one time.
http://arxiv.org/pdf/0810.2712v2.pdf
“For example, is it obvious that the Astronomical
Unit is not affected by global expansion (compare
(Krasinsky and Brumberg, 2004; Standish, 2004)) or can
it even be, as e.g. suggested in (Fahr and Siewert, 2008),
that our Universe is contracting on small scales while it
expands in the large?
If so, what precisely would rule the
Local overdensities in the matter distribution
may inhibit space from expanding. In the balloon
model of (Misner et al., 1973) this is represented by little
pennies being glued onto the balloon. The rubber material
underneath the coins does not expand due to the
stiff glue which holds it in place.
The question arises what, in reality, are the structures corresponding to the
coin and what dynamical mechanism provides the glue?It is often heard that ‘bound systems’ do not participate
in the global expansion, or that systems below the
scale of galaxy clusters ‘break away’ from the Hubble
flow. But what does ‘bound’ and ‘break away’ really
mean?”
Here is one exploring the Pioneer anomaly and the possibility that space is expanding inside the local group but the effect is so small that it is virtually undetectable.
http://www.esa.int/gsp/ACT/doc/ARI/ARI%20Study%20Report/ACT-RPT-PHY-ARI-041302-Double_Embedding.pdf
“Hence there is room for speculations that such an influence
might also be (partly) responsible for the apparently anomalous acceleration of the Pioneer spacecrafts, the so-called ‘Pioneer-Anomaly’ [73, 74, 77, 78, 79, 80], henceforth abbreviated by PA.
Existing investigations in this direction, such as those already
mentioned in ESA’s original call for proposals (CfP), arrive at partially conflicting conclusions. To resolve this issues, the CfP originally suggested a very fundamental line of attack, namely to investigating the double embedding-problem for the Solar System.
Strictly speaking this means to find a solution to Einstein’s field equations that match the 1)gravitational field (i.e. the spacetime metric
of the Sun to that of the innergalactic neighbourhood, and 2) to match the Galactic gravitational field to that of its cosmic background.”
I am not the only one who wonders how gravity can cancel out a force strong enough to warp spacetime. Gravity when expressed as a force is by a very large margin the weakest force we know of.
Perhaps you are the only one who dosent wonder…oh yeah there are two of you.
This is a common misunderstanding. The “force” of expansion increases with distance. The Hubble constant is about 70 km/s per megaparsec. If you convert it to smaller units, it ends up being something like 10[sup]-18[/sup] m/s per meter. In other words, two objects one meter apart would be expanded away from each other at 10[sup]-18[/sup] meters per second. At that speed it would take 100 million years to traverse one hydrogen atom. If we look at the scale of the Solar System, the Earth is pushed away from the Sun at about one millimeter per year, ignoring everything else. Would you agree that if some mysterious force were pushing on the Earth that slowly that the Sun’s gravity would have no trouble overcoming it?
Let’s say the Earth itself starts inflating like a balloon. Ignoring smaller geological features, let’s say all the oceans and continents are now double their original size, so now the Earth’s circumference is twice its original value. If Alice started out one meter away from you, she would now be two meters away. Bob, on the other side of the planet from you, starting out at 20,000 kilometers away, would now be 40,000 kilometers away. The distance between you and Alice increased by one meter; the distance between you and Bob increased by 20,000 kilometers. If this happened over the period of an hour, you might imagine that you could easily overcome a force pushing you and Alice apart at one meter per hour, but be hard pressed to find a rope that could withstand a velocity of 20,000 kilometers per hour.
This is how gravity works vs expansion. Objects that are close together are not pushed apart very fast, so gravity can easily overcome it. Gravity drops off with distance, so at far enough distances, gravity is so weak that it cannot overcome expansion velocities.
You’re not gonna debunk an entire theory with nit-picky stuff like this. It’s as if physicists discover that gravitational acceleration at the Earth’s surface is 9.7 m/s[sup]2[/sup] instead of 9.8 m/s[sup]2[/sup], and then you claim that objects could possibly fall UP.
The fact is, the CMB shows the universe was dense some time in the past. You can pick apart the details all you want, but it’s really hard to argue the main point, that the universe’s density is changing with time, i.e. it is expanding. You can’t just explain that away by picking at anomalies with inflation.
