Expanding Space Is Retarded

There is expanding going one all around us.
It is called life.
Just look at the plants and trees, they will expand.
Its a fact of life and the universe.
Not a fact of life with government agents in bed with the cartels that wish
for us to think otherwise and spend most of their money telling
us so every day.
ED: The Red Shift is due to sound waves in the ether as Tesla said
many times. So the ether must be expanding.


[edit on 4/1/2010 by TeslaandLyne]

Originally posted by masterp

Originally posted by Paladin327
but anyway, going back to the expanding ballon example, place 2 grains of sand on the outside of the balloon, blow up the ballon so it is rigid enough to measure. note distances. blow balloon up more, note differences have changed. this is how the universe's expansion was explained to me in 2 courses on astronomy. the ballon is space-time, and the sand is... something in the universe.

Which is not correct.

... ...

In the balloon & sand example you gave, the grains of sand would grow together with the balloon, and thus no change in distance would be observed.

What happens is that new space is being generated that pushes matter away from matter.

it is interesting you say that the sand expands with the balloon. I've never seen that happen in real life. I am imparting a force by blowing air into the balloon. Let this for e take the place of dark energy as it is causing the balloon to expand. In doing this, I am not creating more balloon as the material of the ballon is merely getting stretched and/or expanded.

And for my next point which I won't quote anything because it's not a good use of my time, the absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. It's called dark matter and dark energy because we know it exists, but we don't truely know it's nature.




[edit on 1/4/2010 by Paladin327]

Originally posted by mnemeth1
reply to post by Arbitrageur

 

"We don't understand what that force is so we called it dark energy"

How about there is no force.

How about you don't understand it because it doesn't really exist.

Given the amount of debate and uncertainty concerning dark energy, I'll be the first person to admit, there may be an as yet undiscovered error in the observations or the interpretation or analysis of those observations. So I admit those are possibilities. About 2/3 of astronomers accept the acceleration findings, about 1/3 do not so there's a majority view but it's certainly not overwhelming.

How about the universe is steady in state and the models of expansion and acceleration are wrong.

How about red shift is entirely caused by the known properties of plasma well described by Wolf back in the late 80s.

Could some cases of redshifts from stars be the result of the Wolf effect? I admit that's possible. But the Wolf effect is an inadequate explanation of our observations because it's inapplicable to galaxies because they are incoherent sources, and for numerous other reasons:

Wolf Effect as a valid cause of redshift

Cosmologists do not seriously consider the Wolf effect as a source of cosmological redshifts for fairly good reasons. To start with, the wolf effect consistently creates both redshifts & blueshifts (i.e., Wolf, 1986; Wolf, 1987a; Wolf, 1987b; Wolf, 1989). There are 76,483 quasars in the Sloan Digital Sky Survey, data release 4. The fact that all of them are redshifted does raise the obvious, and as yet unanswered question: Why are there no blueshifted quasars? The only serious attempt to address this question, that I am aware of, is James, 1998. He was able to preferentially generate redshifts, by imposing the condition that the correlation length perpendicular to the line of sight must be significantly longer than the correlation length along the line of sight. While this might not be a bad assumption for a given example, it is hard to believe that this will be true for all quasars.

The first 3 of Wolf's papers (Wolf, 1986; Wolf, 1987; Wolf, 1987a) impose a formidable constraint on the size of the redshift: It cannot exceed the line width, which obviously prohibits all but very small redshifts. This constraint was overcome (Wolf, 1989; James, Savedoff & Wolf, 1990) later, but there are numerous caveats. The magnitude of the redshift depends on the ratio of the angle of incidence to the scattering angle, so anything that approximates Snell's Law (the angles are equal), will produce no spectral shift. And one still expects both red & blue shifts (but as before, see James, 1998).

Likewise, the analysis of Roy, Kafatos & Datta, 2000, also produces both red & blue shifts. They appeal to the blueshifted lines being possibly unobservable due to excess broadening relative to the redshifted lines, but do not deal with the question beyond that. So the blueshift question remains open. (I only saw this after telling you that James, 1998 was the only serious attempt I know of, and I don't feel like re-typing everything).

There are numerous caveats in the Wolf & James papers. For one thing, unscattered radiation cannot shift greater than the linewidth, and the latter papers do not consider the effect of unscattered radiation, i.e., what would the final spectrum look like if it were a mixture of scattered & unscattered light? They also always anaylze only emission spectra. While this should not make a difference (emission & absorption are inverse processes), it could make a difference in the details of scattering, where absorption features have fewer photons to scatter.

It should also be noted that the Wolf & Doppler effects are not identical. The Wolf effect induces extra line broadening, and induces a frequency dependent change in line intensity that will make an object look bluer than it really is (i.e., James, Savedoff & Wolf, 1990). But, of course, if you don't know what the original source spectrum looks like, this might be a hard thing to detect. One might search for systematic strengthening of lines in the blue direction, under circumstances where other effects can be ruled out (i.e., intervening material usually reddens a source).

Certainly it is legitimate to consider the Wolf effect, but in fact none of the papers suggest that the Wolf effect is responsible (or should be responsible) for the quasar redshifts under all circumstances. This is especially true in Roy, Kafatos & Datta, 2000, where they rely on a screening effect of intervening material, as in a quasar seen through a galaxy.

And one must note that the Wolf effect is definitely inapplicable to galaxies, because they are incoherent sources, and because there would be no explanation for the apparent redshift - distance relationship.

[edit on 2-4-2010 by Arbitrageur]

reply to post by OnceReturned

Why - with no background knowledge on the subject - would you come here and start a fight about something you don't know anything about, but which all of the experts who know the most about it of anyone in the world disagree with you about?

Ah, but you see, our friend mnemeth1 has a secret, hidden agenda. He's a believer in the Electric Universe, a pseudoscientific cosmological model that denies the definitive influence of gravity, rejects both Special and General Relativity and insists that the stars are not thermonuclear furnaces but balls of iron sputtering away in space like automobile spark plugs.

Electric-universe fantasists have no theory to support their ideas (cue avalanche of links from mnemeth1 trying to prove me wrong), so, like the supporters of other crank ideas, they endeavour to promote them by casting doubt on established science instead. Since they don't actually understand the science most of the time, most of this doubt-casting is done by sowing muddle and general confusion, as is the case in this thread.

Do you think all of the physicist haven't spent 5 seconds thinking about whether or not their entire enterprise might be based on a fiction?

Oh, but physicists are self-deluded fools, don't you see? Einstein was the biggest fool of all. Who cares what mere physicists say?

It really is no use trying to argue with old Mnemmy. As Strype has noticed,

Originally posted by Strype
You appear to keep repeating the same argument, causing the entire thread to appear as a simple misinterpretation of words.

you can prove Mnemmy wrong on the same point a dozen times over in as many different threads, and he'll pop up again on a thirteenth thread presenting the same dead and rotting argument all over again (and again, and again). Which is why this post will be my only contribution to this wonderfully, entertainingly, haplessly, tragically pointless thread.

[edit on 2/4/10 by Astyanax]

Originally posted by WhiteDevil013
reply to post by mnemeth1

 

No offense, but the wording in the name you chose for this thread is a good indicator of why you are having difficulty comprehending the cosmos.

Hi white,

I do agree that he seems to have great trouble with comprehending the established consensus but i must point out that the universe is not easily comprehensible any ways you look at it and that there remains massive discrepancies in our current models and understanding of the theoretical constructs they are patched together with.

So i agree that he isn't going to be the one to clear up anything for anyone but yes, those presumed experts have had and continue to have significant problems of their own!

Regards&thanks for your posts,

Stellar

Edit to correct earlier mistake....

Originally posted by masterp

I managed to entirely misread your earlier post masterp so thanks for in fact explaining the effects of inflation as per our current understanding. Sorry for not giving you due credit and double checking as i know i should.

regards,

Stellar


[edit on 2-4-2010 by StellarX]

reply to post by Arbitrageur


How about some updated papers.

Dynamic Multiple Scattering, Frequency Shift and Possible Effects on Quasar Astronomy
arxiv.org...

combined with a nice explanation of the CREIL effect
jean.moretbailly.free.fr...

and a paper on it.
arxiv.org...



The point being real properties of plasma exist that can account for the observed shifts.

It is far more plausible that real properties of light in a plasma vacuum are to blame for red shift than an expanding universe - which is totally baseless and can not be proven in any laboratory experiment.

Every possible stone should be over-turned before jumping to the wild conclusion that space itself is expanding or some unknown force of the universe is pushing galaxies apart.

This is the equivalent of saying God did it.

reply to post by StellarX


I think you're having trouble understanding what I'm saying, not vice versa.

reply to post by Astyanax


You're really good at ad homs.

I was about to refute your arguments until I realized you didn't make any.





[edit on 2-4-2010 by mnemeth1]

Originally posted by mnemeth1
How about some updated papers.

Dynamic Multiple Scattering, Frequency Shift and Possible Effects on Quasar Astronomy
arxiv.org...

combined with a nice explanation of the CREIL effect
jean.moretbailly.free.fr...

and a paper on it.
arxiv.org...

I thought you said it was the Wolf effect? When I show it's not that you throw some more crap against the wall to see what will stick?

CREIL and anything else that assumes steady state rather than expansion has the same problems as the "tired light" hypotheses, among other problems, they can't explain the time dilation observed on high redshift galaxies:

time dilation of distant source light curves predicted by the Big Bang

This time dilation is a consequence of the standard interpretation of the redshift: a supernova that takes 20 days to decay will appear to take 40 days to decay when observed at redshift z=1. The time dilation has been observed, with 5 different published measurements of this effect in supernova light curves. These papers are:

* Leibundgut etal, 1996, ApJL, 466, L21-L24
* Goldhaber etal, in Thermonuclear Supernovae (NATO ASI), eds. R. Canal, P. Ruiz-LaPuente, and J. Isern.
* Riess etal, 1997, AJ, 114, 722.
* Perlmutter etal, 1998, Nature, 391, 51.
* Goldhaber etal, ApJ in press.

These observations contradict tired light models of the redshift.

And if you want to say the CREIL isn't a "tired light" model, fine, but it has the same problems as the tired light models, they don't agree with observations of time dilations and other factors discussed here:

Criticisms of Tired Light models

OP, you said:

When GR says space bends, it literally means nothing bends and that bending of nothing imparts real force.

Is your argument that space is not expanding, or that spacetime geometry is not dynamic and therefore dynamic spacetime geometry necessarily cannot be a valid explanation for any observation?

Force is not what "bent" spacetime imparts. Spacetime geometry is non-Euclidean. I think that you have inappropriate faith in the idea that spacetime geometry is necessarily Euclidean. In euclidean geometery, two parallel lines will never touch. This a premis and not provable. You accept that the geometry of space is euclidean because that's what makes intuitive sense. However, allegance to this idea is just as unfounded as any belief in any arbitrary geometry. Assuming that a straight line will be straight in the sense that we imagine it is just that; an assumption. There is no reason to believe that spacetime geometry is static and euclidean, this is a flawed assumption. A straight line drawn on a curved medium appears to be curved. How do you know that the medium of reality - spacetime - cannot curve?

You've started with the "theory" that curved spacetime is impossible, and you proceed as though that is an absolute truth so all observations must be explained without compromising that premis. This isn't really a theory though. Theories exist only to explain observations and make predictions. What observations does your theory explain? What predictions does it make? Is it testable in principal? Can you conceive of any experiment which could-- in principal - falsify your theory? Or is your intuition just so strong that it has to be right? If no such experiment exists or can exist, you must admit that this is no theory at all, and a simple statement of your sense of how things "seem" to be.

What you're up against is general relativity, which makes real, testable predictions. Most cosmologists and physicist would argue that experiments to test your theory have already been done, namely observations of the bending of light around massive bodies, and that your theory cannot account for the observations; it is therefore falsified. You have to come up with a better explanation for the observations that GR provides.(Without appealing to the raw intuition that spacetime is euclidean and not being able to justify this intuition)

The thing with the "dusty plasma" hypothesis is this: open plasma systems give off photons which are observable. In any open plasma system, electron/nucleus pairs around the edges or in any other areas of less-than-average energy density will "condense" back into gases. This "re-pairing" process of the electrons returning to nucleus-bound orbital energy levels releases photons of some observable wavelength. This is inconsistent with our observations.

reply to post by Arbitrageur

I think it deals with it just fine.

The two effects taken together, along with other mechanisms of scattering, can easily account for the observed red shift of cosmological objects.

BUT EVEN IF IT DIDN'T - its still far more plausible to believe that "space" is not "expanding" and galaxies are not flying apart from a big bang.

Red shift is one tiny aspect of an epic boat load of contradictory evidence that ranges from light element abundance, to non-homogeneous background, to visibly connected high and low red shift objects, to the ridiculous amount of hypothetical forces and matters proposed by the standard theory.

Setting aside the fact that space "expanding" is ridiculous on its face, there's plenty more besides red shifts for me to argue over.

Lets have some more discussions about "dark energy" and while we are at it I'll spin some yarns about black dragons and the knights of yore.

Originally posted by mnemeth1
reply to post by Arbitrageur

I think it deals with it just fine.

The two effects taken together, along with other mechanisms of scattering, can easily account for the observed red shift of cosmological objects.

BUT EVEN IF IT DIDN'T - its still far more plausible to believe that "space" is not "expanding" and galaxies are not flying apart from a big bang.

Please reread my post.It's not the redshift possibility I contradicted (though I can do that too, but just skipping that for now).

It's the time dilation which you either missed, misread, or just decided to change the subject. And not just the time dilation, but all the other evidence besides red shift which you don't want to address.

Then you say you want to talk about dark energy which I already conceded is less than certain. I guess if you're out of proof and arguments, switching subjects is the only tactic left.

Originally posted by Arbitrageur

Originally posted by mnemeth1
reply to post by Arbitrageur

I think it deals with it just fine.

The two effects taken together, along with other mechanisms of scattering, can easily account for the observed red shift of cosmological objects.

BUT EVEN IF IT DIDN'T - its still far more plausible to believe that "space" is not "expanding" and galaxies are not flying apart from a big bang.

Please reread my post.It's not the redshift possibility I contradicted (though I can do that too, but just skipping that for now).

It's the time dilation which you either missed, misread, or just decided to change the subject. And not just the time dilation, but all the other evidence besides red shift which you don't want to address.

Then you say you want to talk about dark energy which I already conceded is less than certain. I guess if you're out of proof and arguments, switching subjects is the only tactic left.

What other evidence?

All the evidence is a bunch of hypothetical nonsense.

Wimps, gravitational waves, machos, dark energy, dark flows, dark matter, neutron stars, etc.. etc.. etc..

Its all made up nonsense that can not be scientifically proven in a lab.

All of it has absolutely no grounding in reality.

Its a joke.

Its a farce.

It makes me LOL every time I pick up a science mag and see them going on about multiple dimensions and what have you.

This is not science.

Originally posted by mnemeth1

Originally posted by Arbitrageur
Please reread my post.It's not the redshift possibility I contradicted (though I can do that too, but just skipping that for now).

It's the time dilation which you either missed, misread, or just decided to change the subject. And not just the time dilation, but all the other evidence besides red shift which you don't want to address.

Then you say you want to talk about dark energy which I already conceded is less than certain. I guess if you're out of proof and arguments, switching subjects is the only tactic left.

What other evidence?

All the evidence is a bunch of hypothetical nonsense.

Wimps, gravitational waves, machos, dark energy, dark flows, dark matter, neutron stars, etc.. etc.. etc

"It's the time dilation which you either missed, misread, or just decided to change the subject."

Time dilation of supernova events, the link I provided has links to 5 papers regarding such observations.

How does 20 days stretch into 40 days when the galaxy has a high redshift, unless it's receding?

[edit on 3-4-2010 by Arbitrageur]

reply to post by mnemeth1


just because humanity doesn't fully understand space doesn't mean that it's nothing. there is clearly something there that our limited brains and technology can't fully grasp yet but we'll get there. as for expanding space being retarded: that's ridiculous because it is scientific fact that it's expanding.

I don't know if anyone has posted this already but . . .

It is that everything is shrinking in size, making space seem to be getting comparatively larger [expanding].

Everything is relative, in its own way,
light the starry summer night or snow covered winter's day,

everything is relative . . .

Originally posted by Arbitrageur

Originally posted by mnemeth1
reply to post by Arbitrageur

I think it deals with it just fine.

The two effects taken together, along with other mechanisms of scattering, can easily account for the observed red shift of cosmological objects.

BUT EVEN IF IT DIDN'T - its still far more plausible to believe that "space" is not "expanding" and galaxies are not flying apart from a big bang.

Please reread my post.It's not the redshift possibility I contradicted (though I can do that too, but just skipping that for now).

It's the time dilation which you either missed, misread, or just decided to change the subject. And not just the time dilation, but all the other evidence besides red shift which you don't want to address.

Then you say you want to talk about dark energy which I already conceded is less than certain. I guess if you're out of proof and arguments, switching subjects is the only tactic left.

The abstract of one of the papers supporting cosmological red shifts of QSOs.

For a group of 27 QSOs comprising virtually all objects in the catalog of Burbidge, Crowne, and Smith (1977) with z at least 0.45, listed apparent visual magnitudes less than 19.12 + 5 log z, and declinations of -15 to + 55 deg, a program of spectroscopy of all galaxies brighter than the red Sky Survey limit and within 45 arcsec radius of each QSO has been undertaken. Redshifts have been obtained for 25 of the 29 galaxies, and 13 galaxies in eight fields have redshifts within 1000 km/s of that of the QSO in the field. The chance probability of eight or more such agreements, evaluated from the redshift distribution of the total sample of galaxies, is shown to be less than 1.5 in a million, making the cosmological nature of QSO redshifts a virtual certainty. The possibility that two distinct types of QSO exist, one having noncosmological redshifts, is discussed briefly and found to be extremely unlikely.

For starters, how in the hell can this be taken as supporting evidence of cosmological red shifts of QSOs?

This paper is proving that QSOs are related to their host galaxies! That's exactly the argument Arp so eloquently made with his QSO ejection models! So here we have 1.5 million to one odds that QSOs are RELATED to their host galaxies. Of course, as Arp points out for us, red shift isn't the only thing that correlates QSOs to their host galaxies. Their consistent positions around the galaxies are also highly consistent with ejection models.

Arp's theory stipulates that QSOs are predominately ejected at high z and degrade to a low z as time and distance increase from their host galaxies.

Given that red shift may be indicative of distance between us and galaxies (I believe it does correlate to distance between us and galaxies, I just don't believe is related to a Doppler “expansion” effect or “dark energy”), one must assume absolutely ridiculous levels of mass and energy for high Z quasars to be at their stated cosmological distances. Given that, it makes absolutely perfect sense that evolved QSOs should show the same red shift as their host galaxy.

The 2007 paper on DMS (Wolf effect) provides us some insight:

Our recent work, based on the statistical analysis of the V\'eron-Cetty data(2003) supports that quasar redshifts fit the overall Hubble expansion law, as in the case of galaxies, for z less than equal to 0.295 but not for higher redshifts, indicating clearly the inadequacy of the Doppler effect as the sole mechanism in explaining the redshifts for high redshift quasars for z greater than equal to 0.295. We found that the redshift posseses an additive, discordant component due to frequency shifting from the correlation induced mechanism which increases gradually for ~ 0.295 < z < 3.0, however, appearing to follow the evolutionary picture of the universe with absolute dependence on the physical characteristics i.e., environmental aspects of the relevant sources through which the light rays pass, after being multiply scattered.

OH BOY! You mean scattering can account for anomalous high z QSOs! Why yes it can!

Now, that leaves us with the problem of low z QSOs and the red shift of galaxies themselves. To which the CREIL effect lends itself.

The CREIL effect occurs within space vacuum. Such vacuum is emptier than the best of the vacuums that one knows how to create on earth, but it contains a subtle gas, mainly made up of hydrogen. This very transparent gas is crossed over by the « hot » lights emitted by stars and by thermal radiations at 2.7 kelvins, made popular by the Nobel prizes Penzias and Wilson (« cold » lights). The CREIL effect also occurs within a hotter gas (when it is located near a high temperature object). As in a laser beam, some particles of the gas interact with lights, without shifting the beams, hence without disturbing the images of stars. Such interaction conveys energy from « hot » lights to « cold » ones. The result is a slight global drop of the frequencies of hot lights and a rise for cold lights. One could equally say that the spectra of the lights of stars redshift and that of cold lights blueshift (for thermal radiations, such blueshifts amount to a warming up, an amplification). Such effects, that a specialist of lasers and microwave beams would consider as so ordinary that, in optics, they bear the specific name of « parametric » effects, have been up to now looked over by astrophysicists. The simplest example of parametric effect is refraction. Gaseous substances being rather evenly distributed all throughout the universe (heavenly objects apart), their effects adding themselves up, the redshifts are broadly speaking in proportion with the amount of matter crossed over, thus often with distance. The more the spectrum of an object redshifts, the more distant it is: that is the Hubble law, henceforth accounted for by the CREIL effect, and not by the Doppler effect which brings in the notion of an expansion of the universe.

And a paper arguing CREIL over time dilation.
arxiv.org...

All anomalies accounted for.

So, we have proof QSOs are related to galaxies. A LABORATORY PROVEN effect that can account for anomalous high z QSOs. A LABORATORY PROVEN effect that can account for the red shift of galaxies and low z QSOs. And a through model which refutes the notion of “time dilation” as observed in cosmological light sources.


So, which is a more rational theory?

Space is expanding or red shift is caused by known properties of light acting in a plasma vacuum?


[edit on 6-4-2010 by mnemeth1]

My personal archive on discordant red shift and supporting papers.


2004 peer reviewed paper on CREIL

Prop agation of light in low-pressure ionized and atomic hydrogen: application to astrophysics
IEEE Transactions on Plasma Science
Moret-Bailly, J.
Lab. de Phys., Univ. de Bourgogne, Dijon, France
10.1109/TPS.2003.821476

more on CREIL
arxiv.org...

And a paper arguing CREIL over time dilation.
arxiv.org...

Paper arguing CREIL in space plasmas
il.arxiv.org...

American Physical Society meeting presentation on CREIL
adsabs.harvard.edu...

International Workshop on Redshift Mechanisms in Astrophysics and Cosmology
cdsweb.cern.ch...

The universe is not empty. There is no such thing as "nothing".

The universe is filled with space matter.

Space matter is filled everywhere in the universe. All matter in the universe (in the ordinary world) is made of space matter. Since the gravitational force is exerted on space matter, all massive bodies have a denser medium of space matter envelop. Bending of light when it passes through near massive objects like stars, lensing effects in some regions in the galaxies are because of the refraction of light by the denser space matter that present in these regions and are purely the demonstrations for the presence of space matter in the macro world.

physics-edu.org...

Space is never empty. The human mind cannot imagine or describe a true "void". We have no experience with it no way to make or observe it and therefor cannot speculate about its relevance to classical or quantum theory.


Keep in mind that if "space" was nothing then matter would not effect nothing. The warping of space time must occur in a medium. Gravity propgates through this medium.

How can a curvature exsist in nothing? It cannot. There is no validity to the argument that space is "nothing".

[edit on 7-4-2010 by constantwonder]