Einstein's Field Eq

Arbitrageur

By 1929 it became clear that the universe was expanding, and relativity was re-interpreted in accordance with new observations supporting the idea of a big bang, but to claim a relationship between big bang and relativity seems to ignore that relativity was originally written for a static universe without any big bang.

Yes, this is true, but had no general relativity been invented by 1929 (a definite possibility without Einstein) it's unlikely that the observations of the redshift (what was actually observed) trend would have led to both a notion of an expanding universe and a finite time period back as a initial condition as the leading hypothesis.

Without GR, the concept of space-time itself being a dynamical structure would have been very controversial and a minority and generally considered unjustified hypothesis at first without additional experimental confirmation. Hubble's observations would have remained a difficult puzzle. More parsimonious explanations would be 'tired light', a very small modification to electromagnetism in standard Euclidean space.

mbkennel
Yes, this is true, but had no general relativity been invented by 1929 (a definite possibility without Einstein) it's unlikely that the observations of the redshift (what was actually observed) trend would have led to both a notion of an expanding universe and a finite time period back as a initial condition as the leading hypothesis.

The only difference as I see it is that without relativity, the redshift would have been attributed to Doppler shift and not the metric expansion of space.

In fact redshifts were, initially, incorrectly attributed solely to Doppler shift. This still infers motion away, it just doesn't involve the metric expansion of space. But if you take motion away even if from Doppler shift, and extrapolate it back in time, wont you still end up with a similar conclusion? That things that are getting farther apart now were closer together yesterday, and so on?

Arbitrageur

mbkennel
Yes, this is true, but had no general relativity been invented by 1929 (a definite possibility without Einstein) it's unlikely that the observations of the redshift (what was actually observed) trend would have led to both a notion of an expanding universe and a finite time period back as a initial condition as the leading hypothesis.

The only difference as I see it is that without relativity, the redshift would have been attributed to Doppler shift and not the metric expansion of space.

In fact redshifts were, initially, incorrectly attributed solely to Doppler shift. This still infers motion away, it just doesn't involve the metric expansion of space. But if you take motion away even if from Doppler shift, and extrapolate it back in time, wont you still end up with a similar conclusion? That things that are getting farther apart now were closer together yesterday, and so on?

actually you can explain the red shift however you want. Gravity, velocity, metric expansion, light decay...
this is all just calculus, nobody actually ever measured the distance anywhere important.

KrzYma

actually you can explain the red shift however you want. Gravity, velocity, metric expansion, light decay...
this is all just calculus, nobody actually ever measured the distance anywhere important.

wait wait wait that is simply not true. I urge you to take a look at how distances are measured.

We have been looking at the stars and watching events unfold for centuries. With modern technology we have been able to make some astounding discoveries. The distance scale is set using standard candles, these are theoretically well understood light sources such as variable stars and supernova events, particularly type 1a.

To make a statement that we have not measured the distance to anywhere important doesn't really make much sense.

Define it?

To me it sounds like the lost argument resorting to the whole "Have you actually been there? No, HAH then you dont know a thing" cop out statement.

reply to post by ErosA433


sure not true for small distances, like 100 million light years or 1000.

I'm talking about larger distances and the quasars, that seem to be nearby a galaxy but both have too much difference in the red shift.

what if light does decay ? not measurable enough for the first 100 million years ?
we could never detect this decay here on Earth, so we postulate light has a constant speed and a wave never change in frequency.

this is too unsure for me to say anything about universe and it's age.

KrzYma
what if light does decay ? not measurable enough for the first 100 million years ?
we could never detect this decay here on Earth, so we postulate light has a constant speed and a wave never change in frequency.

What you're suggesting wouldn't match observation in many ways. For one thing, the observed redshift is a straight line for most distances, which is why they call it the "Hubble constant". There is some variance from this line at extremely long distances I think due to dark energy, but at most other distances it's fairly constant, so it would have to be measurable at the distances you're talking about to fit the observations.

There are many other reasons too. Did you look at the link I posted earlier with the 20 different measurement methods? They cover all distances.

KrzYma
reply to post by Arbitrageur

 

I don't want to create a new theory, I just want to know exactly why this actual theory is wrong.

Once again:
Einstein's equations lead the scientists to develop Big Bang theory.
This one is needed for the gravitational field, gravity transforms this potential energy produced by the Big Bang into kinetic energy which is motion.

what if Big Bang never happened ??
where the energy for gravity comes from?

Getting close...

The ever present energy in the so called void of space is constantly
forming into mater, witch becomes a producer of gravity that increases by a relative square and then returns back into energy via black holes.

This cycle appears to us as an expansion, but is a timeless movement
of energy and mass.

I’m still trying to understand how it all got started…
F squared=?