Discussion in 'Astronomy, Exobiology, & Cosmology' started by RajeshTrivedi, Aug 28, 2014.
But a good example of non scientific gobbldydook.
Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.
I really appreciate Paddoboy, he is very frank with certain real position with respect to prevalent theory, when he implies that these theories may have certain grey areas, but they are accepted by mainstream science and many observations stand proved. So the stand is:
1. Big Bang t = 0 has an unexplained singularity.
2. We are not fully clear about t>0 to t<completion of inflation.
3. We accept Inflation of space time at a speed higher than c, because it is not the mass and thus does not violate relativity.
4. We are not sure about impact of Density wave Arms on our solar System and neither we are fully certain about Density Wave Arms, but Density Wave Arms are accepted theory.
5. Distant Galaxies may appear to move at a very high speed (closer or more than c), but this does not violate relativity as this is the expansion of spacetime.
6. We do not know why spacetime around us is not expanding at a very high speed, ideally it should because we occupy no special place.
7. The andromeda may collide with us in 4b years, due to Gravitational pull being far more effective than spacetime expansion. This appears to violate the spacetime expansion (Expansion should take them away) but gravity prevails.
8. Gravitation lensing is not the bending of light but it is spacetime curvature.
Now I cannot question the intelligence of prevalent theories (onus of proof is on me), but there are many open handles with respect to BB, Inflation, Spacetime Expansion. But Gravitational lensing/spacetime are quite striking and creates few more question.
1. Our Sun also creates spacetime curvature of a very fine degree, should we not see backgroud stars (behind the Sun) due to lensing effect here?
2. There are many heavier stars in our Galaxy, should we not see Gravitational Lensing around them?
3. Galaxy (not MW) also creates spacetime curvature, which may envelop the entire Galaxy components, even then the light of stars of this Galaxy, should get lensed, so how can we say that the lensing is of the different object which is not the part of this Galaxy?
4. Since almost all the stars will have spacetime curvature, should we not have cascading effect of this lensing. It is quite likely in this vast universe that light may get trapped in multiple spacetime curvatures of various stars (or Galaxies).
5. This lensing due to spacetime curvature is only of almost parallel light (almost Tangential to curvature) or can it be of oblique light as well? Ideally for oblique light also this should hold good? My question is this curvature should hold as light trap and must force any light falling on this curvature follow the path of curvature till it escapes out tangentially.
6. Cascading of spacetime curvature and oblique angle can pose serious incorrect results about extrapolated background object image. Take for example 3 stars in a single radial line to us (not an impossibility). Star A of lesser dia but farthest, star B of somewhat higher size but in between and star C closest to us and of biggest dia. Now a light coming from A will first get lensed by B, and may get subsequently lensed by C before it reaches us. Would this not create a false extrapolated image. Would this observation not lead us to believe the presence of a bigger star behind C?
7. It is agreed that spacetime expansion is only of space, and the size of Galaxy does not change due to this. Then this expansion is of which space? Empty Space ? Dark Matter Space ? Or Space which not in any kind of Gravity Impact? Or a new Space is getting created?
The point is if we take simple balloon analogy, then this is the space between galaxies which is expanding, here we are not talking about the universe Horizon (say the space between MW and any other nearby galaxy), now it cannot be said that this space is neutral with Zero Gravity impact of these Galaxies, and it also cannot be stated that this is a new space, so how it expanding? The space out of Galaxy anatomy even though under Gravity is expanding, but empty space inside the Galaxy Anatomy is not expanding? Can we reconcile this aspect?
Known physics breaks down at t<10^-43 sec.
We do have a theory for the inflation period, it is called inflation.
Density wave arms is a current theory. We understand the impact on the solar system.
Of course we do! If the space time around us was expanding at high speeds that would violate the theory of the expanding universe. #6 goes completely against the theory!
This does not violate the theory, it is a important part of the theory.
Yep and we do! It is one of the pieces of evidence of GR and was performed during a total eclipse.
The effect is negligable.
That does not make much sense - try again.
The effect from stars is negligable and light does not get 'tapped' except for "kinda" in black holes at the event horizon
Light will move through the curved space that results from gravity
I have already adressed stars minimal impact. There once was a curious double quazar the was discovered only to find it was a single quasar that that looked like two due to graviational lensing. So yeah it is something that has to be accounted for when viewing far distant objects.
The space that expands is just space where the influence of gravity is not great. What do think Dark Matter Space is?
Space outside of the galaxy under high gravity is not expanding. That is why the Andromeda galaxy which is 2.5 million miles away is moving towards us and not away from us.
It may be that space is expanding everywhere and the reason that we do not see the expansion in the gravitationally bound systems is because the gravity allows us to 'slide' over the expansion. Think of a plate (to represent the galaxy) on a thin rubber sheet (to represent space) that is being stretched, the sheet will slide underneath the plate not stretching the plate.
Again this all comes down to your assuming that astronomers don't know what they are doing. That there are all these things that they haven't considered. Believe me, they know what type of things will produce gravitational lensing and more importantly, how that gravitational lensing will appear. So when they look at the gravitational lensing of a galaxy they know what it should look like if all the mass was contained in the visible disk and what it would look like if most of the mass were spread out into a volume surrounding the disk. They see the second instance. It's not just that galaxies gravitationally lens light, it is the pattern in which the light is bent.
So far all your "suggestions" are on the order of asking a professional mechanic working on a car that won't start if he checked if there was gas in the tank (Silly, because one of the first things any mechanic would do is insure the fuel was reaching the engine), or worse yet, if he checked the air in the tires.
Does this post contribute anything???
1. Our Sun's closeness and brightness may hamper the observation of lensing effect. Thats fine. But how can we say that the effect of curvature of distant stars is minimal or negligible. Looking at the distance (Earth as observer) even a very small curvature will give observable effects.
2. Trapping in my post means following the path of curvature, not like Black Hole type trapping. So how can we say that multiple cascading lensing is fully ruled out? Moreover the light from a periphery star of a Galaxy should also get deviated due to its own galaxy curvature?
3. Andromeda and our MW our coming nearer due to Gravity. Does it mean that this coming together is due to stronger gravity than Expansion? Some kind of resultant effect. Take for example rubber analogy, rubber below Andromeda and MW is expanding, so the space between the two is expanding but pull is stronger due to gravity.
4. Why we take expansion only for Galaxies? Why not for other celestial bodies (part of Galaxies). Or we call the space between Galaxies as space only. The inside part of Galaxy is not the Space? Is that so? If we take the inside part of Galaxy also as space, then this must also expand and we must have resultant effect, we must get certain expansion factor in our calculations for planetary/star motion beyond gravitational aspect.
5. It may look quite silly, but what kind of curvature we are talking about? For example take our Sun, whatever minute curvature it is going to make around it, it must be omni-directional. If we take the rubber sheet analogy, place a sphere over this rubber sheet, and the curvature will get created on that rubber sheet (exaggerated example). But spacetime curvature for a star shall not be limited to one plane or one direction, it will be in all direction? Kind of some envelop around the star. So assume that light of a distant Quazar A, gets deviated on the path of a curvature as created by Galaxy B, the question is where exactly it gets out of the curvature.
6. Another simple question: Why do we interpret the Hubble expansion as space expansion? Why can't we simply say that Galaxies are moving apart at an accelerated pace due to DE? (any other reason than holding on to BB?). The point is for a moment if we unlearn BB, then can we offer a different explanation to Hubble's Expansion without violating anything.
Mathematics tell us the level of the effect. What is the point - all this is known?
Obviously the gavitation is greater than the expansion.
This has been addressed multiple times. Why do you keep asking the same question? The answer will not change.:shrug:
What do you mean by 'gets out of the curvature'?
You have mixed 2 concepts.
The expansion of space accounts for the observation that the farther away an object is the faster the recession.
The overall rate of expansion is increasing due to DE.
The expansion of the universe and the big bang are supported by many different observations. Why would we abandon a theory that explains so much of the universe that would be insane. If another more plausible explanation that is supported by the observations and data then that theory would be accepted. You keep saying this or that violates the big bang or expansion, but every example you have given has been explained to you AFAIK.
I know you thought it was condesending last time I said this but I reiterate, why don't you take an astronomy course! You do not have even a basic understanding of astronomy and yet you try to come up with ideas to replace it, this makes no sense to me. How the hell can you disagree with something you don't even understand?????
One alternate explanation is connected to energy conservation and gravity. If we start with a cloud of interstellar gas and allow gravity to act upon the cloud to form a star, the gravitational potential energy will lower. This energy can be used to drive a work cycle. According to energy conservation, the universe will need to account for this energy, since it will not be destroyed. If we use the starting gravitational potential energy in the cloud and the final energy, due to gravity, in the star, there is a lot of energy going into space, since the original energy does not remain in the star; open system. If we multiple this constant formation energy by the number a stars in a galaxy times the number of galaxies in the universe there is a lot of conserved energy going into space.
The exploding first generation stars give off energy, while also resetting the gravitational potential. But now with heavier seeds, the star formation rate is faster with the potential energy given off at a faster rate.
State the purpose of the thread and follow it. If your purpose is to promote an understanding of cosmology, then stop using this as a premise for attacking cosmology. And stop attacking the people who are volunteering you the information gleaned from work you never undertook. Take all of that attitude to the gym and have a good workout. Use the thread to exercise your mind.
You asked why you can't see the lensing of the Sun. I am assuming you mean "with the naked eye" or "with an amateur telescope". There are two parts to the answer. First, the amount of deviation in the trajectory of a star will be too small to notice through casual observation. Second, we observe the stars at night, when our longitude on Earth is pointed away from the Sun. Therefore, as Origin noted, a slight lensing can be observed in the daytime during a solar eclipse, if a sufficiently bright star just happens to be situated behind the Sun, with its rays cutting through the space closest to the edge of the corona, where the warp in space is most pronounced.
Below is the 1919 eclipse made famous by Einstein, who predicted the effect, and Sir Arthur Eddington, who had the skill and tenacity to assemble the resources to photograph it, through an expedition to Principe, Brazil. This is the kind of work you are attacking.
Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
Yes. For one, it addresses the fact that astronomers do take all the possible factors that could effect the gravitational lensing they see into account, and when they do they we the fact the mass that causes this lensing extends far past the visible disc of the galaxy. It is not just a matter of gravitational lensing occurring, it is also the pattern in which it occurs.
The second part addresses the fact that you really need to understand the mainstream explanations before trying to come up with alternative ones. That way you avoid things that have already been taken into consideration or things that have no bearing at all. It's a bit of friendly advice.
Unfortunately, that rambling string of sentences is not an explanation of anything, let alone an explanation of the expansion of space.
This famous experimental observation brought Einstein theory at forefront over Newtonian Physics. I am not disputing this.
There is a certain amount of conflict and big hue and cry if anyone disputes Big Bang. I agree that BB stood by many observations, but we must not forget that BB is a retrofit and leading to some complex theories.
The name Big Bang itself is loosely fit, thats fine with scientists but creates big confusion even to science students, they learn to accept it.
The name inflation is also loosely fit, again the same confusion.
The name spacetime expansion is also loosely fit, again the same confusion.
The BB singularity is unexplained, we have to live with that.
It is also not properly explained by BB / expansion theorist, that why space between even loosely gravity bond objects do not expand?
This is also not a scientific statement (although accepted) that spacetime expansion is applicable only between cosmic distances? Where is the borderline and why?
The impact of expansion on gravity bonded objects is totally brushed aside with a statement that expansion is applicable only when no Gravity bond is present. Kind of no expansion to insides of Galaxies, even expansion between MW and Andromeda is declared absent as gravity prevails. The expansion theorist are not able to justify that why Gravity completely blocks expansion. Moreover let us say two Galaxies are experiencing expansion, then hypothetically (which is a possibility) if a massive object (say Moving Black hole) comes in between to an extent that substantial Gravity appears in the space between two Galaxies, will the expansion stop instantly?
It is nobody's argument that Gravity is fully zero at space beween Galaxies, Gravity is present irrespective of spatial distance between galaxies, so ideally gravity must prevail everywhere small or big. If not then we must talk about resultant Gravity > Expansion = Contraction between Galaxies or Gravity < Expansion = Expansion
The spacetime expansion (like rubber sheet analogy) literally does not fit in, to hold on to BB we are creating theory of convenience, that's oh there is gravity between Andromeda and MW so it is contracting but there is no gravity between X and Y so they are expanding. If we say (which we are not saying) that as soon as two objects get bonded (whether they are Galaxies or planets) then space time expansion does not take place between them. Admitting this aspect may create many more questions.
Take that Raisin loaf analogy, as the loaf expands space between two raisins (Andromeda and MW) expands, but in our case it is contracting, that means resultant gravity pull is much bigger (expansion is not absence). But we never talk of resultant.
Sun could create such a significant lensing, how can we say that the lensing due to other massive stars is negligible?
Are we clear about the omnidirection of spacetime curvature around the object? The omnidirection of curvature should create an envelop around the object and it is not clear how the light would exit the curvature. Spacetime curvature mathematics does not envisage curvature in one direction only. There is no meaning of curvature only in the path of light. I have not seen any statement or any proof anywhere that a light photon moves only on a pre-ordained grid line of hypothetical space-time. If the light photon moves only on the pre-ordained Grid Line then what we say about lensing is true, otherwise not. Take for example infinitesimal thin wire which can be seen as the path of light, if this wire come closer to a massive object then creates a bowl shape around the object and light deflects just around the object, but ultimately follows the preordained wire path only. But this is not true, but this is how it should be if space time curvature is to be followed in one direction only.
When I say conflict at the starting of this post, I meant it truthfully with due sincerity and with utmost respect to our scientists. Take for example if any strong supporter of BB goes to some Philosophy (with religious touch) forum, then he may ask many questions, which will be refuted by Philosophy supporters in strongest possible language, they will also say that great philosophers like XYZ are people of intelligence and cannot be termed as morons. Although his intent was not. Similarly if someone asks questions on BB which has certain fluidity associated with it, then he is also bound to get bombarded.
But the graceful part is Science is much more tolerant in criticism then religion, and that is why we have progressed so rapidly.
As I stated earlier, not only people with lesser intellect (Curious onlookers), but even some of the distinguished scientists in the back of their mind are worried about certain contradictions in the present cosmic theories, it does not mean that they plan to abandon it, it means they are working towards adding on to it or may be fine tune it. The whole hearted support of Origin, Paddoboy and yours is admirable: But then do you not think that it may create some kind of creative hamper, that too when lot of work can be done. As I said it is not simple Newton Motion, which is well established in its domain. There are questions in these theories and they may lead to betterment for us only. You should also share your doubts.
He was already famous. Eddington went to Brazil because Einstein's works not only reached him as a matter of fame, but Eddington also became a crusader determined to convince people like you (deniers/skeptics) (but educated in science) that Einstein was right.
No, there is strident opposition by scientists to the demands from people like you (not trained) that the science is wrong.
Incorrectly cast. It's another word for "expanding universe".
Meaningless jargon, rendered moot by the fact that BB is the direct consequence of Hubble's work. Remember what I said about attacking Eddington? Now you are attacking Hubble.
That's a confused, vague and covert attack on all of science.
You mean it's harder to understand than the magical creation by a Sky Daddy as told in the Creation Myth of Western religions? No problem. Eliminate religious indoctrination until the person is old enough to make responsible decisions concerning, say, alcohol.
As opposed to "the waters of heaven divided the firmament"? Inflation is precisely what the BB means. So that is why the term is used.
I never heard that used as a kid. It normally only comes up in discussions of relativity, which is also mentioned in high school.
The singularity is the explanation.
That sounds wrong. I think you mean to say that all of space is expanding, but while that is happening some space is locally warped due to the presence of mass.
No. All of space is expanding, as demonstrated by the measurements taken at cosmic distances.
It's at the threshold of detection of red shift.
Then stop saying it. It's an absurd statement.
False. Andromeda has a spectral deviation of about -0.001.
This is my last warning to stop using this thread to attack science.
I've answered that above.
No, you simply need to stop inventing ways to attack science. Stop it now.
That's ignorance and a covert attack on physical creation, from which we must infer that you are a religious troll. This confirms my suspicions that you are pretending to be a non native English speaker.
False and incorrect. There is gravity between MW and Andromeda, yet Andromeda is receding from us.
That term is generally used in reference to chemistry. But this entire line of reasoning is false and incorrect, ignorant of common principles of science, cynical, and probably motivated by religious trolling. So stop all of this now and don't do this anymore in the science threads. Take that crap to the ICR home page.
You have no hope of learning science as long as you use this thread to assert your religious beliefs. So none of what you said matters. It has no basis in science.
False and incorrect.
We never talk of religion in science threads unless a troll is dragging it here, you mean.
That statement is absurd. You obviously have no interest in learning cosmology, and you may even know some of it (maybe you went to school as a child) but maybe you are only pretending to be ignorant. That would comport with pretending not to be fluent in English.
You want I should demonstrate like, man, the time I took my Harley down to beach and make big discovery of strange star motion in sky. Yeah man me and some friends got wasted and tomorrow when we get up we think "somebody need to report big discovery" so I come here to learn cosmology.
I am ignoring all of this. You have convinced me you are a troll, probably another sock puppet of Farsight, RealityCheck, Reiku, Arne, sscully, chinglu, gravitational_aether, and the dozens of sock puppets they have created. So the choice is yours: use this thread to ask about cosmology, but take all of your bogus claims and attacks against science to the ICR. I will report you and I will specifically ask our Linguistics moderator to investigate my observations about your speech patterns.
Really, take origin's advice.......If you want to know why the BB and other theories are held in high regard, then you need to study the discipline....
Also GR did not invalidate Newtonian mechanics. It simply widened the sphere of application.
We could if we needed the precision math results, use GR on Earthly based systems where we now depend on Newtonian mechanics, and it would give far more accurate results, but that precision and accuracy is not needed, and the far more difficult mathematical calculations to arive at those results would be unecessary time wasting.
At the other end of the scale, Newtonian mechanics is limited and GR does take over to give the required accurate results, outside the parameters of Newtonian.
Even most space endeavours today, use the more simple Newtonian model, as the precision of GR is not needed.
Likewise any future QGT [quantum gravity theory] will not invalidate the BB or GR....... It will include both models, while extending the parameters outside of which the BB and GR are not applicable.
A further point I would like to make. As a newbie, you would now be aware that we have many alternative hypothesis pushers in this forum. I mentioned that earlier.
Ask yourself this question. If any of them, had anything of value, anything that could invalidate the current incumbent model, do you think they would be wasting there time here?
These science forums, while being good value to those that want to discuss mainstream science, must also by its very nature, regrettably be the vehicle for any Tom Dick and Harry to push their pet hypothesis.
The very nature of cosmology today, [and most other sciences] exist in partnership with state of the art equipment on Earth, in orbit and beyond orbit.
These instruments [like the LHC] are available only to fully qualified scientists of the highest calibre.
But scientists are also human.
You mentioned the BB...The name was actually a derisive shot at the model, by an otherwise very repuatble scientists named Fred Hoyle.
Fred was a dinky di Atheist, and that "agenda" saw him reject the BB [as it had a beginning in space and time] and which the church could put down to some omnipotent deity.
Which the Catholic church has already done, giving both the BB and Evolution its blessing due to the overwhelming evidence available supporting each.
That's OK. While the church accepts the BB as the work of God [without any evidence at all] science continues to do research and investigate and observe with the aid of the state of the art equipment available to them, and look for the why and how of the BB.
Whatever questions need to be answered, whatever shortcomings some theories may have, you can bet your "short n curlies" that any answer/discovery will not be coming from out of left field.
Probably in a hurry to blast me, you missed to understand what I stated.
How this statement is false??
What is false and incorrect about this??
Your post has no answer except blast..
Although its a straightforward (but somewhat critical) participation by me in this forum, still if any of the moderators feels that I am causing trouble then I am willing to recede or mend.
I also must put on record that it is very abrasive, irresponsible and despicable on the part of Aqueous Id to state that:
1. I am [a] sock puppets of (few names he suggested). In fact Aqueous is not his true identity.
2. When I stated that I am not a native English Speaker, then insisting with this is foolhardy.
3. That I am some kind of religious trot. This is nonsense.
I would prefer if he stays away from my posts, not much technical contribution anyhow.
For some reason you still seem confused about large scale Universal expansion and gravity exerting itself over smaller scales.
Think of a fish swimming upstream in a river. As long as the fish swims faster then the downstream current, he will make good head way.
The further upstream the fish gets, the faster the current flows. He may get to a stage where all his swimming upstream efforts are making no headway against the faster downstream current.
So even though he is swimming for all he is worth, he is actually heading downstream from the point of view of an observer on the river banks.
Likewise the gravitational attraction between the MW and M31 is more powerful then the spacetime expansion between them.
Over much larger scales though [like to our observable horizon] gravity is diminished due to an overall lower mass/energy density. Therefor spacetime expansion wins that contest.
I really don't see too much of a problem with understanding that.
Thats the point I am making, that it is the resultant. Expands if Expansion > Gravity and Contract (or stable) <= Gravity.
No one, other than your last post, agreed to this resultant aspect. Every one is busy in giving lecture on one's linguistic ability or religious trolling or scientific handicap. Now the question is : Do we have any evidence of this expansion where Gravity prevails? Point is some-kind of factor over Gravitational mathematics on a lower or larger scale.
Here is the deal.
hubble constant ~ 70 km/s - Mpc
1 Mpc = 3.1 x 10^22 m
Distance to Andromeda = .66 Mpc
So the recession velocity of Andromeda if there was no gravitational pull would be 46 km/sec.
But there is gravitational attraction and that attraction is greater than the 46 km/sec expansion - to the tune of about 100 km/sec.
Separate names with a comma.