Cosmological concept change

The 500 papers remain in the lists of publications of their authors, and help them to survive in science. Else, they will be simply forgotten.

It is certainly good news for my theory, because I would favor a $\Lambda < 0$ which leads to deceleration. If one additionally takes into account the timescape cosmology considered by Wiltshire (as one has to do, given that this is nothing but taking into account the inhomogeneities) even the 3 sigma would disappear into nothing.

All this has nothing to do with DM.

And it has nothing to do with superluminal expansion. Because if a flat homogeneous universe expands at all, there will be always far away galaxies with relative speed greater than c. Simply because the relative velocity is proportional to the distance. So, whatever it is, take a long enough distance and you obtain a large enough velocity.
 
The God said:
One step closer to reality. It is not even expanding at constant speed, the way it is envisaged. That means all super luminal expansion thing will have to be reworked.

Imagine DM is not detected and DE is on its way out! Good days for cosmology are ahead.
Click to expand...
Grabbing hold of some early research as you have done, just shows how fanatical you are to invalidate that which you so far have failed to do, not withstanding your usual claims that you are never wrong[:D:rolleyes:;)]

Most of our standard measuring devices probably need refining, including type 1a S/N
So far though, irrespective of the jy and elation you feel [:rolleyes:] the status quo stands and will continue to stand until, and if evidence contrary to current data is forthcoming and properly reviewed and researched.
 
paddoboy said:
Grabbing hold of some early research as you have done, just shows how fanatical you are to invalidate that which you so far have failed to do, not withstanding your usual claims that you are never wrong[:D:rolleyes:;)]

Most of our standard measuring devices probably need refining, including type 1a S/N
So far though, irrespective of the jy and elation you feel [:rolleyes:] the status quo stands and will continue to stand until, and if evidence contrary to current data is forthcoming and properly reviewed and researched.
Click to expand...

I am not fanatical. I am a realist. Its nonsense even to think that galaxies are going away from us at super luminal speeds as the space between is expanding. What a joke!
 
The God said:
I am not fanatical. I am a realist. Its nonsense even to think that galaxies are going away from us at super luminal speeds as the space between is expanding. What a joke!
Click to expand...
Sure you are!!:D [tic mode most certainly switched on]
 
The God said:
Its nonsense even to think that galaxies are going away from us at super luminal speeds as the space between is expanding. What a joke!
Click to expand...
So what?

Take into account the simple fact that the "expanding universe" is only a popular description. In fact, GR is completely neutral between an "expanding space" interpretation and a "shrinking rulers" interpretation of the same FLRW metric. Once you think that the expanding space is nonsense, fine, take the shrinking rulers interpretation. What is your problem with shrinking rulers?
 
Schmelzer said:
So what?

Take into account the simple fact that the "expanding universe" is only a popular description. In fact, GR is completely neutral between an "expanding space" interpretation and a "shrinking rulers" interpretation of the same FLRW metric. Once you think that the expanding space is nonsense, fine, take the shrinking rulers interpretation. What is your problem with shrinking rulers?
Click to expand...

Kindly post the equivalent of superluminal recession as superluminal shrinking of rulers.
 
Schmelzer said:
So what?

Take into account the simple fact that the "expanding universe" is only a popular description. In fact, GR is completely neutral between an "expanding space" interpretation and a "shrinking rulers" interpretation of the same FLRW metric. Once you think that the expanding space is nonsense, fine, take the shrinking rulers interpretation. What is your problem with shrinking rulers?
Click to expand...
So what?
All that is in essence is an "alternative perspective" of looking at things rather than any "alternative model"
And as per the equivalence principle there is no observable way to distinguish between a universe which has dynamically expanding space, and a universe that is dynamically shrinking.
And although it does not actually go against GR, personally I see it as still with unexplained scenarios, particularly with regard to a final limiting size to which everything can shrink, as against the no limit with expanding space.
So as per academia, I'll stick to the accepted tried and true expanding universe as the vast majority do.
 
The God said:
Kindly post the equivalent of superluminal recession as superluminal shrinking of rulers.
Click to expand...
No reason, the rulers shrink at very slow velocities, each ruler remains in its original place but becomes shorter, that's all.

Formally, an extremely big ruler would, indeed, have to shrink superluminally, but no such extremely big ruler exists in nature, the largest things one can reasonably name "rulers" are galaxy clusters, and they are small enough to shrink with moderate velocities.

paddoboy said:
All that is in essence is an "alternative perspective" of looking at things rather than any "alternative model"
Click to expand...
Feel free to name it "alternative perspective", no problem.
paddoboy said:
And although it does not actually go against GR, personally I see it as still with unexplained scenarios, particularly with regard to a final limiting size to which everything can shrink, as against the no limit with expanding space.
Click to expand...
Above interpretations end in conflict with common sense. The expanding universe is in conflict with common sense always, all one needs is a large enough distance in space so that this leads to large enough velocities, while common sense tells us that there will be speed limits. The shrinking rulers universe may end in a problem in some unknown future, with rulers becoming smaller and smaller, and common sense telling us that there will be a limiting size. But this problem is not really a serious one. One can solve it simply by accepting, ok, once the atoms shrink toward the limiting size, some new physics will become observable. In some unknown unspecified future. The common sense problem with unlimited speed you have already now.

Anyway mainstream science does not care at all about such incompatibilities with common sense.
paddoboy said:
So as per academia, I'll stick to the accepted tried and true expanding universe as the vast majority do.
Click to expand...
As expected. You always only follow the majority. And, as usual for sheeple, you will name "true" what for scientists is nothing but a convention.
 
Schmelzer said:
No reason, the rulers shrink at very slow velocities, each ruler remains in its original place but becomes shorter, that's all.

Formally, an extremely big ruler would, indeed, have to shrink superluminally, but no such extremely big ruler exists in nature, the largest things one can reasonably name "rulers" are galaxy clusters, and they are small enough to shrink with moderate velocities.


Feel free to name it "alternative perspective", no problem.

Above interpretations end in conflict with common sense. The expanding universe is in conflict with common sense always, all one needs is a large enough distance in space so that this leads to large enough velocities, while common sense tells us that there will be speed limits. The shrinking rulers universe may end in a problem in some unknown future, with rulers becoming smaller and smaller, and common sense telling us that there will be a limiting size. But this problem is not really a serious one. One can solve it simply by accepting, ok, once the atoms shrink toward the limiting size, some new physics will become observable. In some unknown unspecified future. The common sense problem with unlimited speed you have already now.

Anyway mainstream science does not care at all about such incompatibilities with common sense.

As expected. You always only follow the majority. And, as usual for sheeple, you will name "true" what for scientists is nothing but a convention.
Click to expand...

So basically both expansion and shrinking are problematic, or will be problematic sometime in future because of inherent absurdities. So let's look for realistic models.
 
The God said:
So basically both expansion and shrinking are problematic, or will be problematic sometime in future because of inherent absurdities. So let's look for realistic models.
Click to expand...
The only thing which is problematic with the shrinking rulers picture is the idea that this shrinking is forever, and follows forever the same equations.

Which is not really a problem for an ether theory, where it is clear that the rulers will shrink toward the atomic size of the ether, and then there will be new physics. Or to an oscillating universe, which would be unavoidable with $\Lambda<0$, where after some shrinking rulers would rise again.
 
The God said:
It is not even expanding at constant speed, the way it is envisaged. That means all super luminal expansion thing will have to be reworked.
Click to expand...
I was suprised that you do not understand even some basic cosmology. Constant expansion of space will of course result in super luminal recession velocities given enough distance between objects. Simple geometry.
 
origin said:
I was suprised that you do not understand even some basic cosmology. Constant expansion of space will of course result in super luminal recession velocities given enough distance between objects. Simple geometry.
Click to expand...

You may stay shocked or surprised!

You will probably faint once, very soon in near future, you will read that expansion of universe as proposed is nonsense.
 
Schmelzer said:
The only thing which is problematic with the shrinking rulers picture is the idea that this shrinking is forever, and follows forever the same equations.

Which is not really a problem for an ether theory, where it is clear that the rulers will shrink toward the atomic size of the ether, and then there will be new physics. Or to an oscillating universe, which would be unavoidable with $\Lambda<0$, where after some shrinking rulers would rise again.
Click to expand...

And then there will be new Physics!
Quite wishful!

So what is the counter part of your atom size limit for the other convention that is expansion. If both are the two different sides of a coin, its natural we have limit on both the sides.
 
Schmelzer said:
Feel free to name it "alternative perspective", no problem.
Click to expand...
I name it that because that's all it is. :)
Schmelzer said:
Above interpretations end in conflict with common sense. The expanding universe is in conflict with common sense always, all one needs is a large enough distance in space so that this leads to large enough velocities, while common sense tells us that there will be speed limits.
Click to expand...
The universe is not contained by "common sense" and of course any universal speed limit only applies to anything with mass, which leaves spacetime exempt.
Obviously the preferred perspective is certainly the one mainly used because of convention, but also because certain aspects do have advantages over and above the shrinking ruler. eg: The shrinking ruler/s cannot explain the mass/energy density regions of the universe, that are decoupled from that overall expansion rate and gravitationally bound.
In other words the shrinking ruler/s is inconsistent and is much more limited.
Schmelzer said:
Anyway mainstream science does not care at all about such incompatibilities with common sense.
Click to expand...
Except the shrinking ruler/s in certain aspects is incompatible with observation/s
Schmelzer said:
As expected. You always only follow the majority. And, as usual for sheeple, you will name "true" what for scientists is nothing but a convention.
Click to expand...
:) As usual you need to continually fall back on your sheeple accusation.
That's OK, I'm obviously in good company, not withstanding your usual fabricated definition and cop outs. :rolleyes:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top