Is the Hubble Shift a relativistic illusion?

[Mordred]

QM models the BB through action via loop quantum gravity. It still follows GR and thermodynamics.

 

The BB model only involves how the universe evolves. Not how it starts and ends. Though we can make some reasonable predictions of an ending.

 

To be honest perhaps you should spend a bit more time studying whats really behind LCDM. Your arguments are based on your perceptions and personal feeling more than the actual science

Edited July 15, 2016 by Mordred

[captcass]

Alas, the accepted science is full of assumptions such as the "darks".

The arguments I am making have been debated for a long time now. We will certainly not resolve them here. But now you know my objections to current theories of a BB

 

The bottom line is that all of our theories are just that, theories. It is after all, the BB "Theory".

Only the particle section of my paper relates to the BB. As I say in the paper, they are postulates on my part. The gravity based and Hubble shift derivations, however, have nothing to do with the BB, only relativity in time. It doesn't matter if the BB is correct or not.

 

 

 

.

[Mordred]

except if you take a homogeneous and isotropic fluid (uniform mass distribution) which occurs at large distance scales 100 Mpc and above.

 

You have no mass gradient so no time dilation. Cosmological redshift doesn't involve time dilation. Which is what your paper implies.

 

Put it this way a static non expanding or contracting universe wouldn't have a cosmological redshift. Nor can it have a time dilation with a uniform distribution.

 

The observer on Earth is in an extremely close to rest frame. Any time dilation that occurs there is small. As far as the Earths movement as well as its gravitational influence. We can and do filter out those influences.

 

Here is something to chew on. There is a class of single component model universes.

 

In one particular type we learn something rather surprising. A matter only universe with no dark energy, radiation, dark matter etc. Just baryonic matter will still expand.

 

the mechanism which involves gravity only allows for expansion. This is due to the distribution of matter and the average density.

 

If you take x amount of matter in a homogeneous and isotropic (uniform) distribution the average mass density is higher. However once matter starts to collapse into anistropy regions ie large scale structures. The average mass density drops. Also because gravity falls off in strength at 1/r^2 the average gravitational force on global scales decreases. Locally sure you have contraction but globally you get expansion.

you can use this equation to model what I just described. Although its real purpose is to compare Hubble rate today with Hubble rate at a particular redshift. The formula takes in the density evolution of all expansion contributors.

 

[latex]H_z=H_o\sqrt{\Omega_m(1+z)^3+\Omega_{rad}(1+z)^4+\Omega_{\Lambda}}[/latex]

Edited July 16, 2016 by Mordred

[captcass]

It depends on scale. Look at anything from a distance and it appears homogeneous.The universe is not homogeneous and isotropic. Each particle is a gravity well.

 

All of perception is relativistic. Time dilation fields exist within each other. There is a dilation field for each particle. The solar field exists within the galactic field. The Earth field is within the Solar field. Our personal fields are within the Earth's field. All such gradients are perceptually infinite and completely dependent on the observer's inertial frame where time passes "normally" and light travels at C based upon that rate of time.

 

When we look out at Gn-z11, it appears to be in faster time. It cannot appear to be in slower or the same rate of time because we are at the bottom of a gravity well. If we were at Gn-z11, the Milky Way would appear to be in faster time.....relativity.

 

The difference in my new point of view compared to my old, which is your point of view and theories, is that I am now seeing a fully relativistic, non-substantial universe that can be delineated in terms of time. The BB depends on substantiality. Events are real and substantial.

 

Not to repeat myself, but Einstein said it was all an illusion, and he meant it. When we get to the quantum level, we are nearing the basis of the illusion and substantiality loses meaning. Only possibilities and probabilities exist in the evolving continuum. Distance itself is an illusion, hence particles can be entangled in time and appear to "communicate" instantaneously over infinite apparent distances.

 

I believe time dilation creates the impression of distance in time, and therefore space.

 

None of this requires a BB.

 

Just for the sake of discussion, and by the way thank you for this discussion, it is extremely difficult to find someone willing to talk about all this who also knows the normal science, imagine a light-filled boundless void. Can't tell if the void is large, or small. Can't determine distance as there is only the light. Distance determination depends on relativity between objects and there are no objects.

 

Time is just a seemingly eternal moment here. It doesn't seem to pass because there are no events to judge the passage of time by.

 

Now dilate the time. The light now stretches out, attenuates , and the impression of distance appears along with the impression of now and then.

 

Of course this is a simplistic example, but I hope you get the drift.

 

Fact is, my simple relativistic theory has derivations that work without any "darks", as incredible as that might seem, while the BB is full of flaws and dark places. My derivation of gravity as a force initiated by time works to explain dark matter, while Einstein cannot.

 

In fairness, I should tell you that I have a very strong mystical base, having learned to wash my hands in acid harmlessly, and other things, from a Muslim Haj in Indonesia in 1972. Because of my miraculous spiritual experiences throughout my life I know the power of faith and realized the truly illusionary nature of the universe long ago. It is not just stubbornness causing me to stick to my guns here.

 

I believe Space/time is created by an eternal awareness simply being aware of itself here (space) and now (time).

 

Our science works to describe the illusion because it is part of the illusion.

the universe is only logical because it appears to be.

 

OK enough of that. Just thought you should know where I am coming from.

 

Again, thanks for the discussion and I completely understand where you are coming from, but just find it all really lacking in a firm basis due to the "darks"..

[Mordred]

the darks are simply placeholders. I always prefer the term cosmological constant to dark energy.

 

Religous beliefs aside, we don't ever rely on a theory without extensive and intensive testing.

 

Relativity and the Einstein field equations are incredibly well tested.

 

Redshift is no different. Its too fundamental in distance estimates to rely on without rigourous tests. Some of those tests being various forms of parallax.

 

You might think your model works but it doesn't Relativity is already factored into the FLRW metric via the EFE.

 

We don't need the darks to have expansion. As a matter of fact today dark matter has extremely little influence on expansion.

 

The cosmological constant is only needed for the accelerating expansion.

 

We may already have a possible solution as to inflation,dark matter and the cosmological constant.

 

More tests are required.

 

DARK MATTER AS STERILE NEUTRINOS

 

http://arxiv.org/abs/1402.4119

http://arxiv.org/abs/1402.2301

http://arxiv.org/abs/1306.4954

 

Higg's inflation possible dark energy

 

http://arxiv.org/abs/1402.3738

http://arxiv.org/abs/0710.3755

http://arxiv.org/abs/1006.2801

 

When we look out at Gn-z11, it appears to be in faster time. It cannot appear to be in slower or the same rate of time because we are at the bottom of a gravity well. If we were at Gn-z11, the Milky Way would appear to be in faster time.....relativity.

 

 

we account for gravitational redshift via the Sache-Wolfe equations. You don't need to look at the gravity wells of every individual particle.

 

These are all averaged out via the EFE/FLRW metric.

 

For example the Earths movement with the Milky way and large scale structure leads to a dipole anistrophy which we can filter out. Here these two articles may help

 

 

http://cosmology101.wikidot.com/redshift-and-expansion

http://cosmology101.wikidot.com/universe-geometry

 

Fact remains though. You still haven't adressed temperature measurements at a given redshift. Which runs counter to an illusionary expansion. As it supports an actual expansion. Not illusionary

Edited July 16, 2016 by Mordred

[captcass]

When you factor in, or out, relativisitic effects, aren't you doing so to make it fit the BB theory? that is sort of like dark energy and matter. "I don't know, but this makes the BB work".

 

Einstein's field equations do not work on the cosmic or galactic scale, hence dark matter.

 

Dark matter doesn't relate to expansion, that is dark energy.

 

Place holders of this scale are huge "I don't know's" meaning the theory isn't working.

 

Einstein struggled with a cosmological constant and failed repeatedly. Dark energy is much shadier than that.

 

I just wanted to inform you of my spiritual beliefs. Religion is something completely different to me. Religion is simply what we do or don't do for our own health and the health of our communities to me. The wisdom of our ancestors. Spirituality is a much different thing to me. Like I said, just wanted you to know where I am coming from and I don't mean to start a discussion on that here, but a private side discussion via email would be fun..

[Mordred]

No they weren't put in place to make BB work. The BB is a consequence of observational evidence both in redshift and thermodynamic temperature relations.

 

As a point of note. Prior to the discovery of dark matter or the cosmological constant. The universe was predicted to be either expanding or contracting.

 

Evidence shows expanding. One can accurately model expansion based solely on thermodynamic processes. Right up until the cosmological constant. but not including yet... see above articles. The cosmological constant is the observed deviation from what is predicted via strictly thermodynamic/EFE metrics. We haven't figured why it stays constant as the universe expands.

 

We use a fundamental observer. One who isn't in a gravity well. In the FLRW metric itself.

Edited July 16, 2016 by Mordred

[captcass]

Removing the observer from the gravity well ignores the gravity well. If you left the gravity well in, your results wouldn't work.

I work in the gravity well.

 

I can't comment on the thermodynamic aspects. I've done reading there, but not study as it doesn't really relate to the effects in time I've been considering.

 

All cosmic bodies have a relativistic spiral motion relative to other bodies as they evolve forward in space/time along Einstein"s geodesics.

 

This means the forward evolution of space/time, and events within space/time, have a spiraling motion and fold back upon themselves. The universe need not be contracting or expanding, though one would think so as the only constant is change, but it is certainly not necessary.

 

The evidence shows expanding in the absence of the gravity well, but it is based on the Hubble shift, and as you say, thermodynamics....and the big unknown, a gravitational constant that would equate to the dark energy.

 

Don't you think this is all very "iffy"? Certainly none of it is deterministic, which is why it all remains theoretical.

[Mordred]

iffy or not measurements agree with it.

 

It doesn't matter if your in or out of a gravity well. We can already account for this.

 

Either way we don't rely just on redshift. the temperature data alone is enough to prove an expanding universe.

 

Not to mention THE BB model predicted the CMB before discovery. Also predicted the correct % of elements.

Edited July 16, 2016 by Mordred

[captcass]

Seems to me the difference of perspective here is that you are ignoring the gravity well so your theory will work, (if you include dark energy and dark matter), and I am basing everything on the gravity well and everything works just fine in a very simple fashion with no dark anythings.

[Mordred]

Seems to me the difference of perspective here is that you are ignoring the gravity well so your theory will work, (if you include dark energy and dark matter), and I am basing everything on the gravity well and everything works just fine in a very simple fashion with no dark anythings.

incorrect. Your math doesnt include a line element for proper comparison.

 

I dont understand how you can go from. We already account for relativity. To your model showing something not described by Relativity.

 

ie Cosmological redshift itself.

 

By the way your paper used the Lorentz formula. You did your calculations with Euclidean flat geometry. You haven't included curvature terms associated with gravity wells.

 

Where is your Scwartzchild metric. Where is your Ricci tensor? or your ricci scalar.?

 

All I see in your paper is poorly understood SR. Which by the way the observer is at rest. ie not in a gravity well. that requires corrections

 

 

answer this question if you can. Show the math of how time dilation under your model. Can get a measured recessive velocity of greater than c? Which we do in fact measure past 4400 Mpc roughly.

Edited July 16, 2016 by Mordred

[captcass]

The temperature data relies on the scale factor which was developed to help explain expansion over time. Therefore it is unreliable if the universe is not expanding.

 

Einstein did not deal with the Hubble shift in Relativity, but the Hubble shift is directly caused by retativistic effects. Einstein has his Relativity and Hubble his shift. The shift caused everyone to start looking in the wrong direction, even though Relativity could explain it if anyone had thought of that, including Einstein.

 

Off to bed.

Thanks

[Mordred]

The temperature data relies on the scale factor which was developed to help explain expansion over time. Therefore it is unreliable if the universe is not expanding.

 

Einstein did not deal with the Hubble shift in Relativity, but the Hubble shift is directly caused by retativistic effects. Einstein has his Relativity and Hubble his shift. The shift caused everyone to start looking in the wrong direction, even though Relativity could explain it if anyone had thought of that, including Einstein.

 

Off to bed.

Thanks

the temperature is what we measure. How do you think you determine the emitter frequency before redshift?

 

Do you even know how Blackbody temperature is determined? Have you ever looked at Weins Displacement law?

 

 

 

Shttps://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wien%27s_displacement_law

 

Sure the metrics correlate the scale factor to temperature. the scale factor is determined by the thermodynamic laws.

Measuring that temperature confirms the scale factor.

 

Do you not understand the difference between measuring and calculating?

Edited July 16, 2016 by Mordred

[captcass]

Sorry, you are taking this back into the field equations. I have no argument with them on the solar scale to describe the forward evolution of events. But they fail to define gravity, they only describe the effects of gravity. I haven't included curvature terms because I am not trying to create field equations that predict forward evolution. I am merely describing gravity itself.

 

I don't understand what you mean by "the observer at rest, not the gravity well that needs corrections". Please elaborate.

[Mordred]

the equation you used in your paper is an SR equation. SR only works properly if the observer is at rest. Through Einsteins equivalence principle an observer in a gravity well is the same as an inertial observer.

 

If you didn't include curvature your not describing relativity from a gravity well.

Which makes your calculations and conclusions incorrect.

 

All the equations in your paper are Newtonian weak field limit equations.

Edited July 16, 2016 by Mordred

[ajb]

Even before one really gets into cosmology - what the heck is dilation gradient?

 

 

Slow day, so here I am at work....

I am not trying to change Einstein's field equations. But they don't accurately describe gravity on the cosmic, or even galactic scale, do they?

This is a good question. People have though about if some other theory of gravity then included GR as an approximation can better describe the large scale dynamics of the Universe - so without dark energy.

 

The answer so far seems to be that it is not possible. People have worked with higher curvature terms in these theories and it is known that all these theories can be reduced to GR + matter - maybe exotic matter but still matter. So the general consensus at the moment is that ussing different curvature tensors and higher order combinations thereof will not make dark energy and dark matter go away.

 

Other ideas include sticking with GR, but looking at non-homogeneous solutions. So far this has also not got rid of dark stuff.

 

 

Who can think of a force in time?

No one.

 

And yet time does force space to change.

You are mixing the physics meaning of a force with a more common meaning.

 

Accelerated time shortens the length of a meter.

What is accelerated time?

[captcass]

I am not using curvature because I am not trying to describe motion through space or in a gravity well. As I stated, I have no problem with Einstein's field equations describing motion on the solar scale. But they do not work on larger scales, hence the big unknown, dark matter..

 

One of my premises is that space/time has an at least perceptual substantiality and that all events are events in space/time. By accelerating time a meter length is shortened and this creates stress in space. It is not a force in the sense of the other forces, but if I am correct then the other forces are the result of gravity.

 

Time dilation gradient: Time goes faster the higher up we go. This creates a gradient from faster time to slower time. Accelerated time is just the faster rate of time in an up-gradient reference frame. It is also evident in LIGO's results which detects ripples of accelerated time moving through the continuum.

 

When LIGO detected gravity waves they were detecting pulses of accelerated time that shortened the length of a meter and thereby distorted the shape of the antenna. If all events are manifested out of space/time, then changing the shape of the antenna is changing space. Time forces space to change and this results in a perceptual force.

 

When two adjacent frames have different rates of time, the faster time rate of the faster frame puts stress on the slower frame that accelerates the rate of time in the slower frame by half the difference in the rates of time between frames.and decreases the length of a meter in the slower frame creating stress and drag so frames shift forward in the direction of the update as it moves down the gradient. This stress and drag increases frame to frame as the dilation gradient deepens. This is all explained in greater detail in the paper.

 

Again, what I am describing is only the dynamics created by relativity in time. I admit I do not know yet how this would influence thermodynamics and other processes.

 

I believe the mass/energy derivation of the dark matter of the Andromeda galaxy proves this. The darn thing works so well, with the mass/energy equivalent being reached at the event horizon of the central massive black hole. Is that just a co-incidence?

 

I thank you for all the arguments regarding expansion and the BB. I know the evidence indicates that. I just can't accept it logically and feel we are just not seeing things clearly or interpreting the data correctly, just as we aren't seeing dark matter correctly. Like I said, a resolution of dark energy and dark matter would cause me to reconsider everything, but I don't see that happening as I believe they are looking for something that isn't there.

[Mordred]

You dont describe relativity from a gravity well without curvature. That claim alone calls into question your math.

 

The Einstein field equations work extremely well for global as well as local influences. Once you understand it.

 

There isn't any significant time dilation for Andromeda from an observer on Earth.

 

I all honesty I wonder if you fully understand when and where time dilation will occur. Sure there is some near Earth or near Andromeda. However its like worrying about the time dilation between your head and feet. Yes its there but it would take a thousand years to measure a significant change.

 

The other problem is no observer will measure another clock going faster.

 

alice and bob. each has his own clock. Bob is moving near c. Alice is static.

 

if both Bob and Alice compare clocks. Both Bob and Alice will measure the same time dilation. Alice will see Bobs clock slow down. Bob will see Alice clock slow down. This also applies to length contraction of the worldline.

 

Your paper claims one observer will measure greater distance while the other a shorter. Thats not how relativity works

here. you can check yourself.

 

"How it can be that both observers measure slower rates on the other's clock"

 

https://www.google.ca/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=http://cosmo.nyu.edu/hogg/sr/sr.pdf&ved=0ahUKEwj-mfSrqPjNAhUY_WMKHS13C2MQFggbMAA&usg=AFQjCNG0nnnDOp0GWpXQnmUs_m3TcbUF8w&sig2=hHPb0pygO6NKrDfqkwdpPQ

 

Now next scenario

 

a light ray emits from a star of the same mass as our sun. lets assume a static universe.

 

the light is redshifted as it climbs out of the stars gravity well and blueshifted the same amount at our sun. No time dilation. there is no difference in gravitational potential.

 

Now add expansion. We don't need to change gravitational potential of either star. Yet we measure a Cosmological redshift.

 

Not a gravitational redshift.

Edited July 16, 2016 by Mordred

[captcass]

Again, I am not talking about the effects of gravity that result in curvature of motion. I am not describing motion at all, only relativistic effects in time. I have no problem with the field equations on the solar scale, but they do NOT accurately describe events on the galactic or cosmic scale, hence we hve dark matter to try to make them work there.

 

The Andromeda derivation has nothing to do with time dilation on Earth or even the Milky Way. It is limited only to the time dilation within the Andromeda galaxy.

 

Time dilation has different aspects. Gravitational time dilation is one thing. Then there is also time dilation due to motion and rotation. All time dilation is relative to the observer's inertial frame.

 

In my derivation of the gravitational equivalency constant I point out that time dilation gradients are very slight. This is why gravity appears to be so weak on the cosmic scale. But, as in my dark matter derivation, the cumulative effect of the force over distance manifests the proper mass/energy equivalency of Andromeda's dark matter. My theory also explains why gravity only acts in one direction, which is in the down direction of the gradient.

[Mordred]

see my last example. You keep working with the mistaken assumption that Cosmological redshift means time dilation.

 

my last example on cross edit will show this error.

 

The problem is you keep trying to deny counter arguments based on your intuition rather than the science.

 

I already proved we have expansion by thermodynamic evidence. Now Im showing you your errors on redshift itself

Edited July 16, 2016 by Mordred

[ajb]

All time dilation is relative to the observer's inertial frame.

Can you tidy up what you mean by this?

 

You get time dilation effects when comparing two (or more) clocks - that is you need a way of meaningfully comparing the proper time of two observers. Saying that time dilation is relative to to the observer's (local?) inertial frame seems misleading. What clocks are you comparing here?

[captcass]

You say:

"The other problem is no observer will measure another clock going faster.

alice and bob. each has his own clock. Bob is moving near c. Alice is static.

if both Bob and Alice compare clocks. Both Bob and Alice will measure the same time dilation. Alice will see Bobs clock slow down. Bob will see Alice clock slow down. This also applies to length contraction of the worldline.

Your paper claims one observer will measure greater distance while the other a shorter. Thats not how relativity works
here. you can check yourself.

"How it can be that both observers measure slower rates on the other's clock"

 

You are dealing here with relativistic effects involving motion. This is different from what I am talking about and I have no argument with what you've said. We know these effects manifest.

 

If Alice is at the top of Everest and Bob is at the base of the mountain, a stationary situation, both Alice and Bob will agree that Alice's clock is faster than Bob's. This is why Cdr. Kelly spent a year on the space station while his twin remained on Earth: to determine the effects of faster time. This represents the time dilation gradient I am talking about.

[ajb]

If Alice is at the top of Everest and Bob is at the base of the mountain, a stationary situation, both Alice and Bob will agree that Alice's clock is faster than Bob's.

But as far as Bob and Alice compare their own clocks nothing 'funny' seems to have happened.

 

 

Also, if you are thinking of this time dilation effect as a 'gradiant' (poor choice of words here) then are you thinking about the Schwarzschild solution here? It seems so to me - at least from your example. So this 'gradient' is no more that g_{tt}?

[Mordred]

thats one of those funny aspects of Relativity between Alice and Bob. Just comparing clocks between Alice and Bob isnt enough to define which observer is inertial. Which is a limit of SR as well.

 

The SR equation places either the primed or unprimed observer at rest. This is where GR takes over for a moving observer. Or observer in a gravity well.

 

For that you need curvature to describe the differences in geometry.

 

SR works with Eucludean flat geometry. Newtonian weak field limit. It doesnt work to describe different wordlines.

 

This is where you can use the Schwartzchild metric. or if you want rotation of the gravitational body. The Kerr uncharged metric

Edited July 16, 2016 by Mordred

[captcass]

OK, our posts are out of sync here so I am not sure what you are presently referring to.

 

All of our perceptions are based upon our own inertial frame, this is as per Einstein's 2 postulates in SR.. I agree that a photon leaving Gn-z11 would experience a blue shift leaving that fame of reference. But that is that frame of reference. From our inertial frame of reference, however, all upward frames are perceived to have a faster rate of time. I know this isn't strictly logical, but it is how relative perception works.