Roger_XR

There is an associate professor - Christos Tsagas from Greece - (from an article on http://www.lifeslittlemysteries.com/1795-accelerating-universe-dark-energy-illusion.html) "a new theory suggests that the accelerating expansion of the universe is merely an illusion, akin to a mirage in the desert. The false impression results from the way our particular region of the cosmos is drifting through the rest of space, said Christos Tsagas, a cosmologist at Aristotle University of Thessaloniki in Greece. Our relative motion makes it look like the universe as a whole is expanding faster and faster, while in actuality, its expansion is slowing down — just as would be expected from what we know about gravity." As far as I know this is relatively new and there will be those that disagree, still I find it interesting.

Hey, Some REALLY good stuff guys. But back in the real world it's nearly Christmas and I have small children. I'll be back MERRY CHRISTMAS TO ALL (relatively speaking)

Rather I think you mean educated guess, You did not address the conversation about warping of space versus the mere bending of light by gravity. Did you use to read a lot of science fiction? You use very few words with little fact of things that I've already (usually) seen on the internet but with a dose of really rude thrown in. To a certain extent we need "currently accepted science" upon which to build upon. However, when that "currently" accepted science stands in the way of (in my opinion) advancements in that science, then the current view must be questioned. As I've pointed out before, there were those that believed that the Earth was flat. That was the "currently accepted science" of that time. Okay, "science" is probably not the correct term. But it was the current belief at the time. To choose "warpped space" over simple gravity effect is done in part because it is the "currently accepted science" and probably because it was Einstein that said it. Is there a better reason to believe in warpped space? I always listen (even to ACG52 - he's a bit rude but he tries). I probably wouldn't have used the term "convenience" but if I have a certain bias (as I am sure I must) I believe everyone else does also. No problem with that really. I only ask for an open mind. If I am right or if I am wrong, to me at least I try to put ideas out there that challenge the "currently accepted science". Funny thing about math in this field is that (apparently) you can make it say whatever you want. I'll explain. I saw a show on TV where a scientist had an idea of - I believe he called them "banes" anyway these were like different realities of this Universe. But he went on to say that he had to invent a whole new math to explain it. Space Time: In relativistic contexts, time cannot be separated from the three dimensions of space, because the observed rate at which time passes for an object depends on the object's velocity relative to the observer and also on the strength of gravitational fields, which can slow the passage of time. As for that other stuff you were saying - Spacetime tells matter how to move....ect. Sorry, that sounds pretty strange.

Okay big guy, if you have two competing hypotheses for which you CANNOT prove either one, How do YOU chose? The one that everyone else believes in or think for yourself? Have you ever had an original idea on the subject? The easier chose is to go with the mainstream dogma.

Go back and re-read what I wrote. NEVER did I say that photons shouldn't be affected by gravity. I know and have known about the experiment that Einstein did to visulize the light of stars behind a total eclipse. (about 1917 I think in Austrlia) First you say that, "Your issue seems to be with the fact that since photons are massless, they shouldn't be affected by gravity." But then you go on to say, "Photons aren't directly influenced by the gravitational field..." So I'm not real sure which one you believe. I DO believe that the photons ARE influenced directly by gravity. However you cannot (as I stated) us Netonian physics to compute the effect on photons. Occam's razor, which as you know states that, "among competing hypotheses, the one that makes the fewest assumptions should be selected." It is easier to believe that gravity, which we have known all our lives, is bending the light instead of the "warping" of space. Also I might point out that at one time it was believed that the Earth was flat. You would have pretty much have to be crazy to believe otherwise. Just because Einstein (who, don't get me wrong, was a VERY smart man) came up with the warping of space as a concept, does not mean he was right (at least about this one thing.) Nor am I the only one to ever question Einstein. Nevertheless, each of the examples you stated could also be explained by gravity effecting the light or radio waves. However, can you quote a experiment in which gravity was excluded as the cause? Everything I have heard is of light passing by a very massive object (the Sun, a galaxy, ect.) Which by the way have gravity. Please if you're going to quote me, at least READ what it was I said. OKay?

I agree of course that the early Universe was very hot and the energy of that time easily overcame the effect of gravity. And it just now occured to me that perhaps we take gravity for granted. I've been hearing about the Higgs Boson. It is thought that this particle may be responsible for giving an object mass. Therefore, since "gravity is the agent that gives weight to objects with mass", (From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia) can we know if gravity existed at the moment of the Big Bang. In other words did the Higgs Boson exist at the time of the Big Bang? Without the affect of gravity and in the presence of a huge explosive force, all matter (I assume in the form of subatomic particles) would have flown out at tremendous velocity. Before that can be answered I guess we'll have to wait for them to confirm the Higgs Boson and then try to figure if it could have existed at the moment before the Big Bang. Now as for Einstein, He used GR to calculate the trajectory of a light particle around a massive object (such as our Sun or another Galaxy) instead of Newtonian physics. Very smart but the conclusion he drew from it I think is wrong. Wrapped space? A photon of light is not the same as the mass of a rock (of whatever size). A photon is affected by gravity, but of course a photon is also a wave particle so it could be expected that the effect on the photon would be very different. So as you can no doubt guess I do not believe in wrapped space.

I do hate to be a doubting Thomas but your link says in part, "This model is valid in the present era only on large scales (roughly the scale of galaxy clusters and above). At smaller scales matter has become bound together under the influence of gravitational attraction and such bound objects clumps do not expand at the metric expansion rate as the universe ages, though they continue to recede from one another." Do you see how this explanation tries to hedge its bet by saying that it is but it isn't valid. The Universe is the same through out. At one time everything was VERY close together and would have had a certain degree of attraction to everything else. Yet the Universe expanded anyway. And I HAVE read other theories that say it was indeed a Big Bang. I do hate to be a doubting Thomas but your link says in part, "This model is valid in the present era only on large scales (roughly the scale of galaxy clusters and above). At smaller scales matter has become bound together under the influence of gravitational attraction and such bound objects clumps do not expand at the metric expansion rate as the universe ages, though they continue to recede from one another." Do you see how this explanation tries to hedge its bet by saying that it is but it isn't valid. The Universe is the same through out. At one time everything was VERY close together and would have had a certain degree of attraction to everything else. Yet the Universe expanded anyway. And I HAVE read other theories that say it was indeed a Big Bang. Wish that were all there was to the story. If you're a scientists, you likely work for a University. Now just frow what you said, the evidence "makes a very solid case" and everybody is going to believe that thinking. If you don't have tenure you had better believe it too. What if you had a theory that disproved Einstein? (and I've heard a few actually) Such theories don't hold up well because Einstein is almost sacrosanct so anything that goes against Einstein is obviously wrong. So maybe I don't trust the scientific community so much. I've lived a long time and I've seen a few things. It's what I think.

Yeah, I've heard that. I just don't think even our best minds can know that for a fact. I feel that to many people take what someone else has said as the absolute truth. Is it true? Maybe. But what if it's wrong? Then we will continue to believe that and stop all effort to research any other thought that might not fit with the current thinking but which may in fact be right. The scientists that come up with any given theory have a vested interest in making sure that theory is maintained. But of course it won't really matter. If there's a Big Crunch or an Infinite Expansion we'll be long dead.

This is an argument from incredulity.

But would not that part of the galaxy that you say is receding have occured first and started its outward travel at that point. (Time equal zero) That part of the galaxy was there long before even our local group was created? You and I will just have to disagree on that part about "new space" being formed from nothing. I understand that there are people that believe that but it sounds more like science fiction to me. One other thing I thought of, If we can "see" an object at 13.7 billion light years and it took the light 13.7 billion years to reach us (less perhaps because we were closer to that point at one time - though still billions of years) then the age of the Universe would have to be greater than 13.7 billion years old.

Ok AGC52, I've been doing a bit more studying. This time I got some material from astro.ucla.edu. This particular paper was rather well written but there is more I need to study. For example; It stated that "The high redshift supernovae (Type 1A) are fainter than would be expected." They did not write their paper to answer my particular question but the question would be: If we look outward and the furthermost object (what we see at 13 billion light years say) had a particular speed, then when we look at another object closer to us in time at say about 11 billion light years is slower in speed, and another object at about 9 billion light years is slower in speed, and continuing in this way all the back to our local group, which is slower still, then why could we not say that the Universe is in fact slowing down not speeding up? Could we not say that the very early Universe was indeed moving at a fast speed (relatively) but as time goes on the Universe has slowed down to the speed we notice today? (and No I do not mean just our local group).

I'll start with your question first. My degree is in chemistry. Before that I worked in electronics and computers. I have been studying cosmology for a long time, mostly from the papers I have read on the internet. And as I've said, I'm a fairly smart man. And what I have learned is that not everybody is on the same page as to the theories of just what happened. I have read that the Universe began with a Big Bang and grew in size from there. I have read that there was no single place that the Universe started and therefore had no center or no edge. Which to believe? Good news is you get to decide for yourself. I think the latter theory is just whack, but hey that's theory for you. I did find a paper that refutes much of what you say. And I would like to point out that I DO NOT necessarily refute what you're saying, only that the distances and time are SO VERY VAST that I do not believe we can made absolute judements just yet. I'm including the link to further show you that even those that have a lot of "background" in this field disagree to a certain degree. http://www.lifeslittlemysteries.com/1795-accelerating-universe-dark-energy-illusion.html

Ok then, Since you say you know it all, then perhaps YOU could enlighten me. Always willing to learn but you have so far said nothing but reaffirmed that WMAP could measure something that everybody else I have read says is hypothetical. What then is dark energy? How then is dard energy measured? You either know and can tell me or you don't know and should just say so. You are very big on statements but very short on facts to back it up. I will be MOST happy - thrilled even - to finally learn what dark energy is but so far you aren't saying. Or can't say. Am I "clueless"? It would be the rare individual that could know everything about everything. You apparently take everything that you read about "developments in astronomy and cosmology" as fact. I on the other hand try to maintain an open mind and look at these developments as the theory they are purported to be. And the "facts" put forth by WMAP seem to have had little in the way of new information. (e.g. how did they measure the dark energy or what it is and so forth) I flesh out my ideas to try and convey my thoughts and the reasoning behind my thoughts. You use a mere sentence or two to rudely say that I am wrong or clueless but leave behind no facts. I would humbly say that I am a very smart man and if you use reason and facts to back up what you say then I will be GREATLY in your debt. But if you merely refute what is said or refer to such things as the WMAP or such, then I can only conclude that you don't know enough to have an intelligent discourse. You would then of course be wasting both our times.

The cases of falsifying reserch you say have been detected and corrected. Have they ALL been detected? Can we be SURE that all of these have been detected? I don't think so. WHAT was measured?????????? You CANNOT measure something if you don't know what it is you're measuring. Seem Logical? To measure voltage you first have to have an idea of what it is and how then to measure it. They have NO idea what it is. You couldn't measure voltage with a scales for example. Nor could you measure light with a voltmeter. These are forms of energy but we have to know which one it is before we can measure it. No, those folks of WMAP are touting something they can't prove. Cold Fusion ring a bell? ACG52, up till now I've given you some credit for knowing something of the subject, but when you state, "Once measured, it's no longer hypothetical" to something so absurd, what am I to think? Sleep on it at least and think of something that will at least make more sense than that.

ACG52 You and I may just agree on something here.