What is all the evidence for an Expanding Universe

[shmengie]

To my knowledge, there is only one form of evidence that suggests the Universe is or has ever expanded.

 

Is there any corroborating evidence, aside from hypothesis?

Edited March 22, 2016 by shmengie

[imatfaal]

To my knowledge, there is only one form of evidence that suggests the Universe is or has ever expanded.

 

Is there any corroborating evidence, other aside from hypothesis?

 

The cosmological red shift - Hubble Law is always seen as pretty good evidence of whether it does or not, and the CMBR as remnant of the bb cooling is great to bolster the leading theory as to why it does what we observe it to do.

 

It is not as if there are huge avenues of research that lie unexplored - there is very good evidence already and projects like BICEP2 are trying to get to the very hard to find stuff. What other evidence do you require to show expansion other than the observation that the universe is expanding? Scientists accept cosmological red-shift measurements - to call this evidence into doubt you would need a valid counter-explantion for millions of very simple and accurate observations.

[shmengie]

I understand there aren't many avenues of exploration available.

 

I also understand that the one piece of evidence that seems concrete, has two differing explanations.

 

Seems highly unreasonable to me that one explanation is given credence, while the other is ignored. The Lambda-CDM model relies on a constant G to afford a varying distance. There's a lot of ppl that believe the Universe is expanding, on very shaky reasoning, IMO.

 

CMBR isn't evidence, it's an explanation for the 2.7K reading which could be caused by cooling or heating, for which we have no conclusive evidence that either occurred.

Edited March 22, 2016 by shmengie

[Strange]

CMBR isn't evidence, it's an explanation for the 2.7K reading which could be caused by cooling or heating, for which we have no conclusive evidence that either occurred.

 

The temperature and nature (blackbody spectrum) of the CMB was predicted long before it was detected (by accident). There is no other model that explains the CMB (and all of the other evidence). That is why this was the last nail in the coffin of the steady state theory.

 

Other evidence includes Hubble's law and the primordial proportions of hydrogen and helium (both also predicted by the model before they were observed).

 

 

I also understand that the one piece of evidence that seems concrete, has two differing explanations.

 

Which piece of evidence is that, and what are the two explanations?

 

 

There's a lot of ppl that believe the Universe is expanding, on very shaky reasoning.

 

Can you provide some references?

[shmengie]

Can you provide some references?

 

I posed the topic of this thread as such, because I seek knowledge.

 

The is only one piece of evidence, to my knowledge, that the Hubble constant was reasoned.

 

At the time it was formed, the other explanation was only theorized and since been proven. Stands to reason that the "accepted" consensus flowed in the direction it did and still does. But it also stands to reason that its flawed, based on order of understanding.

 

I'd like to prove the flaw I seen in BB, but it seems beyond my ability. Instead, I must persuade the "accepted" to understand reason. Seems darn near impossible, but stranger things have happened.

 

I'm only referencing what I believe could be considered common knowledge.

Edited March 22, 2016 by shmengie

[Strange]

The is only one piece of evidence, to my knowledge, that the Hubble constant was reasoned.

 

The Hubble constant is based on observational evidence. However, the general nature of the law was predicted a few years before that.

 

At the time it was formed, the other explanation was only theorized and since been proven.

 

Can you be a bit more specific. What is "the other explanation"? How has it been "proven"? (BTW, science never proves things.)

 

But it also stands to reason that its flawed, based on order of understanding.

 

Can you explain why you think it is flawed?

 

 

I'd like to prove the flaw I seen in BB, but it seems beyond my ability. Instead, I must persuade the "accepted" to understand reason. Seems darn near impossible, but stranger things have happened.

 

What is the flaw you see in the big bang model?

 

Having an alternative theory make predictions that are then shown to be incorrect is also part of science.

 

Having a theory make predictions and then confirm those predictions by observation is a standard part of science.

 

That is why the big bang model is accepted and, so far, all alternatives have failed.

 

What is wrong with that reasoning?

[shmengie]

I'd really like to know what other observational evidence there is for the cosmo expanding than redshift. To my knowledge there is none.

 

Light shifts based on two known principles doppler shift and Einstein shift (aka gravity shift). Einstein theorized gravitational shift somewhere around the same time the Hubble constant/parameter was established. Einstein shift was later proven. Did Hubble know about gravity shift? Unlikely. Would that aspect change his thesis ??? Don't know.

 

But things were accepted, because there were only two competing hypothesis for the evolution of the universe. One BB and the other Steady state.

 

Steady State sounds (to me) totally unreasonable, so it makes sense that BB was the "accepted."

 

I hear the Universe is not only expanding but gaining momentum but the only evidence that supports it has two completely different explanations.

 

The fact that one explanation is all but completely ignored and/or not taken into consideration, makes absolutely no sense. Seems highly unreasonable and anti-scientific.

Edited March 22, 2016 by shmengie

[Phi for All]

I'd like to prove the flaw I seen in BB, but it seems beyond my ability.

 

The reason for this is that you came to your conclusion emotionally. You didn't use reality, or available evidence that supports the LCDM model. You saw what you thought was a flaw, you convinced yourself you were right, and now you're practicing horrible science by trying to "prove" that you're right.

 

I can tell because no real scientist is adamant the way you are. Science requires a degree of uncertainty, and that's why we use theory, instead of "proof". When an hypothesis can't be disproven, when all the evidence supports its conclusions, then we start to call it a theory. It should come as no surprise that scientists would favor the model that has the most supportive evidence over anything less.

[swansont]

 

I hear the Universe is not only expanding but gaining momentum but the only evidence that supports it has two completely different explanations.

 

The fact that one explanation is all but completely ignored and/or not taken into consideration, makes absolutely no sense. Seems highly unreasonable and anti-scientific.

 

 

You haven't told us what this other explanation is. Why not?

[John Cuthber]

Wait until night time.

Go outside and look up.

Is it dark?

It is?; OK. Now consider how that state of affairs could be stable over a long period of time.

It can't and that's part of the essence of this

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Olbers%27_paradox

 

So we know that the one thing the universe can't be is stationary.

Now, if it were not expanding, and it wasn't stable, it would be contracting- and we would see evidence of that.

We don't.

So it's expanding.

[Strange]

I'd really like to know what other observational evidence there is for the cosmo expanding than redshift. To my knowledge there is none.

 

The main ones are the CMB and the proportions of hydrogen and helium. There are others, but they are a bit subtler and harder to explain.

Although the red-shift was the first confirmation, it is not the strongest.

 

Any alternative theory has to explain all the evidence, not just the red shift.

 

Light shifts based on two known principles doppler shift and Einstein shift (aka gravity shift).

 

There are other possible causes.

 

Einstein theorized gravitational shift somewhere around the same time the Hubble constant/parameter was established.

 

Quite a bit earlier, in fact. But more importantly, his theory also predicts cosmological shift. And that is what is consistent with the observed red shift.

 

Did Hubble know about gravity shift? Unlikely. Would that aspect change his thesis ??? Don't know.

 

No he didn't. And no it wouldn't. Hubble's law is purely an observation. He had no theory to explain it. Many other ideas were tried (for example, "tired light"). In the end, the only one that worked was cosmological red-shift based on Einstein's work.

 

But things were accepted, because there were only two competing hypothesis for the evolution of the universe. One BB and the other Steady state.

 

And only one of those matched all the evidence.

 

Steady State sounds (to me) totally unreasonable, so it makes sense that BB was the "accepted."

 

Sounding reasonable or not is totally irrelevant.

 

I hear the Universe is not only expanding but gaining momentum but the only evidence that supports it has two completely different explanations.

 

It is not gaining momentum. And there is not only one form of evidence. And there are not only two possible explanations.

 

The fact that one explanation is all but completely ignored and/or not taken into consideration, makes absolutely no sense. Seems highly unreasonable and anti-scientific.

 

Which explanation is ignored? Is there a reason it is ignored? Why are being so vague?

[shmengie]

You haven't told us what this other explanation is. Why not?

 

Gravitational shift and doppler shift are two known explanations for light shift. My explanation was curt.

 

Shifting light is the only known evidence supporting that the Universe is expanding or has ever expanded.

 

There are two "known" reasons for shift. Cosmological shift is hypothesized only on the basis of doppler.

 

Lambda-CDM indicates at/when gravity became a force the distribution of matter was flat. We don't know how or why gravity came to be but it did, we assume.

 

A consequence of matter distribution is the distribution of the field of gravity. It is believed the Universe evolved into what we can see now. Along with this evolution, the distribution of the field of gravity changed. This change in distribution is completely unaccounted for in cosmological shift.

 

I see that as a flaw, I do not know how to prove. That's not necessarily emotionally subjective. Its the facts as I understand them.

[Strange]

 

Gravitational shift and doppler shift are two known explanations for light shift. My explanation was curt.

 

They are not the only two.

 

Shifting light is the only known evidence supporting that the Universe is expanding or has ever expanded.

 

As you have been told repeatedly that is not true, why do you continue to lie about it?

 

There are two "known" reasons for shift.

 

There are more than 2.

 

Cosmological shift is hypothesized only on the basis of doppler.

 

Cosmological red shift has nothing to do with the Doppler effect. It is a consequence of GR, the basis of the big bang theory. It is closer in comcept to gravitational red shift.

 

This change in distribution is completely unaccounted for in cosmological shift.

 

No it isn't.

 

I see that as a flaw, I do not know how to prove. That's not necessarily emotionally subjective. Its the facts as I understand them.

 

So the "flaw" is that you don't understand the theory or the multiple lines of evidence supporting it. And so you make up lies. That is not good science.

[shmengie]

 

Which explanation is ignored? Is there a reason it is ignored? Why are being so vague?

Quite a bit earlier, in fact. But more importantly, his theory also predicts cosmological shift. And that is what is consistent with the observed red shift.

 

Gravitational shift is dismissed because it works both ways when emitted from a deep well and received in a the same.

 

What's not accounted for is the change over time of the distribution of mass.

Edited March 22, 2016 by shmengie

[Mordred]

The other piece of evidence already hinted at by Strange is BB nucleosynthesis, an expanding universe cools down. So In a far denser state various particles reach thermal equilibrium. Any reaction they have quickly dissociate. This particularly applies to elements.

 

This aspect is extremely well studied, and allowed the BB model to accurately predict the correct % of hydrogen, lithium and deuterium at the CMB.

 

The CMB itself is generated by particles dropping out of thermal equilibrium. When atoms start being able to form with stability, free electrons, protons and neutrons become bound within atoms.

 

This is the surface of last scattering, prior to this light could not travel far as the opacity was too great. The mean free path of a photon was significantly less than a metre.

 

Once the opacity clears the mean free path today is near limitless.

 

 

None of the above is possible in a static universe. All of the above was predicted well in advance of detecting the CMB.

Edited March 22, 2016 by Mordred

[Strange]

 

Gravitational shift is dismissed because it works both ways when emitted from a deep well and received in a the same.

 

What's not accounted for is the change over time of the distribution of mass.

 

Perhaps the reason that gravitational red-shift has been dismissed is because it cannot produce the effects we observe. But feel free to provide some evidence:

 

1. Please show your calculations that this produces the observed red-shift.

 

2. Please explain how this resolves Olber's paradox.

 

3. Please explain why the universe is not expanding, as predicted by General Relativity.

 

4. Please explain how this is responsible for the spectrum and temperature of the CMB.

 

5. Please explain how this can produce the observed proportions of hydrogen and helium.

 

After tackling the easy ones, we can get on to some of the more difficult problems.

[swansont]

 

Gravitational shift and doppler shift are two known explanations for light shift. My explanation was curt.

 

 

 

And by being curt it ignores that in science we quantify things. So if we can tell how big the gravitational shift should be, that can tell us whether or not it explains all of the redshift.

[shmengie]

1. Please show your calculations that this produces the observed red-shift.

You have me at a bit of a disadvantage here, because I have not figured out all variables required to formulate an equation. I could use some assistance. Not that I expect any, but it would be helpful. Would like others to appreciate the issue identified and help to reason out a viable alternative.

 

2. Please explain how this resolves Olber's paradox.

I don't explain obler's paradox. I find Lambda-CDM consistent up to the point where gravity comes to exists. Prior to that point, I cannot conceive.

 

I have no clue about what caused matter to exist. I find Lambda-CDM somewhat plausible, doesn't mean its wrong or right. Our resources are limited, that's common knowledge, AFAIK. -- all of which, I find troubling, though its probably no different than most.

 

3. Please explain why the universe is not expanding, as predicted by General Relativity.

As I understand, Professor Einstein found that terribly troubling as well. He deduced that a cosmological constant was required to keep stars and galaxies from all congregating in a center of the universe. Trouble is that mass does congregate, but there may be no center, seems to appear as filaments of congregation. Certainly suggests the Universe isn't static or it may suggest there's no need for a constant.

 

4. Please explain how this is responsible for the spectrum and temperature of the CMB.

I haven't studied the CMBR. I'm compelled to resolve my issues with redshift first. Hot pre-matter could have been from a singularity, couple of membranes colliding or who knows what. All which could be a bang of sorts, all of which are highly speculative and thus impossible to resolve.

 

5. Please explain how this can produce the observed proportions of hydrogen and helium.

Seems CMBR is the clearest picture of the primordial soup and it looks fuzzy to me. I can't, nor do I try. I refer to answer #4 for my ambivalence.

 

After tackling the easy ones, we can get on to some of the more difficult problems.

I wouldn't say any of this is "easy." It all seems highly speculative and virtually pointless, because belief in these concepts, doesn't affect reality.

Edited March 22, 2016 by shmengie

[Strange]

You have me at a bit of a disadvantage here, because I have not figured out all variables required to formulate an equation.

 

Then why do you think it is a plausible hypothesis?

 

Would like others to appreciate the issue identified and help to reason out a viable alternative.

 

The only issue identified is that you don't understand the physics involved.

 

I find Lambda-CDM consistent up to the point where gravity comes to exists. Prior to that point, I cannot conceive.

 

As far as I know, gravity has always existed.

 

I have no clue about what caused matter to exist.

 

No one does.

 

I find Lambda-CDM somewhat plausible, doesn't mean its wrong or right.

 

If you think the Lambda-CDM (big bang) model is plausible (and it is because it is supported by a large amount of evidence) then it is impossible for you to reject cosoological red shift - it is a consequence of the big bang model.

 

As I understand, Professor Einstein found that terribly troubling as well. He deduced that a cosmological constant was required to keep stars and galaxies from all congregating in a center of the universe.

 

Not quite. At the time, it was assumed that the universe was eternal and unchanging. So he added a fudge factor to prevent the universe either expanding or contracting as it would naturally do. (He later described this as his greatest mistake.)

 

Just as an aside, Newton had earlier proved that the universe had to be infinite, based on his law of gravitation, but Einstein realised that it didn't have to be.

 

I haven't studied the CMBR.

 

You should. It was the final piece of evidence that destroyed steady state models.

 

I'm compelled to resolve my issues with redshift first.

 

Your "issue" seems to be that you don't understand the reason for the red shift (for example, you keep mentioning gravity and the Doppler effect neither of which are relevant).

[shmengie]

Your "issue" seems to be that you don't understand the reason for the red shift (for example, you keep mentioning gravity and the Doppler effect neither of which are relevant).

No that's not my "issue" at all. I understand there is a cause of red shift not accounted for in the accepted model. Principles of cosmological redshift are based on solely on doppler reasoning. I don't understand that, it seems illogical to me.

 

 

 

If you follow the sequence/flow of the evolution of the universe proposed by Lambda-CDM:

 

There was a point in time (a beginning) which the universe was homogeneous. That basically means matter was distributed evenly. We understand that gravity is a field property of mass that proportional in strength to inverse square distance from mass.

 

If/when the matter in the Universe was homogeneously distributed that field would also be distributed homogeneously.

 

As time passes, or so it seems, mass collapses into stars, galaxies and black holes.

 

If the field of gravity is stronger near concentrated bodies of mass, it therefor must weaken in the regions of space now void of mass.

 

Light traverses least obstructed in the vacuum of space that is now void of mass.

 

Because mass collapse is not instantaneous it is assumed to have happened and continues to happen over the course of the evolution of the universe.

 

This all seems like physical phenomena that is happening, but it is not yet accounted for in Lambda-CDM principles.

 

I believe this change in gravity/mass distribution would produce redshift in light, likely to match cosmological redshift, but I have no equations to support it.

 

 

All equations and support for Lambda-CDM, refer to a static field of gravity. Gravity is not static. Its strength is the inverse square to distance from a collection of mass identified as static. The universe is not a steady state and it doesn't present static characteristics, so why is gravity always treated as if static? One might assume because it makes the equations a lot easier to comprehend.

Edited March 23, 2016 by shmengie

[Mordred]

Actually what you mentioned is covered by LCDM. However your forgetting the majority of the mass isn't baryonic (visible matter).

 

Baryonic matter (stars, galaxies etc)

is only 3% of the mass budget. In fact it's an extremely small player.

 

There is three types of redshift.

 

Doppler, gravitational and cosmological.

 

They all have one characteristic in common and that is change in wavelength. What is different in each is the cause.

In Doppler shift the emitter or observer must be moving.

In gravitational redshift both objects can be stationary but at different gravitational potential.

 

In cosmological redshift the objects do not gain inertia, the gravitational potential at any given time is uniform. Yet we get the redshift as the distances change over time.

 

There have been professional attempts to model each as another aspect. Bunn and Hoggs tried modelling cosmological redshift as gravitational redshift, but this required numerous microdistance modelling greatly increasing the number of calculations.

 

It's far easier to just use cosmological redshift as it's to a well tested good approximation. (All formulas are just to good approximation)

Edited March 23, 2016 by Mordred

[shmengie]

Actually what you mentioned is covered by LCDM. However your forgetting the majority of the mass isn't baryonic (visible matter).

 

Baryonic matter (stars, galaxies etc)

is only 3% of the mass budget. In fact it's an extremely small player.

Haven't quite forgot that. If you eliminate Dark Energy, that's what 68% of stuff...

 

Are black holes considered visible or dark, to have always existed or thought have once been to be baryonic mass? (pun? this matters!)

 

I heard once that mass of central black holes are approx. equal to the mass of its host galaxy. I expect the approximation will continue to fluctuate.

 

There is three types of redshift.

 

Doppler, gravitational and cosmological.

...

It's far easier to just use cosmological redshift as it's to a well tested good approximation. (All formulas are just to good approximation)

I understand its far easier to scale cosmological shift to an approximation. When I contemplate gravity causing the shift, I find its difficult, at best. It's not just one place or mass that is variable to be accounted, it's everywhere. Makes it a terribly complex problem to resolve.

 

I can't help but suspect, cosmological redshift a likely consequence of gravity shift, not necessarily a third type shift. Tho I understand there's plenty good reason to consider it as such.

 

Wish I knew Einstein and could bounce the idea off him.

Edited March 23, 2016 by shmengie

[Mordred]

Here this will help, as stated your redshift idea has been approached. Though not as a counter to expansion.

 

The strongest evidence isn't due to redshift measurements, redshift alone can throw you off on distance measurements. We also use numerous other methods described as the Cosmic distance ladder. (Different methods for different distances, as no one method is truly reliable)

 

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cosmic_distance_ladder

 

 

The kinematic origin of the cosmological redshift

 

http://arxiv.org/abs/0808.1081

 

Bunn and Hogg's

 

But even then distance measurements isn't the only piece of evidence. The major ones have already been mentioned.

Edited March 23, 2016 by Mordred

[shmengie]

...

The kinematic origin of the cosmological redshift

 

http://arxiv.org/abs/0808.1081

I got a good laugh out of that one, thanks.

 

I claim gravity is ignored in preference to doppler:

 

Kinematics is the branch of classical mechanics which describes the motion of points (alternatively "particles"), bodies (objects), and systems of bodies without consideration of the masses of those objects nor the forces that may have caused the motion.

 

Much like Rodney Dangerfield, gravity gets no respect, or rather, no consideration.

 

Bunn and Hogg's obfuscate ignoring effect of gravity with term Kinematics. Doesn't change the fact that it's ignored, they say in novel way its too difficult to view so its preferred to be viewed in a doppler frame.

 

I think their approach to ignoring gravity is novel. Seems to me they state outright the concept of inertial reference complicates things. We're going to omit inertial reference with Minkowskian space and not going to bother with gravity at all...

 

They don't touch on my underlying premise, that the flux effects voided space. I think I'm getting closer to narrowing it down to simpler terms, but I seem to make only a little progress once in a while.

 

If gravity field in the void continues weakening, which is the gist of my premise. The entropy like effect is that time is accelerating in voided regions. If rate of time increases that could manifest as light shifting toward red.

 

I'm still trying to reason out varying rates of redshift termed cosmological shift. I will insist on claiming cosmological shift is merely a term, because there is no empirical evidence to support it. The only evidence for it is distance correlation in cosmological observations. Doesn't solidify as empirical, IMO, primarily because it's not testable or verifiable in any other fashion.

 

I find that horrifyingly ironic because even if ppl agree with me about the principle of gravity field weakening, it wouldn't be verifiable in any other fashion either.

Edited March 23, 2016 by shmengie

[Mordred]

No actually they aren't. Ever heard of the equivalence principle?

 

After all the units for force of gravity is m/s^2. In other words acceleration.

 

Ever looked at why the Einstein field equations has a stress energy/momentum term ?

 

Perhaps you missed section IV.

 

"We can construct two such families of observers: one in which each of the shifts is a Doppler shift, and one in which each is a gravitational shift. By reference to these families, we can interpret the observed shift as the accumulation of either many small Doppler shifts or many small gravitational shifts."

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Equivalence_principle

 

[latex]z=\sqrt{\frac{1+\frac{v}{c}}{1-\frac{v}{c}}}+1[/latex]

here is the principle of equivalence to Gravitational redshift relations.

 

http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/relativ/gratim.html

 

Here these relationships will help.

 

[latex]\frac{\Delta_f}{f} = \frac{\lambda}{\lambda_o} = \frac{v}{c}=\frac{E_o}{E}=\frac{hc}{\lambda_o} \frac{\lambda}{hc}[/latex]

 

Doppler shift is

 

[latex]f=\frac{c+v_r}{c+v_s}f_o[/latex]

 

Gravitational redshift is

 

[latex]\frac{\lambda}{\lambda_o}=\frac{1}{\sqrt{(1 - \frac{2GM}{r c^2})}}[/latex]

 

The hyperphysics link covers the principle of equivalence with this formula.

Cosmological redshift is

 

[latex]1+Z=\frac{\lambda}{\lambda_o} or 1+Z=\frac{\lambda-\lambda_o}{\lambda_o}[/latex]

 

Now if you look at the relations you can see the similarities.

Done correctly you can model cosmological redshift as either a Doppler shift or as a gravitational redshift. The Bunn and Hoggs paper describes the process. (Though the complexity greatly increases)

 

Which makes sense as all three use the invariance of the speed of light As well as the equivalence principle.

Edited March 23, 2016 by Mordred