shmengie Posted March 23, 2016 Author Share Posted March 23, 2016 (edited) No actually they aren't. Ever heard of the equivalence principle? Okay, I see my mistake, to a degree. I read it as tho they said it was valid to choose Minkowskian space. The synopsis states the opposite. However, having not read the paper, I'm at a loss and rely on the definition Kinematics which states "without consideration of the masses". Left me to conclude gravity is not taken into account. I'm working my way thru the paper now, but seems I'm going to have to read it a few times, to decipher (hopefully) their claims. FWIW: I don't ride the horse of luxury. Edited March 23, 2016 by shmengie Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mordred Posted March 23, 2016 Share Posted March 23, 2016 (edited) Now in terms of expansion The acceleration equation is given as [latex]\frac{\ddot{a}}{a}=-\frac{4\pi G\rho}{3c^2}(\rho c^2+3p)[/latex] This leads to [latex]H^2=\frac{\dot{a}}{a}=\frac{8\pi G\rho}{3c^2}-\frac{kc^2p}{R_c^2a^2}[/latex] [latex]H_z=H_o\sqrt{\Omega_m(1+z)^3+\Omega_{rad}(1+z)^4+\Omega_{\Lambda}}[/latex] The last formula shows how the average energy/density of each equation of state (matter, radiation and cosmological constant evolve over time) It's particularly handy as one can use that formula to calculate the rate of expansion as well as the average energy density of each contributor as a function of redshift. Okay, I see my mistake, to a degree. I read it as tho they said it was valid to choose Minkowskian space. The synopsis states quite the opposite. However, having not read the paper, I'm at a loss and rely on the definition Kinematics which states "without consideration of the masses". Left me to conclude gravity is not taken into account. I'm working my way thru the paper now, but seems I'm going to have to read it a few times, to decipher (hopefully) their claims. It helps to have a good understanding of GR. For that I can recommend a few articles. Training (textbook Style Articles) http://arxiv.org/pdf/hep-ph/0004188v1.pdf :"ASTROPHYSICS AND COSMOLOGY"- A compilation of cosmology by Juan Garcıa-Bellido http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0409426 An overview of Cosmology Julien Lesgourgues http://arxiv.org/pdf/hep-th/0503203.pdf "Particle Physics and Inflationary Cosmology" by Andrei Linde http://www.wiese.itp.unibe.ch/lectures/universe.pdf:" Particle Physics of the Early universe" by Uwe-Jens Wiese Thermodynamics, Big bang Nucleosynthesis http://www.blau.itp.unibe.ch/newlecturesGR.pdf "Lecture Notes on General Relativity" Matthias Blau The first two is an overview of cosmology. The third is a full textbook. The 4th has an excellent section on BB nucleosynthesis chapter 3 and 4 The Mathius Blau book will cover extensively GR then steps into the FLRW metric via the Einstein field equations in the later chapters. Edited March 23, 2016 by Mordred Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ajb Posted March 23, 2016 Share Posted March 23, 2016 Has anyone also mentioned that the large scale structure of the Universe also fits well with the Lambda CDM model? This is further evidence in support of this model. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mordred Posted March 23, 2016 Share Posted March 23, 2016 I believe your the first Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Strange Posted March 23, 2016 Share Posted March 23, 2016 No that's not my "issue" at all. I understand there is a cause of red shift not accounted for in the accepted model. What evidence do you have for this redshift that is not accounted for? Principles of cosmological redshift are based on solely on doppler reasoning. It has nothing to do with Doppler effect. If you think that, you do NOT understand. You need to learn a little bit about the theory before criticising it. You seem to have missed it before: it is NOT Doppler. It is NOT Doppler. It is NOT Doppler. It is NOT Doppler. It is NOT Doppler. It is NOT Doppler. It is NOT Doppler. OK? I don't understand that, it seems illogical to me. That is not relevant. (Especially as you clearly have approximately zero knowledge.) This thread is pointless until you learn something about the big bang model. Oh, by the way, I'm not sure if you are aware of this: It is NOT Doppler. I heard once that mass of central black holes are approx. equal to the mass of its host galaxy. Then you heard wrong. They are a tiny fraction of the mass of the galaxy. The kinematic origin of the cosmological redshift http://arxiv.org/abs/0808.1081 Bunn and Hogg's That's a bit embarrassing! Maybe I need to change my statement to "it is not simply Doppler (although with some effort it can be explained that way)." It is not as snappy though... But, schmengle, that paper points out that the red-shift is nearly always treated as a gravitational effect due to GR. And, even though you can interpret it as Doppler no one does. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
shmengie Posted March 23, 2016 Author Share Posted March 23, 2016 (edited) It is not gaining momentum. And there is not only one form of evidence. And there are not only two possible explanations. Oh, my bad, it's not gaining momentum, it's accelerating. I phrased it wrong? That's a bit embarrassing! What was embarrassing about kinematic interpretation. The definition clearly asserts mass is not considered. That doesn't make my premise wrong, instead, It suggests the opposite. Fortunate or not, a lot of my education comes from mass media science, history channel and pbs nova, etc. Every time they iterate BB it starts with Hubble constant/doppler as first evidence. I understand now that the expansion rate, constant has been view in terms of GR as gravitational shift. All that magic w/numbers really complicates the issue, because the underlying premise is still wrong IMO. The universe is not expanding, I sincerely doubt it ever has. There's a lot more work ahead, to prove it. I don't believe the universe has expanded. I don't believe it is expanding nor accelerating. I think there is a flaw in the interpretation of shift. Because I don't ride the mathematician horse of luxury, nor possess a lot of formal education it's going to be a difficult span for me to navigate. -- Here's my logical premise, incase you chose to ignore it earlier. The shift in light is caused by reorganization of mass, not universal expansion. I believe the change over time of mass distribution causes shift and appears as and believed to be the expansion. It's not a change in principles of GR or physics, but instead a change in interpretation of the mechanics. I can understand this premise is going to meet a lot of difficulties. #1 it goes against the basis of Lambda CDM and will be resisted for that reason alone, tho that's not the only one. The concept of an expanding universe has support from many different angles with a large body of evidence that's developed to support it. I find it encouraging that cosmological shift is considered gravity shift as opposed to doppler, even tho its almost always referred to as doppler like effect. That will ease some difficulties I didn't know how to overcome. Edited March 23, 2016 by shmengie Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Strange Posted March 23, 2016 Share Posted March 23, 2016 Oh, my bad, it's not gaining momentum, it's accelerating. I phrased it wrong? Nothing is accelerating in the classical sense (as in a force being applied). The scale factor is increasing. What was embarrassing about kinematic interpretation. It rather negates my argument that it can be interpreted as a Doppler effect. But, again: no one treats it as Doppler. (Even though that paper shows it is possible.) The definition clearly asserts mass is not considered. Where is that definition? That doesn't make my premise wrong, instead, It suggests the opposite. Your premise is wrong because red-shift is not caused by Doppler. Fortunate or not, a lot of my education comes from mass media science, history channel and pbs nova, etc. And that is a major problem. Every time they iterate BB it starts with Hubble constant/doppler as first evidence. Hubble's law was the first evidence that supported the (pre-existing) theory. If they say it is due to Doppler then they are simplifying to the point of being wrong. The universe is not expanding, I sincerely doubt it ever has. If you think the universe is not expanding then your biggest problem is the CMB. (You can tackle details like red shift later.) That is what killed Hoyle's attempts at a steady state theory. He was a brilliant scientist; if he can't make the idea work, why do you think you can? I don't believe the universe has expanded. I don't believe it is expanding nor accelerating. What you believe is irrelevant. No one cares what your personal beliefs are when it comes to science. Show us the math or the evidence to support your view. Otherwise there is no reason for anyone to take it seriously. Because I don't ride the mathematician horse of luxury, nor possess a lot of formal education it's going to be a difficult span for me to navigate. Why would you even bother when there is no evidence supporting your "religion" and lots of evidence opposing it? What is the point? 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
shmengie Posted March 23, 2016 Author Share Posted March 23, 2016 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. I can't argue that I don't have an emotional attachment to my argument. It provides a passion for the truth, without, I probably wouldn't continue to argue. Neither of which makes my premise either right or wrong. Science often requires passion. Especially when the accepted terminology is misinterpreted. I fear I'm the only one who sees the flaw, as such. Now this ant needs a lot of passion to move the mountain. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Strange Posted March 23, 2016 Share Posted March 23, 2016 (edited) I fear I'm the only one who sees the flaw, as such. That is because the flaw only exists in your imagination. I am baffled by this behaviour. I cannot understand what motivates you to try and find non-existent flaws in a theory you don't understand (You insist you do, and then make comments that make it very obvious that your knowledge is close to zero.) I know very little about how internal combustion engines work. The idea of powering a vehicle by a series of small carefully timed explosions seems preposterous. But I don't go on automotive forums claiming that that the problem with the design is that they include a frobulator which shouldn't be there, and instead they should use a wozznikizer. (If I did, I would expect to be told that I had no idea what I was talking about.) It provides a passion for the truth Then why don't you devote your energies to actually learning some of the basic science behind all this? Science often requires passion. It also requires knowledge. Edited March 23, 2016 by Strange 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
shmengie Posted March 23, 2016 Author Share Posted March 23, 2016 (edited) It rather negates my argument that it can be interpreted as a Doppler effect. But, again: no one treats it as Doppler. (Even though that paper shows it is possible.) If no one treats it as doppler, why is it frequently referred to as such and expansion thought to be the cause of shift? Where is that definition? 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. Your premise is wrong because red-shift is not caused by Doppler. My premise is that shift is caused by mass reorganization. Which does rely that a doppler effect is wrong. If doppler is wrong, does that not lend credence to my interpretation? If you think the universe is not expanding then your biggest problem is the CMB. (You can tackle details like red shift later.) That is what killed Hoyle's attempts at a steady state theory. He was a brilliant scientist; if he can't make the idea work, why do you think you can? I suppose you could look at that as a problem. But the scaffolding for CMBR to agree Lambda-CMD is very complex and not terribly difficult argue past. I can suppose a large number of completely different reasons for excess heat in the beginning. Its a problem for Lambda-CDM or any postulation of a beginning or start. Boils down to the simple fact we have clue what causes matter to exist. I suspect the laws of physics changed which is more or less what Lambda-CDM boils down to at that point. You can call it my problem if you like. Seems quite universal to me, any change in physical construction of the universe would likely result in very hot topic. What you believe is irrelevant. No one cares what your personal beliefs are when it comes to science. Show us the math or the evidence to support your view. Otherwise there is no reason for anyone to take it seriously. Why would you even bother when there is no evidence supporting your "religion" and lots of evidence opposing it? What is the point? Your right, it is currently my personal belief. Unfortunately that places me squarely in the minority, with an inverse square statistical chance of escaping. I believe the "accepted" is inaccurate in interpretation of evidence. I've deduced a logical sequence of events for things to be interpreted as such. I've tried to keep my emotional attachments out of reason, but at the end of the day, that's what caused me to start down this path. I believe I've found a better interpretation for a cosmological scale issue. If you insist that I'm wrong, I'll reply with a very simple question: Why does cosmological redshift require a scale factor to increase? I'll be working on answering that with mass reorganization, not adjusting the laws of physics in the past. Edited March 23, 2016 by shmengie Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Phi for All Posted March 23, 2016 Share Posted March 23, 2016 I can't argue that I don't have an emotional attachment to my argument. It provides a passion for the truth, without, I probably wouldn't continue to argue. Neither of which makes my premise either right or wrong. Science often requires passion. Especially when the accepted terminology is misinterpreted. I fear I'm the only one who sees the flaw, as such. Now this ant needs a lot of passion to move the mountain. You're just wrong. The passion for science is learning it the right way, not by cobbling together an approximation from sources that are only interested in sensational things they hope will keep you watching, for profit. Once you understand why science is SO SUCCESSFUL, you'll understand that removing emotion from your research, taking a more dispassionate attitude, will help you remove the kind of subjectivity that fuels your emotional attachment. Passion is your enemy once you start using the scientific method. And that's not to say you shouldn't have passion for your work. It's just that you should have that passion because you studied science the right way, not from TV. TV representations are crude and don't give a deep enough explanation, and almost never include tie-ins with other disciplines. Science knowledge is like a jigsaw puzzle cut from the skins of an onion the size of our planet. They intertwine and support and form deep connections. Popsci representations just can't be as detailed as the average viewer can handle, but needs to understand the subject. Remember, science isn't about proving anything, and it's certainly not about proving your idea is right. All we can do is correct mistakes, refute what doesn't match reality, and compile evidence to support our ideas. You've put so much emotional attachment into this idea, that now even though you keep seeing assertions you've made shot down, you're still convinced you're right. That's not science. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Strange Posted March 23, 2016 Share Posted March 23, 2016 (edited) If no one treats it as doppler, why is it frequently referred to as such and expansion thought to be the cause of shift? Because you have got your science education from pop-sci sources. This is a Bad Way to learn science. They lie to you. Deliberately. You will be told a lot of things that are not true (but are easy to understand). Basing an argument against a scientific theory on pop-sci sources and yootoob videos is like insisting people remove the frobulator from their cars. You will just embarrass yourself. 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. Which is why it is of limited use in this case. My premise is that shift is caused by mass reorganization. Normally in science one starts with evidence, rather than something you have made up because it sounds nice. Which does rely that a doppler effect is wrong. If doppler is wrong, does that not lend credence to my interpretation? Sounds like you need a basic introduction to logic as well. This is the logical fallacy of affirming the consequent. I suppose you could look at that as a problem. But the scaffolding for CMBR to agree Lambda-CMD is very complex and not terribly difficult argue past. You are going about this all wrong. You don't need to know or care about the Lambda-CDM model. Even if you proved it wrong, it wouldn't be evidence for your idea. You just need to come up with an alternative explanation for the CMB. (one that doesn't rely on the existing model; therefore you don't need to understand the existing model). I can suppose a large number of completely different reasons for excess heat in the beginning. That doesn't matter: according to you, there is no expansion and therefore no cooling. Therefore no CMB. You need an alternative explanation. Without it, your hypothesis is dead. Your right, it is currently my personal belief. Unfortunately that places me squarely in the minority, with an inverse square statistical chance of escaping And that is because rational people put their personal beliefs to one side and consider the evidence. Why are you unable and/or unwilling to do that? I've tried to keep my emotional attachments out of reason And failed. Because the only thing you have is your emotional attachment. You have no evidence and no theory to support your "religion". I believe I've found a better interpretation for a cosmological scale issue. Except you haven't. You have no evidence and no theory. You have nothing but faith. Why does cosmological redshift require a scale factor to increase? 1. It doesn't. Hubble's law results from a constant scale factor. That is just simple arithmetic, nothing to do with cosmology or advanced mathematics. 2. Why not learn something so that you know the answer to such basic, trivial, simple questions. Edited March 23, 2016 by Strange Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Phi for All Posted March 23, 2016 Share Posted March 23, 2016 Basing an argument against a scientific theory on pop-sci sources and yootoob videos is like insisting people remove the frobulator from their cars. You will just embarrass yourself. I like that one. That's the way it always seems to me, that the person who wants to overturn modern science based on yootoob vids and Discovery Channel documentalmasturbations is like someone who walks in on a bunch of pro footballers and declares, "I have a way you can win without using your feet at all! And the money you'll save on shoes...." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mordred Posted March 23, 2016 Share Posted March 23, 2016 I never could figure out why those new to cosmology always figure a model is wrong because it doesn't match their "opinions" This is a good example, after all why shouldn't the Universe expand or contract? It's actually nearly impossible to be "steady state" No matter how you calculate a steady state universe it will be unstable. @the OP. The links I supplied will provide a better direction than pop media learning. If your truly interested in learning Cosmology and can afford textbooks. I would suggest "Introductory to Cosmology" by Matt Roose Or by Barbera Ryden under the same title. Your wrong by the way that we don't incorperate mass. If you study the EFE and FLRW metric mass is included. Though you'll often hear it expressed as energy/mass density. See the last set of formulas above. [latex]\rho[/latex] is the symbol for mass density Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
shmengie Posted March 23, 2016 Author Share Posted March 23, 2016 Because you have got your science education from pop-sci sources. This is a Bad Way to learn science. They lie to you. Deliberately. I have continued my education beyond scholastic and pop-sci endeavors. Those condensed iterations of the big bang may have helped culminate the premise of my thesis, they're not what it's based on. Basing an argument against a scientific theory on pop-sci sources and yootoob videos is like insisting people remove the frobulator from their cars. You will just embarrass yourself. I don't base my argument on pop-sci foobar. I quest the truth, were there only one tenant of science, that would not be it? Normally in science one starts with evidence, rather than something you have made up because it sounds nice. Science is a wealth of human knowledge based on the evidence afforded by nature. I figure any principle must start with an idea. Tested, observed, etc. once proven false its modified to fit the evidence or simply remains false. Sounds like you need a basic introduction to logic as well. This is the logical fallacy of affirming the consequent. Okay, demean me and/or thesis however you like... When I use my imagination and envision the universe as a singularity... I conclude that implies existence of a multiverse. Not because I'm willy-nilly making stuff up based on faith or pop-sci. It's simple logic. Singularity exists somewhere, some place and/or sometime or another verse. If it expanded, that implies it expanded in something else, another universe perhaps? Every way I look at this one issue of BB, it inescapably implies multiverse. But there is no empirical evidence I'm aware of to indicate a multiverse. Not because I have search for it... Only that I've not found it. Lets ignore the multiverse aspect. Where's the center. If everything started from a point that also implies a center. No evidence. We must ignore the central issue. Okay what about velocity of expansion having an effect on distribution of matter. Nope. That doesn't apply. Three separate issues, I can't fathom a method to resolve with concepts of BB. They cause me to question an expanding universe. I'd like to see evidence that resolves any of these issues, but don't believe it exists. Now you can say it's faith, or lack of scientific understanding if you like, but I see as opposing that fashion, with reason. So I introduced this thread of discussion vaguely on purpose. My intention was not to receive, emotional gut response, bah, he's an idiot who doesn't know what he's saying. No I sought definitive answers to the question I posed, with reason. I got the ones I was expecting and hopefully achieved an interest in my thesis. My thesis goes against the grain of Lambda-cdm. I know that. I know doing so will provokes the automatic emotional response. I've been working on this postulation for a few years now. Not because I want to be different. Its because I believe I seek the truth. I know I could be wrong. But what if I'm right and never prove it? Once I'm dead, it's too late to fix a problem whether it exists or not. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Strange Posted March 23, 2016 Share Posted March 23, 2016 I don't base my argument on pop-sci foobar. I quest the truth, were there only one tenant of science, that would not be it? Science is not about "truth"; that is for philosophers and religions. (And "tenet", not tenant.) Science is a wealth of human knowledge based on the evidence afforded by nature. And you choose to ignore the evidence because it disagrees with your beliefs. I figure any principle must start with an idea. In science, it should start with evidence. Otherwise your idea is as useful as the moon being made of cheese. Tested, observed, etc. once proven false its modified to fit the evidence or simply remains false. And that is the key step you are ignoring. When I use my imagination and envision the universe as a singularity... I conclude that implies existence of a multiverse. Not because I'm willy-nilly making stuff up based on faith or pop-sci. By using your imagination, instead of science, you are making things up. It's simple logic. I assume this is using "logic" to mean "it makes sense to me". Singularity exists somewhere, some place and/or sometime or another verse. There is no evidence that singularities exist. If it expanded, that implies it expanded in something else No, it doesn't. You really ought to learn a little bit about the theory you are criticising. Where's the center. If everything started from a point that also implies a center. It started from everywhere. Everywhere is the centre. You really ought to learn just the tiniest little bit about the theory you are criticising. Okay what about velocity of expansion having an effect on distribution of matter. Nope. That doesn't apply. As ajb noted, another key bit of evidence for the big bang model is the evolution of the large scale structure of the universe. So, again, you are wrong. Three separate issues, I can't fathom a method to resolve with concepts of BB. I think the solution is for you to learn what the big bang model actually says instead of inventing stuff (strawman fallacy). My intention was not to receive, emotional gut response, bah, he's an idiot who doesn't know what he's saying. Then you should stop making statements that make it obvious you don't understand the theory you are criticising. I've been working on this postulation for a few years now. Think of the time you have wasted when you could have been learning about the theory you are criticising. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mordred Posted March 23, 2016 Share Posted March 23, 2016 Your last post tells me you have some misconceptions. First off the Singlarity of the BB is merely a point in time where the conditions become indescribable. Too many infinities. Not a point like singularity. Secondly we don't know the size of the entire universe it could be infinite. The point like beginning you see often expressed is our region of shared causality. (Observable universe) not the entire universe. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
shmengie Posted March 23, 2016 Author Share Posted March 23, 2016 (edited) I never could figure out why those new to cosmology always figure a model is wrong because it doesn't match their "opinions" This is a good example, after all why shouldn't the Universe expand or contract? It's actually nearly impossible to be "steady state" I don't view the whole model as wrong, tho I see a flaw in a pillar of it. Distribution of mass changes. The order of change appears to be from even distribution of mass to localized concentrations. I believe a consequence is as such: Flux in the field of gravity tends toward 0 in regions void of mass. Further I believe: light shifts toward red in the regions it traverses as time accelerates there, as the distribution evolves. Perhaps I should say I speculate??? I'd like to write it down in a simple equation, but that ability is beyond me. I don't know how to prove it right or wrong, but it seems like a logical explanation for redshift. Also seems to negate need for Dark Energy, which seems rather encouraging. My gut feeling is that its so simple it has to be right. But its a totally different view of accepted principle, so it must be wrong. Ya got me. Yall told me about a year ago it was nobel worthy if it's right. Maybe... Needs more refinement, IMO. I suspect its got merit. Anybody wanna help? I'm still working on it. Edited March 23, 2016 by shmengie Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mordred Posted March 23, 2016 Share Posted March 23, 2016 If you understood the math all of the above is accounted for. That's why I provided the links to help you understand the math. This is a good one one expansion. http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0310808 :"Expanding Confusion: common misconceptions of cosmological horizons and the superluminal expansion of the Universe" Lineweaver and Davies Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Strange Posted March 23, 2016 Share Posted March 23, 2016 Distribution of mass changes. The order of change appears to be from even distribution of mass to localized concentrations. Have you seen the really amazing simulations of this? (As well as being impressive, they rather disprove your claim that this factor is ignored. Oh, and they also offer further support for the Lambda-CDM model.) Also seems to negate need for Dark Energy, which seems rather encouraging. How does that work? (I assume there is no point asking you to show any support for this?) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mordred Posted March 23, 2016 Share Posted March 23, 2016 The simulation Strange mentioned can be found here. This simulation uses all the LCDM metric. It was done to test the metric. http://www.cfa.harva...du/news/2014-10 http://www.illustris-project.org/ Personally what I found truly impressive wasn't just getting the correct metalicity etc but that it also produced the types of galaxies we see today. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Strange Posted March 23, 2016 Share Posted March 23, 2016 Personally what I found truly impressive wasn't just getting the correct metalicity etc but that it also produced the types of galaxies we see today. I see they are putting some of their simulated galaxies on Galaxy Zoo to be identified. What a great idea! (p.s. your first link seems to be broken.) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mordred Posted March 23, 2016 Share Posted March 23, 2016 Yeah I know I'm trying to find the original though its just the pop media article. Found it. https://www.cfa.harvard.edu/news/2014-10 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
shmengie Posted March 23, 2016 Author Share Posted March 23, 2016 (edited) If you understood the math all of the above is accounted for. That's why I provided the links to help you understand the math. This is a good one one expansion. I'm working on my issues with math. But I'm a bit slow I don't know what a good "one one expansion" is, my ignorance is plentiful. In essence, my postulation revolves around exchanging distance expansion to reference of time dilation. Have you seen the really amazing simulations of this? (As well as being impressive, they rather disprove your claim that this factor is ignored. Oh, and they also offer further support for the Lambda-CDM model.) How does that work? (I assume there is no point asking you to show any support for this?) Never seen a simulation, other than the version in my minds eye. I would like to see how that of my own differs from another. Well, I know I'm a foolish individual to even contemplate going against "accepted" principles... Dark Energy is a 4th unresolved issue I associate with bb/Lambda-cdm. However, by exchanging distance to time dilation, the need for unexplained energy causing shift is negated because it associates the phenomena with gravity. The biggest problem I've encountered so far: Explaining the scale factor of the Hubble parameter. Best guess thus far; contraction rate increases as mass concentration increases. Edited March 23, 2016 by shmengie Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Strange Posted March 23, 2016 Share Posted March 23, 2016 Well, I know I'm a foolish individual to even contemplate going against "accepted" principles... The problem isn't going against accepted principles. After all, that is how progress is made. The big bang had to struggle against accepted principles. What is foolish is doing it for no reason at all. Explaining the scale factor of the Hubble parameter. The scale factor simply describes how much distances increase in a given time. This results in Hubble's law (because simple arithmetic). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts