Is the Universe really Expanding?

[The Code]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Rj-4t9dr ... re=related

Unless this quote: By (Brian Greene)

By contrast, the question of dark energy is wide open. What is its origin? What determined its quantity? Does the amount stay constant or vary? These are critical questions. Calculations show that if the amount of dark energy had been slightly larger, the universe would have blown apart so quickly that life as we know it could not exist.

Is Maybe late,, and its all about to kick off..

Mark

[Chris Peterson]

Unless this quote: By (Brian Greene)

By contrast, the question of dark energy is wide open. What is its origin? What determined its quantity? Does the amount stay constant or vary? These are critical questions. Calculations show that if the amount of dark energy had been slightly larger, the universe would have blown apart so quickly that life as we know it could not exist.

To be clear, since the quote is slightly out of context, Greene is contrasting dark energy, which is poorly understood, with dark matter, which pretty obviously exists, and which he points out is likely to be conclusively tied to detectable particles in the near future.

[The Code]

To be clear, since the quote is slightly out of context, Greene is contrasting dark energy, which is poorly understood, with dark matter, which pretty obviously exists, and which he points out is likely to be conclusively tied to detectable particles in the near future.

They maybe out of dimensional focus ,, I'm looking forward to finding out.

[harry]

G'day from the land of ozzzz

It seems we have a CHRIS Universe and if we have any alternative ideas to the Standard are wrong and should not be discussed.

[harry]

G'day from the land of ozzz

If I did not post these papers to offer a science opinion we would be left with an opion based on whatever is going round and round.

This is informative

Misconceptions about the Hubble recession law
Jul-09
http://adsabs.harvard.edu/doi/10.1007/s10509-009-0057-z

Almost all astronomers now believe that the Hubble recession law was directly inferred from astronomical observations. It turns out that this common belief is completely false. Those models advocating the idea of an expanding universe are ill-founded on observational grounds. This means that the Hubble recession law is really a working hypothesis. One alternative to the Hubble recession law is the tired-light hypothesis originally proposed by Zwicky (Proc. Nat. Acad. Sci. 15:773, <CitationRef CitationID="CR28">1929</CitationRef>). This hypothesis leads to a universe that is an eternal cosmos continually evolving without beginning or end. Such a universe exists in a dynamical state of virial equilibrium. Observational studies of the redshift-magnitude relation for Type Ia supernovae in distant galaxies might provide the best observational test for a tired-light cosmology. The present study shows that the model Hubble diagram for a tired-light cosmology gives good agreement with the supernovae data for redshifts in the range 0<z<2. This observational test of a static cosmology shows that the real universe is not necessarily undergoing expansion nor acceleration.

[Chris Peterson]

It seems we have a CHRIS Universe and if we have any alternative ideas to the Standard are wrong and should not be discussed.

There's nothing wrong with discussing alternative theories, as long as they really are scientific theories, and as long as everyone recognizes what alternative means: that they are less well supported, that they are not as good at explaining observations, that their predictions are less likely to have been tested, and that there is a higher burden on their proponents to demonstrate why and how they are better than the mainstream ideas they challenge.

[Chris Peterson]

Misconceptions about the Hubble recession law
Jul-09
http://adsabs.harvard.edu/doi/10.1007/s10509-009-0057-z

This paper suggests only that the highly discredited tired light hypothesis could, under a very contrived set of conditions, reproduce one particular class of observations conventionally attributed to the accelerated expansion of the Universe.

This is a good example of my previous reference to "alternative": the theory advanced by the paper offers no advantages over mainstream theory (that is, it doesn't do a better job of explaining observations), it requires conditions that have not been observed (massive quantities of intergalactic dust consisting of carbon needles), and it doesn't even address other reasons that the tired light hypothesis has been largely rejected. It's a weak paper, advancing a weak idea, and you can be pretty sure it isn't going to change many minds.

[makc]

If I did not post these papers to offer a science opinion we would be left with an opion based on whatever is going round and round.

so in other words you reject mainstream because it is mainstream?

[harry]

G'day Makc

You read my words out of context.

Science papers and science is one stream. Mainstream is sometimes used as a word to cover or to enforce science without facts.

The emotional direction of some science is not mainstream.

What is evidence? Is the issue in many papers.

Lets look at:

Misconceptions about the Hubble recession law
Jul-09
http://adsabs.harvard.edu/doi/10.1007/s10509-009-0057-z

Almost all astronomers now believe that the Hubble recession law was directly inferred from astronomical observations. It turns out that this common belief is completely false. Those models advocating the idea of an expanding universe are ill-founded on observational grounds. This means that the Hubble recession law is really a working hypothesis. One alternative to the Hubble recession law is the tired-light hypothesis originally proposed by Zwicky (Proc. Nat. Acad. Sci. 15:773, <CitationRef CitationID="CR28">1929</CitationRef>). This hypothesis leads to a universe that is an eternal cosmos continually evolving without beginning or end. Such a universe exists in a dynamical state of virial equilibrium. Observational studies of the redshift-magnitude relation for Type Ia supernovae in distant galaxies might provide the best observational test for a tired-light cosmology. The present study shows that the model Hubble diagram for a tired-light cosmology gives good agreement with the supernovae data for redshifts in the range 0<z<2. This observational test of a static cosmology shows that the real universe is not necessarily undergoing expansion nor acceleration.

[Chris Peterson]

Mainstream is sometimes used as a word to cover or to enforce science without facts.

It is only used that way by people, usually not scientists, who have a problem with mainstream theories. Science is never "covered" or "enforced", and it never operates without observations (facts).

Lets look at:
Misconceptions about the Hubble recession law
Jul-09
http://adsabs.harvard.edu/doi/10.1007/s10509-009-0057-z

Already looked at, already addressed in this discussion.

[Doum]

Quote from Harry: "You read my words out of context."


Harry, 2 years ago i told you that you were babling and i still think that you are. What ever the subject, you babble it. Black hole or galaxies formation or star formation. You dont understand any of it. To me, you look like someone who want to make a new religion. When will you convince them (Your follower if you have any i mean) to go to an asteroid passing close to earth by killing them all ( So they can join ...?) You are a non sense. That is why i stop answering you about all your black hole link. They dont support at all what you are saying. They denied it in fact. Why? Because you dont know a thing about black hole or star formation or galaxies or the univers in itself. Finaly i pity your childrens. I realy hope that they will get a freedom of mind. Because if not, they will be alone here in reality. Please give them back their freedom. Release them from your maddness. Opinion dont make science being truth. But science make the truth coming out to all. Close your mind and it is a doum day for you. lol. Anyway, i post this because i agree with Chris and apodman and al... Ehehehe. You make no sense when you write and your links does support mainstream. So if any young student read this, use your judment before giving credit to someone. Including me.

[apodman]

Of course the universe is really expanding.

Read the following articles in order:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Redshift
... including http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Redshift#E ... n_of_space
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metric_expansion_of_space
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FLRW_metric
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cosmological_constant
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dark_energy
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cosmic_inflation

Understanding the concepts and notation in these articles requires some physics and mathematics background.

Arguing against the ideas presented in these articles requires that you understand them.

Anyone who comes up with a quick refutation of the ideas presented without having the necessary background or taking the necessary time to review the ideas can not be taken seriously.

If you are brilliant enough to take on one of the points in one of the articles, be specific about what you are questioning and show in physical and mathematical terms that educated people can understand why it is wrong or in doubt.

Taking repeated random and aimless shots is not arguing, it's just irritating.

[makc]

Quote from Harry: "You read my words out of context."

Harry, 2 years ago i told you that you were babling and i still think that you are.

Yep, harry, I read your words in whole two years of context (or maybe that's more).

When will you convince them (Your follower if you have any i mean) to go to an asteroid passing close to earth by killing them all ( So they can join ...?) You are a non sense....

You want a warning, dont you.

Do we have warnings btw? Like, in soccer they have colored cards. Would be nice to have (electronic, at least) warning cards to send out to people.

[harry]

G'day from the land of ozzzz

So I do not agree with the expanding universe.

So what!!!

Just because a person does not agree does not give a right to another to insult.

There are thousands of fantastic explanations of expanding universe and the BBT and yet the evidence lacks scientific evidence that cannot be disputed.

Thank you DOUM for your emotional statement.
Next time place it towards evidence.

Is the UNiverse really expanding when we see Spiral galaxies and elliptical galaxies at 13.2 Gyrs. The time taken for any of these to form as per the Hubble sequence is greater than 13.7 Gyrs.

Than we have the super clusters of galaxies with thousands of galaxies.

The BBT cannot explain their formation.

[harry]

G'day from the land of ozzzzzz

If you have a comment that is based on science than I'm interested. Science is consistently testing alternative theories so that years from now the next generation will ask why we didn't question.

The cosmic age crisis and the Hubble constant in a non-expanding universe
Sep-08
http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2008Ap%26SS.317...45S

The present paper outlines a cosmological paradigm based upon Dirac’s large number hypothesis and continual creation of matter in a closed static (nonexpanding) universe. The cosmological redshift is caused by the tired-light phenomenon originally proposed by Zwicky. It is shown that the tired-light cosmology together with continual matter creation has a universal Hubble constant H 0=(512 π 2/3)1/6( GC 0)1/3 fixed by the universal rate C 0 of matter creation, where G is Newton’s gravitational constant. It is also shown that a closed static universe has a finite age τ 0=(243 π 5/8 GC 0)1/3 also fixed by the universal rate of matter creation. The invariant relationship H 0 τ 0=3 π 261/2 shows that a closed static universe is much older (≈one trillion years) than any expanding universe model based upon Big-Bang cosmology. It is this property of a static universe that resolves any cosmic age crisis provided that galaxy formation in the universe is a continual recurring process. Application of Dirac’s large number hypothesis gives a matter creation rate C 0=4.6×10‑48 gm cm‑3 s‑1 depending only on the fundamental constants of nature. Hence, the model shows that a closed static universe has a Hubble constant H 0=70 km s‑1 Mpc‑1 in good agreement with recent astronomical determinations of H 0. By using the above numerical value for H 0 together with observational data for elongated cellular-wall structures containing superclusters of galaxies, it is shown that the elongated cellular-wall configurations observed in the real universe are at least one hundred billion years old. Application of the microscopic laws of physics to the large-scale macroscopic universe leads to a static eternal cosmos endowed with a matter-antimatter symmetry. It is proposed that the matter-antimatter asymmetry is continuously created by particle-antiparticle pair annihilation occurring in episodic cosmological gamma-ray bursts observed in the real universe.

This will be my last post for some time.

[makc]

So I do not agree with the expanding universe.

So what!!!

That's a good question, and perhaps *YOU* should think about it

[The Code]

Quote from a link apodman posted:

It is also possible for a distance to exceed the speed of light times the age of the universe, which means that light from one part of space generated near the beginning of the Universe might still be arriving at distant locations (hence the cosmic microwave background radiation). These details are a frequent source of confusion among amateurs and even professional physicists.[1]

Perhaps a more complete assessment is that the interpretation of the metric expansion of space continues to provide paradoxes that are still a matter of debate. The prevailing view is that of Chodorowski: "unlike the expansion of the cosmic substratum, the expansion of space is unobservable".

Very interesting link apodman thanks...

It made me think of soda pop . Does expansion work in the same way? The expansion of carbon dioxide happens in all parts of the glass ...And can not be seen until the bubble forms.

[apodman]

Chodorowski ... cosmic substratum

Some interesting discussion about that:

http://www.space.com/common/forums/view ... 12&t=18859