A new way to measure the expansion of the universe

Jul 26, 2011
6df Galaxy Survey data, each dot is a galaxy and Earth is at the centre of the sphere. Image: The International Centre for Radio Astronomy Research

A PhD student from The International Centre for Radio Astronomy Research (ICRAR) in Perth has produced one of the most accurate measurements ever made of how fast the Universe is expanding.

Florian Beutler, a PhD candidate with ICRAR at the University of Western Australia, has calculated how fast the Universe is growing by measuring the .

"The Hubble constant is a key number in astronomy because it's used to calculate the size and ," said Mr Beutler.

As the Universe swells, it carries other galaxies away from ours. The Hubble constant links how fast galaxies are moving with how far they are from us.


Created by Paul Bourke from The University of Western Australia, this is a of the galaxies surveyed in the 6dfGS.  This is the survey data that was used to measure the Hubble constant with no systematic errors and excellent accuracy by ICRAR/UWA PhD Candidate Florian Beutler.

By analysing light coming from a distant galaxy, the speed and direction of that galaxy can be easily measured. Determining the galaxy's distance from Earth is much more difficult. Until now, this has been done by observing the brightness of individual objects within the galaxy and using what we know about the object to calculate how far away the galaxy must be.

This approach to measuring a galaxy's distance from Earth is based on some well-established assumptions but is prone to systematic errors, leading Mr Beutler to tackle the problem using a completely different method.

Published today in the Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, Mr Beutler's work draws on data from a survey of more than 125,000 galaxies carried out with the UK Schmidt Telescope in eastern Australia. Called the 6dF Galaxy Survey, this is the biggest survey to date of relatively nearby galaxies, covering almost half the sky.

Galaxies are not spread evenly through space, but are clustered. Using a measurement of the clustering of the surveyed, plus other information derived from observations of the early , Mr Beutler has measured the Hubble constant with an uncertainly of less than 5%.*

"This way of determining the Hubble constant is as direct and precise as other methods, and provides an independent verification of them," says Professor Matthew Colless, Director of the Australian Astronomical Observatory and one of Mr Beutler's co-authors. "The new measurement agrees well with previous ones, and provides a strong check on previous work."

The measurement can be refined even further by using data from larger galaxy surveys.

"Big surveys, like the one used for this work, generate numerous scientific outcomes for astronomers internationally," says Professor Lister Staveley-Smith, ICRAR's Deputy Director of Science.

Explore further: Astronomer confirms a new "Super-Earth" planet

More information: Florian Beutler et al. "The 6dF Galaxy Survey: Baryon Acoustic Oscillations and the Local Hubble Constant." Published in the Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society Journal, 25 July 2011.
onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10… 011.19250.x/abstract
(or for download from: arxiv.org/PS_cache/arxiv/pdf/1106/1106.3366v1.pdf PDF, 0.5MB)

Provided by International Centre for Radio Astronomy Research

4.6 /5 (20 votes)

Related Stories

'Big baby' galaxy found in newborn Universe

Sep 28, 2005

The NASA/ESA Hubble Space Telescope and NASA’s Spitzer Space Telescope have teamed up to 'weigh' the stars in distant galaxies. One of these galaxies is not only one of the most distant ever seen, but it appears to be unusually ...

Zeroing in on Hubble's constant

Jan 05, 2009

(PhysOrg.com) -- In the early part of the 20th Century, Carnegie astronomer Edwin Hubble discovered that the universe is expanding. The rate of expansion is known as the Hubble constant. Its precise value ...

Hubble Snaps Images of a Pinwheel-Shaped Galaxy

Feb 07, 2006

Looking like a child's pinwheel ready to be set a spinning by a gentle breeze, this dramatic spiral galaxy is one of the latest viewed by NASA's Hubble Space Telescope. Stunning details of the face-on spiral ...

Radio telescopes extend astronomy's best 'yardstick'

Jun 08, 2009

Radio astronomers have directly measured the distance to a faraway galaxy, providing a valuable "yardstick" for calibrating large astronomical distances and demonstrating a vital method that could help determine the elusive ...

Recommended for you

Kepler proves it can still find planets

Dec 18, 2014

To paraphrase Mark Twain, the report of the Kepler spacecraft's death was greatly exaggerated. Despite a malfunction that ended its primary mission in May 2013, Kepler is still alive and working. The evidence ...

User comments : 173

Adjust slider to filter visible comments by rank

Display comments: newest first

Au-Pu
1.2 / 5 (39) Jul 26, 2011
This should prove to be a logical nail in the coffin of the big bang theory.
It places us at the center of the visible sphere that we refer to as the visible universe.
That has a radius of 13.7 billion light years.
For beyond that distance the cumulative rate of expansion exceeds the speed of light and therefore those galaxies vanish from our visible universe, they pass beyond our visual horizon.
To find ourselves at the center of this sphere is logical.
But if we assume that there was a big bang 13.7 billion years ago, that would place us at the dead center of that big bang which would appear to be a preposterous suggestion.
However it would be a proposition that would appeal to the God freaks, but it should have little appeal to anyone else.
What it would or should be shouting is that the universe is vastly larger than the portion we can observe and that the age of the universe must be greater than the limit of our visual horizon, i.e. 13.7 billion years.
FrankHerbert
2.5 / 5 (85) Jul 26, 2011
There is no center.
Gawad
4.8 / 5 (35) Jul 26, 2011
The only problem with your reasoning, Au-Pu, is that it applies to every point in space in the universe, meaning the "center" is everywhere (which is menaingless) or nowhere at all. It's exactly like saying "where is the 'center' on the serface of a sphere?"
El_Nose
5 / 5 (12) Jul 26, 2011
@Au-Pu

No this does not change the estimated age of the universe.

For beyond that distance the cumulative rate of expansion exceeds the speed of light and therefore those galaxies vanish from our visible universe, they pass beyond our visual horizon.
To find ourselves at the center of this sphere is logical.But if we assume that there was a big bang 13.7 billion years ago, that would place us at the dead center of that big bang which would appear to be a preposterous suggestion.


Correct...

What it would or should be shouting is that the universe is vastly larger than the portion we can observe and that the age of the universe must be greater than the limit of our visual horizon, i.e. 13.7 billion years.


Incorrect ... Remember that the age of the universe is determined by the cosmic background microwave analysis and by many other studies that independently put the age squarely between 11 - 20 Byrs old. CMB - puts it around 13-15 Byrs old.

El_Nose
4.7 / 5 (17) Jul 26, 2011
It places us at the center of the visible sphere that we refer to as the visible universe.
That has a radius of 13.7 billion light years.


wrong -- the visible or observable universe is 46 Billion light years - for a sphere with a diameter of 93 Blyrs

remember that even though we can see an object -- doesn't mean that its still there. Due to the Hubble Constant we know that objects we see aren't still there... they have moved and figuring out where they actually are requires the acceptance that everything is accelerating away from each other.

Also remember that there are objects that are so far away - that we are moving away from each other faster than the speed of light, and we will never SEE them. Once again the Hubble Constant identifies this as true. Remember space itself can move FTL but in this case we are speaking of relative distances so this falls into special relativity -- ( bad explanation - right concept )
Temple
5 / 5 (17) Jul 26, 2011
Au-Pu:
[The visible universe] has a radius of 13.7 billion light years.


As others have pointed out this is incorrect. I'll offer another way of looking at this which will hopefully make it more clear for you (and others).

The furthest objects we see are about 13 billion years ago (let's say 13 for convenience). It did take the light 13 billion years to travel to us, and that light did travel 13 billion light-years (by definition).

However, two things are worth noting:

A) those objects were are not 13 billion light years away at present (they are further)
B) they weren't 13 billion light years away when the light was emitted (they were closer)

Odd, but true.

Continued...
Temple
4.8 / 5 (16) Jul 26, 2011
...continued.

Space has been expanding during that 13B years, And the distance the light had to travel grew as well. When the light left, that distance was less than 13B light-years, but it eventually grew to a total of 13B light-years.

Likewise the space 'behind' the light, the distance the light had travelled has been growing over those 13B years as well. After say 10B years, the light had indeed travelled 10B light-years, but if it could look back, it could 'see' that the space over which it had travelled had grown behind it. That 10B light-years had become greater than that.

So, after 13B years of travel, the distance the light had put down had actually grown to much greater than 13B light-years, even though the light had only travelled over 13B light-years worth of it while it was passing.

This is how the 'edge' of the sphere that we call the 'visible universe' can be 13B years old, but ~45B light-years away.
Codeofuniverse
1.6 / 5 (14) Jul 26, 2011
Till today nobody knows the exact size of universe and if we do not know the exact size of any object then how we can determine whether that object is expanding or synchronizing..
BlankVellum
4.6 / 5 (11) Jul 26, 2011
@Au-Pu

You clearly don't have the first idea what the big bang theory states. It doesn't place us at the center, because there is no center. Were you observing the universe from a galaxy several million light years away, using similar techniques, you would arrive at exactly the same conclusion: that the universe is expanding equally in all directions at a rate that is proportional to distance. This is because the universe is isotropic. It is the centerpiece of the cosmological principle, a version of the principle of mediocrity.

Also, the fact that the universe is most likely much larger than what we can observe does not mean that the universe is older than the currently accepted estimate.
SteveL
2 / 5 (4) Jul 26, 2011
Also, the fact that the universe is most likely much larger than what we can observe does not mean that the universe is older than the currently accepted estimate.
Why is this? Did the universe expand at a rate faster than light? Every measurement I've seen referenced has used the energy signatures only from within our local detectable sphere. It seems as if we are saying that if we cannot see it, it cannot exist. I remember in developmental psychology if you hide something from an average toddler (younger than 14 - 16 months of age) what is hidden does not exist for them because their brain cannot process what has been hidden.
BlankVellum
5 / 5 (13) Jul 26, 2011
@SteveL

Why is this? Did the universe expand at a rate faster than light?


Yes. Special relativity constrains objects within the universe from expanding faster than the speed of light with respect to each other. However, there is no such constraint on space itself. This means that galaxies beyond our cosmic horizon are currently receding from us at faster than light speed.

It seems as if we are saying that if we cannot see it, it cannot exist.


Not at all. it's generally accepted that the universe is much larger than what we can currently observe. The light from distant galaxies that our now receding from us FTL will never be able to reach us. We will only ever be able to see the light that left just before it's source receded beyond our cosmic horizon.

BlankVellum
5 / 5 (8) Jul 26, 2011
Correction:

"Special relativity constrains objects within the universe from expanding faster than the speed of light "

Should be:

"Special relativity constrains objects within the universe from MOVING faster than the speed of light"
SteveL
not rated yet Jul 26, 2011
"Special relativity constrains objects within the universe from MOVING faster than the speed of light"
With respect to the reference of their sphere, correct?

If the universe's extent is unknown, and beyond the ~13.75 billion light year sphere we can detect, it is moving away from us faster than the speed of light and we can only suppose at an ever accellerating rate, then what possible force could cause the retraction and crunch that some theorise?
Moebius
2 / 5 (12) Jul 26, 2011
There is no center.


Want to bet?
BlankVellum
5 / 5 (4) Jul 26, 2011
@SteveL

With respect to the reference of their sphere, correct?


I think you mean frame of reference. And yes.

then what possible force could cause the retraction and crunch that some theorise?


As the universe appears to be expanding at an accelerating rate (possibly due to the negative vacuum energy), it appears unlikely that the universe will end in a big crunch, instead trending towards maximum entropy and heat death forever after. Of course, forever is time enough for an infinity of Poincaré recurrences, but that remains speculative (http:/arxiv.org/abs/hep-th/0208013).
thermodynamics
3 / 5 (2) Jul 26, 2011
BlankVellum: You say: "Special relativity constrains objects within the universe from expanding faster than the speed of light with respect to each other. However, there is no such constraint on space itself. This means that galaxies beyond our cosmic horizon are currently receding from us at faster than light speed." Can you please supply a reference for this view? I believe that if you use relativity to look at the forces required for expansion you will find that the velocity of space and objects in that space will asymptotically approach C and cannot exceed C without requiring infinite force. This comes from the effective increase in mass of any massive object as it approaches the speed of light. This is the reason that objects with mass cannot be accelerated to the speed of light and also the reason any object moving at the speed of light has to be massless. As we add force to accelerate an object it increases mass.
BlankVellum
4.6 / 5 (11) Jul 26, 2011
@thermodynamics

If the galaxies themselves were moving with respect to each other, special relativity would apply and they would not be able to exceed c. However, it is not the galaxies that are moving (at least they are, but not anywhere near c), it is space itself which is expanding, which is not subject to the universal speed limit.

See here:

http://www.astro....html#FTL

You may also be interested in the following:

http://curious.as...mber=575
thermodynamics
5 / 5 (3) Jul 26, 2011
BlankVelum: Great references. I have some reading to do. My special relativity needs some upgrading.
Pressure2
1.3 / 5 (7) Jul 26, 2011
Some one mentioned that we compare the expansion of the universe to the expanding surface on a sphere. If it we did that wouldn't we see a difference in the universe when looking in the six directions?

Then again if we compare it to a loaf of rising raisin bread wouldn't the universe have to be older than the accepted figure of 13.7 billion years unless we happened to be at the exact center? Here again the only way we would not notice a difference in the 6 directions would be because (1) we are at the center or (2) the universe is older than the 13.7 billion years commonly accepted.
omatumr
1.5 / 5 (15) Jul 26, 2011
There is no center.


Want to bet?


If the universe is infinite and cyclic, as now suspected, there my be no "center point" or every point may be a "center point."

See: "Is the Universe Expanding?"
The Journal of Cosmology 13, 4187-4190 (2011):

http://journalofc...102.html

With kind regards,
Oliver K. Manuel
Former NASA Principal
Investigator for Apollo
Deesky
5 / 5 (2) Jul 26, 2011
Some one mentioned that we compare the expansion of the universe to the expanding surface on a sphere. If it we did that wouldn't we see a difference in the universe when looking in the six directions?

What are the six directions?? Don't forget, the sphere analogy is just that, an imperfect comparison, so don't take it too literally.

Then again if we compare it to a loaf of rising raisin bread wouldn't the universe have to be older than the accepted figure of 13.7 billion years unless we happened to be at the exact center?

That's an even more flawed analogy, but even so, I don't follow your reasoning. Care to expand?
El_Nose
5 / 5 (1) Jul 26, 2011
actually the surface of the sphere is not a flawed analogy it is a perfect analogy -- we can comprehend 1 and 2 dimensions with easy - but even though we live in three dimensions we do not conceptualize it well. you thing of the universe as a sphere because you understand the concept of a planet and try to force you concept of space on that ball ... but if 3d space were a really big black marker smudge on a flat balloon when you blow up the balloon with air it is a perfect analogy tothe big bang all of the black mark gets bigger at the same time AND every piece is getting farther from every other piece -- and you still have six directions on the surface -- if you can only figure out four you haven't mapped every axis and i do not know how to explain that in words.. sorry

-- the universe is flat -- the earth is round - and everything spins
Deesky
5 / 5 (3) Jul 27, 2011
actually the surface of the sphere is not a flawed analogy it is a perfect analogy

It is flawed because laypeople people can simply say, well the sphere does have a center - right there in the middle (invoking the third dimension). The universe does not.

when you blow up the balloon with air it is a perfect analogy tothe big bang

No, it isn't perfect. For the same reason I already mentioned, it leads people to believe that universe is expanding from a single point (the inflating balloon's center) which further implies that an explosion occurred at a point in space at the start of the universe. Also not true.

As I say, these are useful visualization devices, but they are flawed and the flaws should always be highlighted in order not to mislead the uninformed.
frajo
4 / 5 (4) Jul 27, 2011
Some one mentioned that we compare the expansion of the universe to the expanding surface on a sphere. If it we did that wouldn't we see a difference in the universe when looking in the six directions?

This is a useful comparison between a 2D surface (without any center within that 2D surface) und a 3D universe (without any center within that 3D volume).
The price to pay: Your 2D surface has only four directions to look out, not six. The additional directions (under and over the 2D surface) are past and future, not space.

Then again if we compare it to a loaf of rising raisin bread
This comparison only visualizes how distances between all raisins can increase although they are not moving through the bread. No timing comparison possible.
Pressure2
1.1 / 5 (9) Jul 27, 2011
In every direction the universe looks the same, it is flat. Six directions is just a simplification of the infinite number of directions we can look.

If we are not in the center of the universe it has to be older than the 13.7 years because there would have had to been previous expansion taking place to get us to a point outside the center and still have 13.7 years of viewing on all sides.

The Big Bang universe cannot be infinite, how can infinity expand?


SteveL
not rated yet Jul 27, 2011
Thank you BlankVellum, you have been very helpful.

If outer (universal) space is expanding, could galactic and even inner (sub-atomic) space also be expanding, but we just have not detected it?
vidyunmaya
1 / 5 (9) Jul 27, 2011
Sub:Earth Centered to Heart of universe
The Expansion of Knowledge frame is linked to Center and Heart of Univrse- identified by me at 100,000 ly beyond milky way.
Earth-centered Projections-form incomplete plaform .So also sun-Centered platform. today one needs to WHAT DRIVES SUN ?.The astronomy needs to catch-up with Cosmology studies beyond Milky-way. this is crucial for Science to develop space Vision.the problems have been pointed out to eSA groups recently.
SPACE VISION-OM-COSMOLOGICAL INDEX-By Vidyardhi Nanduri-TXU 1-731-970 SPACE SCIENCE-Reports Cover [ESA]-2010- Environment-Sensex-Earth-Glow-Sun Life-Significance
Human Being in-depth-Milky-way Sensex-Aditya links
1.ENVIRONMENT SENSEX-EARTH'S GLOW-SUN-LIFE SIGNIFICANCE -VIDYARDHI NANDURI...PPT-27
2.SUN TO ADITYA-COSMOLOGY VEDAS INTERLINKS VIDYARDHI NANDURI..PPT-27
3.COSMOLOGICAL INDEX-MILKYWAY SENSEX-VISIBLE -INVISIBLE MATRIX
By VIDYARDI NANDURI 2010..PPT-33
http://vidyardhic...spot.com
BlankVellum
4.3 / 5 (6) Jul 27, 2011
@SteveL

If outer (universal) space is expanding, could galactic and even inner (sub-atomic) space also be expanding, but we just have not detected it?


No, bound structures such as galaxies or atoms are not themselves expanding. The expansion of the universe only applies on vast scales, at least as large as galaxy clusters. For a much better explanation than I could give, see here:

http://math.ucr.e...rse.html
LivaN
4.5 / 5 (4) Jul 27, 2011
Pressure2
In every direction the universe looks the same, it is flat. Six directions is just a simplification of the infinite number of directions we can look.

I stand to correction, but the universe is not flat.
Six directions is not a simplification, just as a 2D graph with an X and Y axis has only four directions. There can however be infinite COMBINATIONS of directions (infinite possible angles between two axes).

If we are not in the center of the universe it has to be older than the 13.7 years because there would have had to been previous expansion taking place to get us to a point outside the center and still have 13.7 years of viewing on all sides.

Imagine a spherical balloon with a dot drawn on it. Imagine a circle with radius X centred on the dot. Imagine moving the dot and circle until you reach a point on the balloon where the radius in any directions from the dot to the circle edge is not X. Where is this point?
LivaN
1.3 / 5 (3) Jul 27, 2011
Pressure2
The Big Bang universe cannot be infinite, how can infinity expand?

It is not infinite. It is finite with no boundaries.
pauldentler
1.6 / 5 (7) Jul 27, 2011
From all appearences in redshift calculations, 13.7 lightyears is the visible distance we can see in any direction from Earth to the most distant visible objects. If you draw a circle as being representative of the visible universe, the radius of that circle is 13.7 LY. The diameter of that circle would be double the radius, 27.4 LY. At first glance this creates a false impression that Earth was created at the the center of the Universe, something that is an unimaginable mathematical probability.

Therefore the minimum age of the universe must be 27.4 LY.

pauldentler
1 / 5 (1) Jul 27, 2011
Whoops, forgot to add billion to my previous post for 13.7 & 27.4 LY as the minimum radius & diameter of the visible Universe.
SteveL
2 / 5 (1) Jul 27, 2011
Good link there BlankVellum.

That "Hubble's Constant" is not so constant. In Hubbls's day it was 550km/s/Mpc with current estimates from 40-100km/s/Mpc. This amount of variance leaves a lot of room for opinion vs. fact concerning how fast the Hubble Flow actually is.

Has anyone ever calculated the velocities in reverse?
pauldentler
not rated yet Jul 27, 2011
Good link there BlankVellum.

That "Hubble's Constant" is not so constant. In Hubbls's day it was 550km/s/Mpc with current estimates from 40-100km/s/Mpc. This amount of variance leaves a lot of room for opinion vs. fact concerning how fast the Hubble Flow actually is.

......and what about the rate of "dark flow" galaxies that are way out of whack with "Hubbles Costant"?

Has anyone ever calculated the velocities in reverse?

BlankVellum
5 / 5 (8) Jul 27, 2011
@pauldentler

At first glance this creates a false impression that Earth was created at the the center of the Universe


No, it doesn't. You are assuming that the universe is a 3 dimensional ball with only one frame of reference (us, at the center). Because the universe is isotropic, ANY observer, in ANY galaxy, would reach exactly the same conclusion.

Therefore the minimum age of the universe must be 27.4 LY.


This doesn't follow from your original argument. You are assuming that the universe is static, which it isn't. It is dynamic, and evolves in time. Galaxies that we currently observe billions of light years away were once much much closer to us.

The age of 13.75 billion years is our current best estimate based on the recessional velocities of galaxies (using Hubble's constant), and works within the Lambda-CDM model (a model that has strong observational backing from projects such as WMAP).

BlankVellum
5 / 5 (9) Jul 27, 2011
@pauldentler

[and what about the rate of "dark flow" galaxies that are way out of whack with "Hubbles Costant"?


It appears to be caused by the Great Attractor, or similar region of large mass which the dark flow galaxies are moving towards.

@SteveL

That "Hubble's Constant" is not so constant. In Hubbls's day it was 550km/s/Mpc with current estimates from 40-100km/s/Mpc.


Hubble's constant definitely isn't a constant in the strict sense, you're right. However, the figure that Hubble himself derived was most likely the result of imprecision in the measurements, a result of the limited technology available at the time. Much more recent measurements from the HST (using IR and gravitational lensing analysis) and WMAP reveal that Hubble's constant is around 71(km/s)/Mpc. If the universe has been expanding (which seems likely), the 'constant' would have been smaller in the early universe, although not by much.
Pressure2
1 / 5 (1) Jul 27, 2011
Quote LivaN:
"Imagine a spherical balloon with a dot drawn on it. Imagine a circle with radius X centred on the dot. Imagine moving the dot and circle until you reach a point on the balloon where the radius in any directions from the dot to the circle edge is not X. Where is this point?"
I would say no place, but show me where.
Gawad
4.5 / 5 (8) Jul 27, 2011
actually the surface of the sphere is not a flawed analogy it is a perfect analogy

It is flawed because laypeople people can simply say, well the sphere does have a center - right there in the middle (invoking the third dimension). The universe does not.

Actually, it does, Deesky: that center isn't a flaw in the analogy, quite the contrary. In the analogy that center represents the begining of Time (technically, the begining of space-time).

This *does* require a bit of abstract thinking on the part of laypeople, but that center is, IMO, half of what makes the analogy so compelling. The other half being that it lets someone understand that it's the space between the galaxies that is increasing (on average) and not just the galaxies hurtling away from each other in a pre-existing space.
Gawad
4.2 / 5 (5) Jul 27, 2011
actually the surface of the sphere is not a flawed analogy it is a perfect analogy -- we can comprehend 1 and 2 dimensions with easy - but even though we live in three dimensions we do not conceptualize it well.

I believe it would be more accurate to say that the problem is we are limited by three *spatial* dimensions, but that we live in 4 dimensions (3 plus 1) and that THAT makes it impossible to visualize a finite unbound space "wrapped" around time. By just reducing all that to 2 plus 1 dimensions the model becomes possible to visualize. (BTW, that doesn't mean the math is the same in 3 plus 1 and 2 plus 1 so think of this as a conceptual aid.)
SteveL
5 / 5 (2) Jul 27, 2011
Imagine a 1m^3 box of ping pong balls. We are in the center of just one of those ping pong balls. "Our" ping pong ball encompasses all we can ever see or detect. We are surrounded by other ping pong balls. That's a way of looking at this.

However, this analogy also not entirely accurate. Any other point anywhere else in the universe is the center of its own ping pong ball and is its own center reference.
pauldentler
5 / 5 (2) Jul 27, 2011
@BlankVellum,

I mis-stated earlier what I meant about the 27.4 b-LY of the visible universe. What I intended to say is the "size" of the universe must be a minimum 27.4 b-LY, not it's age. It's age of course being a minimum of 13.7 b-LY.
SteveL
5 / 5 (1) Jul 27, 2011
@ BlankVellum - From that link you provided:

"By the way, Hubble's constant, is not, in spite of its name, constant in time. In fact, it is decreasing. Imagine a galaxy D light-years from the Earth, receding at a velocity V = H*D. D is always increasing because of the recession. But does V increase? No. In fact, V is decreasing. (If you are fond of Newtonian analogies, you could say that "gravitational attraction" is causing this deceleration. But be warned: some general relativists would object strenuously to this way of speaking.) So H is going down over time. But it is constant over space, i.e., it is the same number for all distant objects as we observe them today."

The article stating that the velocity of universal expansion is decreasing?
BlankVellum
5 / 5 (5) Jul 27, 2011
@SteveL

The article states it's comments regarding the Hubble Constant are out of date. It's only been in the last 10 years or so that we have discovered that the universe is expanding at an accelerating rate.
Davoguha
1.4 / 5 (5) Jul 27, 2011
If everything in our universe is growing consistently more separate from everything else in our universe, that in itself is proof that there is some sort of center. If you look at the idea of an expanding sphere, if everything expands proportionate to its center, nothing gets closer to anything unless its direction has been somehow changed.
BlankVellum
5 / 5 (6) Jul 27, 2011
@Davoguha

The universe is not a 3 dimensional sphere. It's geometry is much more abstract than that. Put it this way: at this moment you're sitting exactly where the big bang took place. So am I. So it Andromeda. Pick any point in space, and the big bang happened there. That is because at the big bang all points of space where just one point (or so the LCDM model suggests).
pauldentler
3.5 / 5 (4) Jul 27, 2011
If everything in our universe is growing consistently more separate from everything else in our universe, that in itself is proof that there is some sort of center. If you look at the idea of an expanding sphere, if everything expands proportionate to its center, nothing gets closer to anything unless its direction has been somehow changed.


But you see the problem is that not everything is expanding proportionate to "a center". If this were true galactic collisions would never occur. I remember there was a time when it was hypothesized galactic collisions could never occurred, then along came the Hubble telescope & we discover they are a common event. Prior to Hubble, the hypothesis that led to the belief galactic collisions could never occur was due to the effects of the expanding explosive forces of the "big bang" which proportionately drives everything apart from its center, there were a lot of stunned astronomers back then stunned to see this violation of the "big bang".
pauldentler
1.8 / 5 (4) Jul 27, 2011
.....so if the "big bang" is not the driving force of the motion(s)of galaxies within the Universe, something else is. Need I again bring our attention to "galactic dark flow" which is way out of proportion to Hubble's Constant of an ever expanding Universe. Explosive forces drive things apart so fast it is never possible for their vectors to intersect, but that is not what the present observations are bearing witness to.

Deesky
4.3 / 5 (8) Jul 27, 2011
Actually, it does, Deesky: that center isn't a flaw in the analogy, quite the contrary. In the analogy that center represents the begining of Time (technically, the begining of space-time).

And that is totally wrong! I see people draw wrong conclusions from this all the time. As proof, look at the post made by Davoguha:

"If everything in our universe is growing consistently more separate from everything else in our universe, that in itself is proof that there is some sort of center. If you look at the idea of an *expanding sphere*, if everything expands proportionate to its *center*..."

BlankVellum had to correct this false view by replying:

"The universe is not a 3 dimensional sphere. It's geometry is much more abstract than that. "

These sort of misconceptions happen all the time because the concepts are difficult to grasp and the analogies, while having some utility, are flawed. That's all I was trying to highlight.
Deesky
5 / 5 (4) Jul 27, 2011
.....so if the "big bang" is not the driving force of the motion(s)of galaxies within the Universe, something else is.

Initial inflation and dark energy are the principal 'movers' in the universe's expansion, so in the sense that it all arose out of the BB, it is causally responsible.

Need I again bring our attention to "galactic dark flow" which is way out of proportion to Hubble's Constant of an ever expanding Universe. Explosive forces drive things apart so fast it is never possible for their vectors to intersect, but that is not what the present observations are bearing witness to.

Explosive forces were never the drivers of expansion. The BB wasn't a ballistic explosion.

Dark Flow doesn't affect all matter in the universe, just a subset stream of matter, which is assumed to be gravitationally attracted by even larger masses that are apparently located beyond the horizon of the observable universe. That's about all we can say about it for now.
ziphead
4.6 / 5 (9) Jul 27, 2011
There is no center.


Want to bet?


Someone choosing to call oneself Moebius believes that Universe has a center? What gives?
bluehigh
1 / 5 (3) Jul 27, 2011
what a narrow minded view. so deesky you want to trash useful analogies and tell people 'oh, its very complex and only I deesky can comprehend the nature of the universe'.

That's about all we can say about it for now.


- thats all YOU can say about it for now.
pauldentler
1 / 5 (3) Jul 27, 2011

"Explosive forces were never the drivers of expansion. The BB wasn't a ballistic explosion."

If you'd have made this statement on this site ten years ago, you would have been the focus of derision of some of the most prominent posters presently posting on this site. "Dark" everything is beginning to overwhelm the bright flash of the "big bang", it'll be interesting to see how much further the bulb will dim before it is again revived in a hundred or so more years.

Gawad
4.3 / 5 (6) Jul 27, 2011
In the analogy that center represents the begining of...space-time.
And that is totally wrong!
I beg to differ. What's "totally wrong" about it? It's just reducing by one dimension.
I see people draw wrong conclusions from this all the time.
They just haven't understood, or had it explained correctly.
As proof
It's an example.
look at the post made by Davoguha:

"If everything in our universe is growing consistently more separate from everything else in our universe, that in itself is proof that there is some sort of center. ...everything expands proportionate to its *center*..."
Well? He's right except he hasn't caught the sense of the Z D in the analogy.
BlankVellum had to correct this false view by replying:

"The universe is not a 3 dimensional sphere. It's geometry is much more abstract than that. "
So? That's the whole point: it's only a 3D sphere when reduced by 1D. The actual 4D shape is hyperbolic. But Hyper functions won't help Davoguha.
Deesky
5 / 5 (3) Jul 28, 2011
what a narrow minded view. so deesky you want to trash useful analogies

Reading comprehension - one of the first things I posted was:

"As I say, these are useful visualization devices, but they are flawed and the flaws should always be highlighted in order not to mislead the uninformed".

thats all YOU can say about it for now.

What of any use can YOU say about it?
bluehigh
1 / 5 (2) Jul 28, 2011
.. the flaws should always be highlighted in order not to mislead the uninformed"


More like you just want to confuse and thereby feed your ego some more.
Deesky
5 / 5 (4) Jul 28, 2011
"Explosive forces were never the drivers of expansion. The BB wasn't a ballistic explosion."

If you'd have made this statement on this site ten years ago, you would have been the focus of derision of some of the most prominent posters presently posting on this site.

Define prominent. Cranks or the scientifically informed? I certainly would not have been derided by the latter group.

"Dark" everything is beginning to overwhelm the bright flash of the "big bang"

The 'dark' descriptor is just a placeholder for detectable phenomena which cannot be fully described, as yet.

it'll be interesting to see how much further the bulb will dim before it is again revived in a hundred or so more years.

Eh? What bulb? Before what is revived?
Deesky
5 / 5 (2) Jul 28, 2011
.. the flaws should always be highlighted in order not to mislead the uninformed"


More like you just want to confuse and thereby feed your ego some more.

Sigh. Yes, because attempting to clarify difficult concepts always leads to confusion and egotism!
Deesky
5 / 5 (2) Jul 28, 2011
I beg to differ. What's "totally wrong" about it?

Gawad, I have already explained that, including examples of people in this thread with misconceptions arising from a too literal interpretation. Various physics forums are littered with similar and persistent misconceptions.
bluehigh
1.2 / 5 (9) Jul 28, 2011
When YOU Deesky attempt to clarify anything people get confused. Good communicators often successfully explain complex subjects. One of which you are not. Keep feeding your oversized ego and space will have to expand just to accommodate you.

Deesky
5 / 5 (2) Jul 28, 2011
When YOU Deesky attempt to clarify anything people get confused. Good communicators often successfully explain complex subjects. One of which you are not. Keep feeding your oversized ego and space will have to expand just to accommodate you.

Class!
LivaN
not rated yet Jul 28, 2011
Pressure2
I would say no place, but show me where.


There is no place, that's the point. The balloon is our universe, the dot is our plannet and the circle is our observable universe. See your comment below.

Pressure2
If we are not in the center of the universe it has to be older than the 13.7 years because there would have had to been previous expansion taking place to get us to a point outside the center and still have 13.7 years of viewing on all sides.
jsa09
not rated yet Jul 28, 2011
Three things:
1) Expanding space in universe should create accelerating rate of expansion NOT a constant rate or expansion.

2) Gravity of objects in universe acting on each other will cause objects to fall towards each other at a rate that is the sum of the gravity in all directions. All directions being almost equal then the sum of this gravity should be almost zero over all.

3) The Expanding surface of sphere analogy seems to work alright as long as people stick to the SURFACE of the sphere ONLY.


Furthermore space expansion as has been pointed out several times - and quite clearly and concisely at least twice will mean that the universe is quite a bit bigger than what we can see.
jsa09
not rated yet Jul 28, 2011
I got interrupted. To clarify the confusion, the size of the Universe does not stand still, therefore what you see is not the same as what IS NOW.

What you see is what was, and "what was" has been distorted by space expansion. Hubbles constant is a measurement now of that distortion.

The Hubbles constant is time dependent.

Since space is expanding at a rate that appears to be dependent on the volume of space therefore one would have to say that the Hubbles constant would be a function rather than a constant.
frajo
3.8 / 5 (9) Jul 28, 2011
In the analogy that center represents the begining of...space-time.
And that is totally wrong!
I beg to differ. What's "totally wrong" about it? It's just reducing by one dimension.

I side with Gawad.
We have to distinguish between two different problems here:
The easy one being the layman's difficulty to visualize expanding 3D space without an expansion center.
The advanced one being the non-mathematician's problem with the definition of the term "sphere": An n-dimensional sphere is the set of all points having the same distance from some given point in an (n 1)-dimensional space - that's why a sphere is a surface, not a ball.

Hence only the 2D surface, and not the complete 3D volume, of the expanding balloon in the analogon represents the expanding 3D space of the universe.
Whereas the center point of the 3D ball enclosed by the 2D surface represents the (hypothetized) spacetime center of the universe, called BigBang.
frajo
2.3 / 5 (3) Jul 28, 2011
The string "(n 1)-dimensional space" was meant to read
"( n plus 1 ) - dimensional space".

Edited it two times within the allowed 3 minute window - to no avail.
Magnette
not rated yet Jul 28, 2011
Imagine a 1m^3 box of ping pong balls. We are in the center of just one of those ping pong balls. "Our" ping pong ball encompasses all we can ever see or detect. We are surrounded by other ping pong balls. That's a way of looking at this.

However, this analogy also not entirely accurate. Any other point anywhere else in the universe is the center of its own ping pong ball and is its own center reference.


After a good few hours reading that this thread has just caused me can I assume that the expansion would be modelled by an increasing gap between your ping pong balls as it's space that's expanding and not the galaxies?
Is the rate of expansion constant for all directions or am I completely misinterpreting the data?
Pressure2
1 / 5 (1) Jul 28, 2011
Pressure2
I would say no place, but show me where.


There is no place, that's the point. The balloon is our universe, the dot is our plannet and the circle is our observable universe. See your comment below.

Pressure2
If we are not in the center of the universe it has to be older than the 13.7 years because there would have had to been previous expansion taking place to get us to a point outside the center and still have 13.7 years of viewing on all sides.

Would the same be true if the point (us) were somewhere inside the sphere? This the universe we observe not the sphere analogy.
pauldentler
not rated yet Jul 28, 2011
"Explosive forces were never the drivers of expansion. The BB wasn't a ballistic explosion."

If you'd have made this statement on this site ten years ago, you would have been the focus of derision of some of the most prominent posters presently posting on this site.

Define prominent. Cranks or the scientifically informed? I certainly would not have been derided by the latter group.

"Dark" everything is beginning to overwhelm the bright flash of the "big bang"

The 'dark' descriptor is just a placeholder for detectable phenomena which cannot be fully described, as yet.

it'll be interesting to see how much further the bulb will dim before it is again revived in a hundred or so more years.

Eh? What bulb? Before what is revived?


The point being that the bright flash of the "big bang" has been reduced to "inflation", this is to say cosmology is evolving as new data brings into question the overly simplistic hypotheses of a big bang.
Gawad
4 / 5 (5) Jul 28, 2011
I beg to differ. What's "totally wrong" about it?

Gawad, I have already explained that, including examples of people in this thread with misconceptions arising from a too literal interpretation. Various physics forums are littered with similar and persistent misconceptions.

O.k., well I think this is what had me scratching my head. When you characterized the analogy as "totally wrong" I thought you were referring to something intrinsic about it, when in fact you appear to be concerned about the ability of individuals to grasp the concept through /that/ analogy. As Frajo wrote, these are 2 different issues. An analogy is not, by definition, in a perfect 1 to 1 correspondence with what it purports to elucidate, so I think you may be asking a bit much. However, if you have an alternative to this one (the rising loaf is worse IMO since it really does maintain a spatial center) I really would love to know it. Anything that makes it easier to get the concept across.
SteveL
5 / 5 (4) Jul 28, 2011
@ Magnette: "After a good few hours reading that this thread has just caused me can I assume that the expansion would be modelled by an increasing gap between your ping pong balls as it's space that's expanding and not the galaxies?
Is the rate of expansion constant for all directions or am I completely misinterpreting the data?"

Per my understanding, yes. However, remember that every point in the universe, whether we can detect it or not, is the center of its own expanding sphere.

Apparently only the interglactic distances appear to be accelerating, with some exceptions. There are a few galaxies that appear to be gravitationally attracted to each other and are temporarily resisting the trend of accerating expansion. We should not expect that Andromeda and our galaxy are unique.
Gawad
4 / 5 (4) Jul 28, 2011
After a good few hours reading that this thread has just caused me can I assume that the expansion would be modelled by an increasing gap between your ping pong balls as it's space that's expanding and not the galaxies?
Is the rate of expansion constant for all directions or am I completely misinterpreting the data?

Over time, the ping pong balls are growing (our horizon is getting bigger in all directions as more light reaches us). The ping pong balls are also moving further away as space expands, and at an accelerating rate.

One important things to remember: each point in space is at the center of its own "ping pong ball".
SteveL
5 / 5 (1) Jul 28, 2011
That video would make a nice screen saver.
Gawad
4.2 / 5 (5) Jul 28, 2011
The point being that the bright flash of the "big bang" has been reduced to "inflation", this is to say cosmology is evolving as new data brings into question the overly simplistic hypotheses of a big bang.
Inflation wasn't a reduction, it was a supplement to solve outstanding problems with the original BB: horizon and flatness fine-tuning. But inflation isn't without problems of its own. Paul Steinhardt wrote a very good article for Scientific American a few months ago on the shortcomings of Inflation. If you aren't a subscriber, you can get the gist of the problems here:

http://www.nature...BX1.html

Use the "previous box" & "next box" buttons to navigate.

There was also the magnetic-monopole problem of the GUT days, but let's say it's not the brightest move to propose a cosmological hypothesis to solve a problem with a hypothetical particle. (Doc! I think I'm sick! Doc: Great! I think I have a cure! WTF?)
pauldentler
1.5 / 5 (4) Jul 28, 2011
[q Over time, the ping pong balls are growing (our horizon is getting bigger in all directions as more light reaches us). The ping pong balls are also moving further away as space expands, and at an accelerating rate.


If the ping pong balls are moving further apart, then please try (?) to explain the proliferation of colliding galaxies, they are not an anomaly. Andromeda galaxy is blue shifted to collide with the Milky Way in 2-4 billion years, a collision of a couple of ping pong balls that will have immediate consequences for life on this planet as we know it.

When the "big bang" theory was postulated, the expert cosmologists of that time were adamant that such an explosive force would preclude even the remotest possibility of galactic collisions because the nature of that explosive force would forever drive galaxies apart from one another with increasing distance over time, these are the "big bang purists" who are as closed minded as the 5000 year creationists.
Gawad
4.3 / 5 (6) Jul 28, 2011
@pauldentler:

If the ping pong balls are moving further apart, then please try (?) to explain the proliferation of colliding galaxies, they are not an anomaly.
The "ping pong balls" are ~90G ly across! The collisions happen within *gravitationally bound* galaxy clusters (the clusters aren't expanding) inside that volume.

Andromeda galaxy [will] collide with the Milky Way in 2-4 billion years, a collision of a couple of ping pong balls
The balls are HUBBLE VOLUMES, not individual galaxies!

that will have immediate consequences for life on this planet as we know it
No worries, we probably won't feel a thing.

When the "big bang" theory was postulated, the expert cosmologists of that time
That was 80 yrs ago! Try meeting with us in the 21st century.
were adamant that such an explosive force would preclude even the remotest possibility of galactic collisions

Even it this were so, they had no idea about the cluster distribution of matter within the horizon.
thermodynamics
5 / 5 (3) Jul 28, 2011
@pauldentler:

You said: "Explosive forces drive things apart so fast it is never possible for their vectors to intersect, but that is not what the present observations are bearing witness to."

Actually, some vectors within a real explosion do intersect due to turbulence. Also, the microwave background shows that, if there was an initial big bang it was very hot. The current explanation in models of the initial fractions of a second after the big bang is that the explosion was very uniform but did have asymmetric components that caused the variation in the microwave background. So, under those conditions it is not at all unlikely that vectors would be turbulent in nature and be able to intersect. In general, the larger components would be moving apart. I am not making an argument for a hot BB at all (I don't have the background for that). However, I do have the background for standard explosions and intersections of vectors is commonplace.
Darktide
not rated yet Jul 28, 2011
I have a theory that explains the acceleration of expansion.

The universe consists primarily of infinite black holes. These scale upwards to every possible size, there are infinity of them. Some suck up others. Ect.

Eventually two interact in some rare way where their energy is liberated (Less unlikely than The Big Bang where there is just one singularity / no time / and it explodes for no possibly explainable reason). This creates the known universe and is virtually indistinguishable from "the big bang" explosion so it causes the cosmic background radiation.

All the other black holes are still there, pulling all the liberated energy outwards. Accelerating the rate the energy released moves away from the point of the explosion.
pauldentler
not rated yet Jul 28, 2011
@pauldentler:

You said: "Explosive forces drive things apart so fast it is never possible for their vectors to intersect, but that is not what the present observations are bearing witness to."

Actually, some vectors within a real explosion do intersect due to turbulence.


@Thermodynamics: I've been waiting for this comment. The explosion is over & done with, we're now in the 21st century 13.7 billion years(minimum) later. The explosive turbulence to which you refer occurs inside the shell of the mass in which the explosion occured, during which time particles are bumping around against one another jostling preparing for their exiting trajectory. When those particles are exit from the surface of the erupting mass, their vectoral trajectory is established & according to "big bang purists" can never meet again.

I'm only reiterating what I was told in grade school. My professional career in three different engineering disciplines has since smartened me up a bit.
pauldentler
not rated yet Jul 28, 2011
@pauldentler:

If the ping pong balls are moving further apart, then please try (?) to explain the proliferation of colliding galaxies, they are not an anomaly.
The "ping pong balls" are ~90G ly across! The collisions happen within *gravitationally bound* galaxy clusters (the clusters aren't expanding) inside that volume.

The entire Universe is not gravitationally bound to itself?

Andromeda galaxy [will] collide with the Milky Way in 2-4 billion years, a collision of a couple of ping pong balls
The balls are HUBBLE VOLUMES, not individual galaxies!

@Gawad: In what direction do I point my telescope to find these HUBBLE VOLUMES ?

Gawad
4.3 / 5 (6) Jul 28, 2011
@pauldentler:
I'm only reiterating what I was told in grade school.

Well, geez, do ya think, maybe, that your *grade school* teachers from the 1950s or 60s might not have had a picture that's as complete as we do today?

Better get up to speed because you've missed about half a century of cosmology if you're still relying on what they told you in grade school.

Starting with, of all things:

When those particles are exit from the surface of the erupting mass


How many times does it have to be repeated?

THERE IS NO "ERUPTING MASS" of particles into a preexisting space. That was a common--and erroneous--"grade school" oversimplification.

If you need to understand the The Big Bang theory as an "explosion" then understand it as an explosion OF SPACE-TIME itself where matter comes into being everywhere at once when part of the expansion energy is converted to particles a tiny fraction of a second following the coming into existence of space-time (called "reheating").
Gawad
4.3 / 5 (6) Jul 28, 2011
The entire Universe is not gravitationally bound to itself?
No it ISN'T. It is all under gravitational *influence* but *bounding* only occurs up to the scale of some galaxy super-clusters.

In our case, it appears that only the galaxies in our local cluster (the "Local Group") are bound. Eventually they are all that will remain in our Hubble volume of the far future. The rest will have been swept away by expansion.
Andromeda galaxy [will] collide with the Milky Way in 2-4 billion years, a collision of a couple of ping pong balls
The balls are HUBBLE VOLUMES, not individual galaxies!

@Gawad: In what direction do I point my telescope to find these HUBBLE VOLUMES?

Any direction you want. They represent the sum total of the visible universe, 13.7 G lys old and now about 90G lys across. But you'll only ever see the one centered on the Earth. That's the whole point. And every point in the universe has its own Hubble Volume and they are all as old and of the same size.
pauldentler
1 / 5 (1) Jul 28, 2011
Better get up to speed because you've missed about half a century of cosmology if you're still relying on what they told you in grade school.

Gawad, send the above paragraph to those Asronomers who stand in front of the Griffith Observatory on the History Channel who continue making silly comments my gradeschool teachers made. Since then, I've learned how to design nuclear reactors, I believe I've come aways since.

THERE IS NO "ERUPTING MASS" of particles into a preexisting space. That was a common--and erroneous--"grade school" oversimplification.

Gawad, I don't necessarily disagree, it's those Astronomers who like to stand in front of the Griffith Observatory on the History Channel & continually repeat what I was taught in grade school. I've been about correcting the silliness of their conclusions, because their conclusions don't explain colliding galaxies.
pauldentler
not rated yet Jul 28, 2011
@Gawad:

In our case, it appears that only the galaxies in our local cluster (the "Local Group") are bound. Eventually they are all that will remain in our Hubble volume of the far future. The rest will have been swept away by expansion.
Andromeda galaxy [will] collide with the Milky Way in 2-4 billion years, a collision of a couple of ping pong balls
The balls are HUBBLE VOLUMES, not individual galaxies!

In your opinion, is "galactic dark flow" a HUBBLE VOLUME? If it is, then by your definition of only "local groups" being gravitionally bound, this must apply to the entirety of the "galactic dark flow". They're all headed off en masse following a common trajectory which only gravity (so far as we know) can create.
Gawad
4.4 / 5 (7) Jul 28, 2011
Uh, the Griffith Observatory came into service in the early 30s...History Channel. Wait a minute, the are you *sure* they weren't just referring to the BB model as it was understood over half a century ago when the Griffith came into service?

Anyway, designing nuclear reactors ISN'T cosmology, but if you do design nuclear reactors then all this cosmology stuff should be *easily* within your grasp if you take the time to read up on it.

If I may be so bold, with your background you would probably find /Foundations of Modern Cosmology/--it has over a hundred pages on the Big Bang--to be an excellent, modern, no-nonsense treatment of the subject.
Gawad
4.4 / 5 (7) Jul 28, 2011
In your opinion, is "galactic dark flow" a HUBBLE VOLUME?
It's not a Hubble Volume, it's a mass movement of clusters toward a particular 20 degree patch of the sky. No one knows the source of this movement for certain but it is theorized to be the result of a huge mass NO LONGER WITHIN OUR Hubble Volume.

In other words, not an example of gravitational *binding*, but of the remainder of a former gravitational *influence*. (It may be that parts of this mass are still within the Hubble Volume of the clusters in the far parts of the Flow, but it's no longer in ours at any rate.)

Binding means they'll *ultimately* not get away from each other. That doesn't mean unbound objects can't still have an influence on each other.
If it is, then by your definition of only "local groups" being gravitionally bound,
Some *Superclusters* are bound; our local cluster (not super) happens to be called The Local Group.
this must apply to the entirety of the "galactic dark flow".
See above
pauldentler
1 / 5 (4) Jul 28, 2011

Anyway, designing nuclear reactors ISN'T cosmology,

If I may be so bold, with your background you would probably find /Foundations of Modern Cosmology/--it has over a hundred pages on the Big Bang--to be an excellent, modern, no-nonsense treatment of the subject.


Gawad, I've read all the books. I know how to do all the maths. Put a "rate of reaction" equation in front of me and I can follow it, same for a "differential". But we're talking cosmology here, not math, and it can change monthly. Dark flow one month may be somebody else's supercluster next month, the same for so-called gravitionally bound galaxies, and on & on it goes. But what I have been discovering is that glaring anomalies not explained by established hypotheses are pushed aside & the one bringing attention to it must be some kind of kook for bringing it up; hello Galileo.

Gawad
4.5 / 5 (8) Jul 28, 2011
Gawad, I've read all the books. I know how to do all the maths.
Wow! That's most impressive, I'm nowhere near even a tenth of that.
But we're talking cosmology here, not math, and it can change monthly. Dark flow one month may be somebody else's supercluster next month, the same for so-called gravitionally bound galaxies, and on & on it goes.

I know! It takes like a dozen Twitter feeds! Not like nuclear reactor design, that's been pretty quiet since '79.
But what I have been discovering is that glaring anomalies not explained by established hypotheses are pushed aside & the one bringing attention to it must be some kind of kook for bringing it up; hello Galileo.
Yes, well I'm starting to get the picture. You know, there may be one last volume out there that might interest you. It's a little known work by Roger Penrose, a massive tome co-authored with Timothy Leary: the Road to Alternate Reality, though I'm afraid you've probably already read that one as well :(
frajo
2.8 / 5 (5) Jul 29, 2011
Inflation wasn't a reduction, it was a supplement to solve outstanding problems with the original BB: horizon and flatness fine-tuning. But inflation isn't without problems of its own. Paul Steinhardt wrote a very good article for Scientific American a few months ago on the shortcomings of Inflation. If you aren't a subscriber, you can get the gist of the problems here:
http://www.nature...BX1.html


Thanks a lot for this link. Steinhardt is awfully good.
Ober
not rated yet Jul 29, 2011
Since space can and/or is expanding FTL which creates an horizon, shouldn't there be galaxies which appear frozen on the horizon, or galaxies which we have seen, which then dissappear???
martinplt
not rated yet Jul 29, 2011
I usually like to debate these things but in this case, I have to tell you, Au-Pu, that I wonder if you are having a joke with us?
pauldentler
not rated yet Jul 30, 2011
I usually like to debate these things but in this case, I have to tell you, Au-Pu, that I wonder if you are having a joke with us?


Then debate it with him, stop hurling insults at him by suggesting his posting is a joke. What you don't understand is that he is challenging you to prove your position. You should respond with language that indicates you're up to the task, hurling insults at posters who challenge you position is what the Church did to Galileo, and finally they jailed him.

MorituriMax
5 / 5 (4) Jul 30, 2011
Au-Pu,
But if we assume that there was a big bang 13.7 billion years ago, that would place us at the dead center of that big bang which would appear to be a preposterous suggestion.


Are you misunderstanding on purpose? It doesn't matter WHERE you are or WHAT star you look out from, someone 8 billion LY from us would ALSO see the edge of the observable Universe being 13.7 billion light years away in every direction.
Isaacsname
not rated yet Jul 30, 2011
Has anybody noticed the similarity between atomic orbitals and various formations in the universe ? I know I am probably looking for baseless corrolations here...
bluehigh
1 / 5 (7) Jul 30, 2011
It doesn't matter WHERE you are or WHAT star you look out from, someone 8 billion LY from us would ALSO see the edge of the observable Universe being 13.7 billion light years away in every direction.


and you know this from evidence how?

oh of course, your belief in a model that has no direct evidence. do you charge a tithe to the believers?

TechnoCore
5 / 5 (7) Jul 30, 2011
I think physicist Lawrence Krauss beautifully explains why the universe has no center in this lecture. It is about an hour long, but extremely captivating. It is called "A universe from nothing" and the talk is about the current picture of the universe:

http://www.youtub...vlS8PLIo
Gawad
3 / 5 (2) Jul 30, 2011
@TechnoCore:

Thanks! That was a very pleasant lecture. Krauss is always a great speaker to tune into.
pauldentler
not rated yet Jul 30, 2011
Has anybody noticed the similarity between atomic orbitals and various formations in the universe ? I know I am probably looking for baseless corrolations here...


A lot of scientists & non-scientists remark on this, that EVERYTHING in the universe seems to be orbiting something else. It starts with atomic nuclei trending its way up to galaxies which orbit other larger galaxies.

The final topic for conjecture may someday become an issue of what are the larger galaxies orbiting? Or will we simply find there are other structures (non-galactic) in the universe vastly larger than the largest galaxies & the largest galaxies are in orbit about those structures. I've often wondered if "galactic dark flow" may not be a clue that may lead us into new discoveries about the makeup of the Universe.
Isaacsname
not rated yet Jul 30, 2011
Thanks TechnoCore. Great talk, funny as heck too.
rwinners
1 / 5 (2) Jul 31, 2011
We currently know enough to think that the universe is expanding. We do know know enough to "know" that the universe is expanding.

And we probably will never know...
GuruShabu
1 / 5 (5) Jul 31, 2011
Hubble himself refused to associate this number to VELOCITIY. He always said that he was measuring redshift not velocity. The accepted HC is 64km/s/Mpc (64 km/s/Mega Parsec). If you transform this into SI units you get 2.06x10-18 s-1. Which means that every meter in the universe is stretching this amount the second (the particles don't stretch, only the space).
Let us now look at the expression hr/m in each cubic metre of space, where 'h' is the Planck constant, 6.626x10-34 Js, 'm' is the rest mass of the electron, 9.1x10-31 kg and 'r' is the classical radius of the electron (the effective radius of the electron when it is interacting with other particles or photons), 2.82x10-15 m.
However, m = 2.05x10-18 m3s-1.
So we see that, in magnitude, they have the same value. However, for them to have both the same value and units (an essential for all realtionships in Physics) then we must look at the quantity, hr/m for the electron in each cubic metre of space.
hr/m per cubic metre of space.
GuruShabu
1 / 5 (6) Jul 31, 2011
See this link (http://lyndonashm...dox.htm) for more facts and maths.
Presently we live in a similar reality as Copernicus lived almost 500 years ago. The difference is that you are not burned or obliged to live in house prison as Galileo had to live but your scientific publications are not accepted by the "main" stream.
What do you think if a satellite that was sponsored did not find "exactly" what it was designed to find? Have you ever seen a pure scientific experiment to be design to find what you expect to find??? The COBE data was "cocked" because it did not find the "ripples in the space as it was expected to find.
Open your eyes people!
Also please check "The Static Universe" or "The Virtue of Heresy" from Hilton Ratcliffe (http://www.hilton...oks.htm)
Did you know that Fred Hoyle disagreed with George Gamov about this but was left alone because Gamov had a much charming personality. Also that the idea of Big Bang ultimately agrees with the main
GuruShabu
1 / 5 (6) Jul 31, 2011
accepted view because the religion view that the universe had a beginning?
This is all about opinion not about science unfortunately...
Many successful careers were made based on expanding universe and the HB constant meaning recessional speed so now there is a full school on this paradigm and it became a new religion.
Did you realise that there is no proof whatsoever that the universe is expanding?
The only REAL measurement is REDSHIFT?
And that redshift can mean other things than recessional speed?
But how can you prove it if you are not allowed to publicise your works in the main stream?
We came back to the dogma times...it is all religion everywhere...terrible but true.
Ethelred
3.7 / 5 (6) Jul 31, 2011
Has anybody noticed the similarity between atomic orbitals


A lot of scientists & non-scientists remark on this, that EVERYTHING in the universe seems to be orbiting something else.
And they are wrong. Electrons DO NOT orbit the nucleus of atoms. If electrons orbited they would be accelerating and accelerating electrons emit electro-magnetic radiation as can be seen in cyclotrons, radio antennas, lightning storms and pretty much anywhere else that electrons are being jiggled back and forth.

I had a LOT of trouble accepting the idea of electrons being a wave or probability function in an atom until I saw the bit about electrons radiating away energy in cyclotrons. When I saw that I got the idea. They CANNOT be orbiting the nucleus.

Ethelred
Ethelred
2.9 / 5 (7) Jul 31, 2011
classical radius of the electron (the effective radius of the electron when it is interacting with other particles or photons), 2.82x10-15 m.
Electrons have NO discernible volume or radius.

Did you know that Fred Hoyle disagreed with George Gamov
Yes.

about this but was left alone because Gamov had a much charming personality.
Nonsense. It was because Hoyle didn't have the evidence to support him.

because the religion view that the universe had a beginning?
Not religion EVIDENCE. Learn the difference.

This is all about opinion not about science unfortunately...
Yes that does describe your post. All bullshit and no reality.

Did you realise that there is no proof whatsoever that the universe is expanding?
Did you realize the Hubble gave us the proof despite the nonsense you wrote?>>
Ethelred
2.9 / 5 (7) Jul 31, 2011
The only REAL measurement is REDSHIFT?
And distance. TWO measurements not one. Bullshit will not make the second measurement go away. Redshift VERSUS DISTANCE. That is reality.

And that redshift can mean other things than recessional speed?
And bullshit can make good fertilizer. Still doesn't make it science. When redshift is related to distance recessional speed is the only reasonable concept that fits the evidence.

But how can you prove it if you are not allowed to publicise your works in the main stream?
Prove it. Right here will do. Not bullshit but actual evidence and math. Go ahead. Lots of people read here.

But you must be RIGHT not just trying to snow people by claiming there is only redshift and carefully ignoring the distance measurements.>>
Ethelred
2.5 / 5 (6) Jul 31, 2011
We came back to the dogma times...it is all religion everywhere...terrible but true.
Terrible bullshit anyway. Support your claims. Can the bullshit. You made at least two false claims.

Electrons have NO radius.

There is distance as well as redshift.

So just what do you think is the cause of the redshift? What evidence is there for it? What would that tell us about the Universe? If the Universe is not expanding and is eternal as you seem to be claiming then why is the sky black? That last question is not in the least trivial. If you can't answer you are wrong. It is one of the reasons Hoyle decided the Universe IS expanding in his later work.

Ethelred
twildeman
not rated yet Jul 31, 2011
So, recap: The universe is expanding, then redshift for known objects must be shifting more and more to the red. And if expansion is accelerating, than redshift for farther objects shifts faster to the red, than for closer objects? Am I correct?
So, are current instruments capable of measuring the shifting of redshift? Or is this only possible if the objects are measured again in say a million years?

2 centing over here...
Callippo
1 / 5 (3) Jul 31, 2011
Electrons have NO discernible volume or radius
Electrons have both electric charge, both weak leptonic charge. The force constants of both charges are different and they're of different scope. The weak charge is acting at the distance to 10-15 m only - in this sense the electron has an inner structure (a surface) and radius defined - it just depends on the model and/or experimental model used.

http://en.wikiped...n_radius

From Bohr Magneton the calculated the radius of the electron is about 2.244 x 10-17 m. From deep inelastic scattering of electrons and protons, in particular at HERA, we know that the interaction radius of an individual electrons is about 10-16 m due their repulsive leptonic charge.

The halfeducated people can only spread the schematic knowledge from old textbooks, which they remember - but the Nature is usually more complex than this.
Callippo
1 / 5 (1) Jul 31, 2011
There is no center of Universe ... Want to bet?
The recent observations are indicating, the Universe is rotating, in this sense it should have a center or the axis of rotation at least.
twildeman
not rated yet Jul 31, 2011
@Callippo

Does a wavefunction of an electron, in this discussion, need space to be, euh, wavey. Analogy, an ocean wave traverses space to rise and fall. Does this analogy transfer to particle wave functions? If so, how can that be proven? If not, well, why not?
yyz
5 / 5 (4) Jul 31, 2011
"It is one of the reasons Hoyle decided the Universe IS expanding in his later work."

I was unaware that Hoyle reversed himself on this. In 1993 he published a paper with G. Burbidge and Narlikar outlining his new, improved Quasi-Steady State model: http://articles.a...ype=.pdf

Of course it was still flawed: http://www.astro....stat.htm

"about this but was left alone because Gamov had a much charming personality."

"Nonsense. It was because Hoyle didn't have the evidence to support him."

And all this time I thought it was due to Hoyle's abrasive, contrarian personality. ;)
yyz
5 / 5 (3) Jul 31, 2011
To clarify my previous post, I was unaware that Hoyle reversed himself on the overall expansion of the universe, little big bangs notwithstanding.
Ethelred
2.5 / 5 (6) Jul 31, 2011
Classical electron radius
How about the REAL radius? Classical is meaningless with quantum particles.

is based on a classical (i.e., non-quantum) relativistic model of the electron.
Which is a model of something that doesn't exist.

And the Wiki agrees.

thus the classical electron radius is no longer regarded as the actual size of an electron.


it just depends on the model and/or experimental model used.
No. It depends on the actual radius of electrons. Do you have a problem with the concept of an objective reality? If so why are you bothering with a science site?

Oh I see. You are the sockpuppet known as Zephyr.

knowledge from old textbooks
That is what a classical model of a quantum particle is, old. Archaic. Not relevant to the discussion.

Nature is usually more complex than this.
Quit unlike sockpuppets.

The recent observations are indicating, the Universe is rotating
You could sit on your puppet and rotate.

Ethelred
Ethelred
4 / 5 (4) Jul 31, 2011
And all this time I thought it was due to Hoyle's abrasive, contrarian personality. ;)
All things considered, I am cool with that. I liked his science fiction. Besides he should have got the Nobel for his work on the evolution of atoms so he might have had a reason for being a bit like me.

Only even more stubborn.

I was unaware that Hoyle reversed himself on this.
I was recalling his concept of continuous creation causing or perhaps resulting from expansion. I never saw that paper BUT in the third paragraph.

I have to type this as I can't select the text. Annoying.

Continued on next post.
Ethelred
4 / 5 (4) Jul 31, 2011
Also unlike classical steady state, the expansion rate H=S/S of the universe is not a constant but can vary secularly, corresponding to changes in the number and masses of creation centers which drive expansion.
Secularly? That is odd word in this context. In any case that is expansion going on there. He had to at least deal with local expansion out the maximum distance of the Cepheid Variable standard candle. He could engage in hand waving beyond that but the concept of continuous creation gave him a way to have a more general expansion.

I grew up with Hoyle's ideas on Steady State. Of course my memory has botched things before so I could have got that wrong but apparently not this time. Thanks for the link.

I had to right-click on the link, SAVE AS and then change the extension from html to pdf. All I saw was a black screen when I just clicked on it.

Ethelred
Isaacsname
3 / 5 (2) Jul 31, 2011
And they are wrong. Electrons DO NOT orbit the nucleus of atoms. If electrons orbited they would be accelerating and accelerating electrons emit electro-magnetic radiation as can be seen in cyclotrons, radio antennas, lightning storms and pretty much anywhere else that electrons are being jiggled back and forth.

I had a LOT of trouble accepting the idea of electrons being a wave or probability function in an atom until I saw the bit about electrons radiating away energy in cyclotrons. When I saw that I got the idea. They CANNOT be orbiting the nucleus.

Ethelred

Why are the positions they are found in called orbitals ?

I'm well aware that they are expressed as a wave function, their positions are determined by probability distributions, but those positions themselves are still reffered to as orbitals.

Why is that E ?
niebieskieucho
1 / 5 (5) Jul 31, 2011
The universe is finite and does not expand. There's no logical justification why it should expand. Any information from a beam of light (showing acceleration) cannot be changed, and that means that heavenly body might slowed down or does not exist any more, but its historical images are still coming to us.
omatumr
1 / 5 (9) Jul 31, 2011
To clarify my previous post, I was unaware that Hoyle reversed himself on the overall expansion of the universe, little big bangs notwithstanding.


I think Fred Hoyle used the term "Big Bang" derisively about those those who imagined the universe is finite and had a beginning.

Probably Hoyle was right. The universe is expanding now because

V (H-atom)/V (neutron) ~ 1,000,000,000,000,000

And the universe is powered by neutron repulsion and neutron decay ["Is the universe expanding", Journal of Cosmology 13 (2011) 4187-4190:

http://journalofc...102.html
pauldentler
1 / 5 (4) Jul 31, 2011
The universe is finite and does not expand. There's no logical justification why it should expand. Any information from a beam of light (showing acceleration) cannot be changed, and that means that heavenly body might slowed down or does not exist any more, but its historical images are still coming to us.


To be in agreement with the laws of "thermodynamics", you'd be correct. The usefulness of energy is the fact that it functions "inside" a "closed system", a container of some kind, eg. an internal combustion engine. But this is the disagreement inside the sciences of cosmology & astro-physics.

With these disagreements, I wonder why the laws of thermodynamics seem to be abbrogated by the so-called experts of cosmology once we are beyond Earth's atmosphere, or beyond the Milky Way or wherever the point is in the Universe that the laws of thermodynamics seem to magically breakdown for them.
pauldentler
1 / 5 (1) Jul 31, 2011
We currently know enough to think that the universe is expanding. We do know know enough to "know" that the universe is expanding.

And we probably will never know...


You watched L Krauss's video too? Yep, anything is possible, everything is possible.
Ethelred
2.7 / 5 (6) Aug 01, 2011
Why are the positions they are found in called orbitals ?
Habit from the past? And they are NOT found in positions that have a velocity. OR they are found with a velocity but without a position. Never both at once except very fuzzy on both. Increase accuracy of one and you lose accuracy with the other. That is the Heisenberg Uncertainty principle in action.

but those positions themselves are still reffered to as orbitals.

Why is that E ?
Because of the old obsolete model. The alternative is to call them something awkward. True the alternative would be more correct but this is not the only case where poor terminology has become ingrained in the system. Positive vs negative electricity is seriously backasswards. The Sun rises above the horizon. Shorter hours. Jumbo shrimp.

Zones might be better.

Ethelred
Ethelred
2.8 / 5 (8) Aug 01, 2011
The universe is finite and does not expand.
The evidence does not support that.

There's no logical justification why it should expand.
Actually in General Relativity it MUST be expanding or contracting. All the evidence supports expansion. So you do NOT have logic on your side.

Any information from a beam of light (showing acceleration) cannot be changed,
And you know this how? Aim the beam at a Black hole and the information is randomized to the point that claims that it is unchanged are rather strained at best.

but its historical images are still coming to us.
Which has nothing to do with the strange claim that the Universe isn't expanding despite all the evidence to the contrary.

So do have ANYTHING except your own unsupported claims for evidence? Anything?

Ethelred
hush1
1 / 5 (1) Aug 01, 2011
"Thanks a lot for this link. Steinhardt is awfully good."
- Frajo

I agree. "Preemptive therapy's" finest words.
Facing premonitions (pending data) and undaunted from any outcome data can possess.

Yes, theorists dare to tread ...and predict.
He rested his case (on both sides!). The jury is in session.

yyz
5 / 5 (5) Aug 01, 2011
"Also unlike classical steady state, the expansion rate H=S/S of the universe is not a constant but can vary secularly, corresponding to changes in the number and masses of creation centers which drive expansion."

"Secularly? That is odd word in this context."

Perhaps he's using the word in its astronomical sense: occurring slowly over a long period of time as in 'the secular perturbation of a planet's orbit'.

Also this strange line wrt Fig 2 of his paper: "It has been known that the position angle of the line joining M 87 to the radio galaxy M 84 is coincident with the position angle of the jet[in M 87]. This is direct evidence as one can have of....a blob ejected from a changing gravitating object at the center of M 87, a blob that later becomes the galaxy which we know as M 84.(shades of oliver!)

(con't)

yyz
5 / 5 (5) Aug 01, 2011
(con't)

A look at a deep x-ray image of the region shows absolutely no evidence for M 84 being ejected from M 87; see Fig 2 of this paper: http://arxiv.org/...66v1.pdf

Multiple papers on the internal kinematics of the Virgo Cluster attest to the same thing, which Hoyle et al of course choose to ignore.

Btw, my facetious comment on Hoyle's temperament was meant in jest to counter GooGoo Shabu's remark on Gamow's "charming personality". As you correctly point out, the science is decided by the evidence.
Gawad
4.2 / 5 (5) Aug 01, 2011
Also please check "The Static Universe"
Hoyle. You know, his C-Field may not have been the reason his model was rejeted, but the fact he was pulling galaxies and clusters out of nowhere (granted, having their source in new intergalactic hydrogen) was such a groaner it's hard for me to understand how it would ever have been taken seriously. I know he was motivated by the traditional view of the universe and its deeply anthropic roots...still.
Gawad
4.2 / 5 (5) Aug 01, 2011
Btw, my facetious comment on Hoyle's temperament was meant in jest to counter GooGoo Shabu's remark on Gamow's "charming personality". As you correctly point out, the science is decided by the evidence.

While that's certainly true, and evidence is even the source of paradigm shifting science (galactic redshifts anyone?), some theories are conceptually in trouble right off the bat. Steady state theories are a case in point because their source isn't really any kind of evidence to begin with, it's just the human bias/assumption that things must have always been pretty much the way they are they're pretty much always going to be that way.

Even without the universe expanding, once you get into nuclear physics and the life of stars you start running into trouble and you KNOW something fishy must be going on because with an infinity of time behind you all stars should have been dead forever.
Gawad
4.2 / 5 (5) Aug 01, 2011
The fundamental problem is that steady state theories try to deny Time isn't isotropic and treat it the same way you can treat space in that each spacial dimension bi-directionally symmetrical. Well, Time isn't like that and it's supposed to be bleedingly obvious to anyone who so much as makes coffee and scrambled eggs in the morning.
pauldentler
not rated yet Aug 01, 2011
To I think Fred Hoyle used the term "Big Bang" derisively about those those who imagined the universe is finite and had a beginning.

It became the "steady bang".
Isaacsname
not rated yet Aug 01, 2011
Why are the positions they are found in called orbitals ?
Habit from the past? And they are NOT found in positions that have a velocity. OR they are found with a velocity but without a position. Never both at once except very fuzzy on both. Increase accuracy of one and you lose accuracy with the other. That is the Heisenberg Uncertainty principle in action.

but those positions themselves are still reffered to as orbitals.

Why is that E ?
Because of the old obsolete model. The alternative is to call them something awkward. True the alternative would be more correct but this is not the only case where poor terminology has become ingrained in the system. Positive vs negative electricity is seriously backasswards. The Sun rises above the horizon. Shorter hours. Jumbo shrimp.

Zones might be better.

Ethelred


So....fuzzy orbits then..?

J/k, Thanks for the explaining.
Gawad
4.6 / 5 (9) Aug 01, 2011
Zones might be better.

Ethelred
So....fuzzy orbits then..?

Well, "shell" is also used and that's already better than orbits.

Besides shells are pretty: they come in a bunch of shades and colours, often with lots of spikey and wavey patterns on them. And if you listen closely you can hear the Ocean in them. After all, they're mostly found there, beneath the Waves on Water Surface, right Jigga?

Oh, man, that Belgian beer....Hic!
Isaacsname
4 / 5 (3) Aug 01, 2011
Zones might be better.

Ethelred
So....fuzzy orbits then..?

Well, "shell" is also used and that's already better than orbits.

Besides shells are pretty: they come in a bunch of shades and colours, often with lots of spikey and wavey patterns on them. And if you listen closely you can hear the Ocean in them. After all, they're mostly found there, beneath the Waves on Water Surface, right Jigga?

Oh, man, that Belgian beer....Hic!


I sure do like the purty shapes.

*finger in nose*
Pyle
1 / 5 (1) Aug 01, 2011
Quick clarification. Space is expanding everywhere right? A ways back there was something about "not within a galaxy". I was pretty sure that gravity, et al, dominate the expansion, but that it is still there. ???

Gawad
3.7 / 5 (3) Aug 01, 2011
Quick clarification. Space is expanding everywhere right? A ways back there was something about "not within a galaxy". I was pretty sure that gravity, et al, dominate the expansion, but that it is still there. ???

The force behind dark energy is present everywhere, but it is so incredibly weak that it doesn't add up to having any kind of significant effect except on intergalactic scales and up. So, right, no expansion under those scales.
pauldentler
not rated yet Aug 02, 2011
Quick clarification. Space is expanding everywhere right? A ways back there was something about "not within a galaxy". I was pretty sure that gravity, et al, dominate the expansion, but that it is still there. ???

The force behind dark energy is present everywhere, but it is so incredibly weak that it doesn't add up to having any kind of significant effect except on intergalactic scales and up. So, right, no expansion under those scales.


@Gawad: So what do you surmise to be the "force" behind "dark energy"?
Gawad
1 / 5 (1) Aug 02, 2011
At this time, no one knows what the nature of this force is. What we do know, from the highest precision studies of Cepheid variables is that the force of dark energy does not appear to vary across space or time. This naturally leads to the conclusion that Dark Energy is most likely a simple cosmological constant (CC). The "cost of having free space" as it were.

If you're asking me to pull something out of my ass, you can have this: intuitively, my feeling is that Dark Energy may not really be a "new" force at all, but simply an unexpected effect on space-time of the quantum fields we already know about (and possibly others as well, such as those that would be involved in producing super-symmetric particles such as those that make up dark matter--if that's what it is).

Thing is, as is well known, QM calculations predict the CC to be 10^120 orders of magnitude than it is, so we really haven't mastered this yet!
pauldentler
2 / 5 (5) Aug 03, 2011
If you're asking me to pull something out of my ass,

you can have this:

so we really haven't mastered this yet!


Those of us who are serious professional scientists, engineers, and technologists have a different approach, it comes from our brains.
Pyle
3.8 / 5 (5) Aug 03, 2011
@pd: Well, do share oh brainy one.

What do you *surmise* to be the explanation behind our observations indicating an accelerating expansion?

You previously said "stop hurling insults at him by suggesting his posting is a joke" and yet all I see from you is nonsense, negativity and insults.

Since I asked, my ass-borne theory is that his Holy Pastaness is getting soggy. Just as overcooked noodles expand and eventually dissolve into the pot, his noodly appendages will expand into forever.
SteveL
not rated yet Aug 04, 2011
You know, I don't actually think our sphere grows any at all. We will only ever be able to see as far as the Hubble constant will allow us to see. It's just that the outlying galaxies will eventually drift out of our view.
Javinator
5 / 5 (8) Aug 04, 2011
Probably Hoyle was right. The universe is expanding now because

V (H-atom)/V (neutron) ~ 1,000,000,000,000,000


The main reason for the difference in volume is due to the increased atomic radius from the addition of an electron to the 1s orbital of the H atom. The neutron and proton radii are a similar size volumetrically.

If you had a neutron in the vacuum of space beta decay into a proton and an electron, how do you figure the universe has expanded from that decay? Unless you're suggesting space itself can't exist within the orbital (probability function) and was pushed out of the way by the orbital once the electron appeared to increase the total volume of the universe?

Or is the expansion from the release of energy from the beta decay? If so then why don't you suggest all exothermic reactions expand the universe?

Please don't deflect and tell me to read the paper again like you did last time I questioned this.
Javinator
5 / 5 (8) Aug 04, 2011
To me that's like saying you increased the volume of a wooden paddle significantly by adding a ball and a string to it and hitting the ball all over the place.

omatumr
1 / 5 (8) Aug 04, 2011
The universe expands because

a.) Neutron stars emit neutrons:

Pulsar => Neutron and ~10-22 MeV

b.) Free neutrons decay to H-atoms, and

Neutron => H-atom and 0.782 MeV

c.) H-atoms are much, much bigger than neutrons

V (H-atom)/V (neutron) ~ 1,000,000,000,000,000

The universe is powered by neutron repulsion [1] and neutron decay [2]. That also powers the Sun [3], but information about the Sun has been misrepresented since a secret 1971 visit of Henry Kissinger to China to save the world from the threat of nuclear annihilation and Nixon's decision to cancel Apollo missions [4]

1. "Neutron Repulsion", The APEIRON Journal, in press, 19 pages (2011):

http://arxiv.org/...2.1499v1

2. "Is the universe expanding", Journal of Cosmology 13 (2011) 4187-4190:

http://journalofc...102.html

3. "Earth's Heat Source - The Sun"

http://arxiv.org/pdf/0905.0704

4. "No More Dreams, Mr. President"

http://claudelafl...ams.html
Pyle
3.9 / 5 (7) Aug 04, 2011
You know, I don't actually think our sphere grows any at all. We will only ever be able to see as far as the Hubble constant will allow us to see. It's just that the outlying galaxies will eventually drift out of our view.
Every second our planet is bombarded with light that started out even further away. By virtue of the nature of time and vastness of the universe our bubble is always growing. While the light gets further and further red shifted the light from objects that were more than 13.7 BLY from us at recombination is still coming. However, at the same time, as the universe expands and galaxies recede from us they will get more and more red shifted. That is of course if the universe is larger than the observable universe and we aren't just seeing light from the same sources circumnavigating the universe.

The wikipedia article on the observable universe is worth reading:
http://en.wikiped...universe
Pyle
3.9 / 5 (7) Aug 04, 2011
To me that's like saying you increased the volume of a wooden paddle significantly by adding a ball and a string to it and hitting the ball all over the place.
Awesome analogy Javinator. I'd go further and say that adding the ball to the paddle doesn't make the room your playing with it in any bigger. And his only response is:

H-atoms are much, much bigger than neutrons
Repeat. OLIVER - Your theory is tired. Give it a rest and find something new. You are WRONG. Tweak it and see if you can come up with something better. You might start by reading into General Relativity so that you have a clue what spacetime is, rather than running around with your ball and paddle and repeating yourself like a lunatic.
omatumr
1 / 5 (7) Aug 04, 2011
H-atoms are much, much bigger than neutrons
Repeat. OLIVER - Your theory is tired. Give it a rest and find something new. You are WRONG. Tweak it and see if you can come up with something better. You might start by reading into General Relativity so that you have a clue what spacetime is, rather than running around with your ball and paddle and repeating yourself like a lunatic.


Thanks for your advice. I updated the historical review.

Climategate, and the collapse of Western economies and the USA space program apparently result from agreements that Henry Kissinger negotiated with leaders of China in 1971.

The addendum suggests 1971 was the turning point, that was later made official when Richard Nixon went to China with Henry Kissinger in 1972.

http://dl.dropbox...oots.pdf

http://dl.dropbox...oots.doc

Again, thanks for your comments.

With kind regards,
Oliver K. Manuel
Ethelred
3.5 / 5 (8) Aug 05, 2011
Thanks for your advice. I updated the historical review.
Translation from Crank to English.

'Piss on you for asking difficult questions. Instead of clarifying something that makes no sense as written I will instead make up more shit about Henry Kissinger, Richard Nixon and the Chinese that has nothing at all to do with Neutron Revulsion, the Expanding Universe or anything else relevant to the article or actual political reality for that matter.'

I thank for the opportunity to practice my skills in translating Crank into something that more closely approaches reality.

With real reason
Ethelred
pauldentler
1 / 5 (2) Aug 05, 2011
@pd: Well, do share oh brainy one.

You previously said "stop hurling insults at him by suggesting his posting is a joke" and yet all I see from you is nonsense, negativity and insults.


Provide an example of this from any of my previous posts..PD
pauldentler
1 / 5 (5) Aug 05, 2011
Thanks for your advice. I updated the historical review.
Translation from Crank to English.

'Piss on you for asking difficult questions. Instead of clarifying something that makes no sense as written I will instead make up more shit about......

With real reason
Ethelred


Everytime I see this kind of insulting language that someone makes about a scientist.....the first thing that comes to my mind is:

"How much math did the person using the insulting language have in college?".

I'm beginning to think the "insulting language" stems from the fact that the math is so far beyond those casting the insults (and you know who you are to whom I make reference), that insulting language is all that's left for you.
Ethelred
3.6 / 5 (9) Aug 05, 2011
someone makes about a scientist
There are competent scientists and there are people that have chosen to be Cranks. Oliver is the latter.

"How much math did the person using the insulting language have in college?"
About as much as Oliver that is relevant to this discussion. He is the one making the claims and he is the one NOT doing the math that is needed to support the claims. Of course it is quite clear that if Oliver did the math he would find himself wrong. Others HAVE done the math for how the Sun works. He has not. I did ask.

stems from the fact that the math is so far beyond those casting the insults
Does the number 6000 degrees Kelvin mean anything to you? It sure doesn't mean anything to Oliver.

Have you read his papers? I have. All the ones he has posted. Can you find anything to support the idea that Sun has a neutron star at the core and a rigid iron surface, which is flatly impossible with the temperature of the surface of the Sun at a mere 6000K.>>
Ethelred
3.3 / 5 (8) Aug 05, 2011
Go read his papers and then tell me he isn't a Crank. With a straight face.

Getting a PhD does not make a person an infallible god. Oliver has refusing to answer reasonable questions for years on many sites by many people.

I don't have to know everything to know that:

The Sun does NOT have a neutron star in it.
That evidence for a supernova does not require the Sun to have been the source.
That the Sun does NOT have a rigid iron surface.
To have read Oliver's papers and seen that they have a very high bullshit content with NO mathematics to support the claims about the Sun.

If you don't like me calling a Crank a Crank then perhaps YOU can be the first to get Oliver to answer questions that he doesn't like. I have been trying for over two years.

It simply is not an insult to call someone a Crank when they have been exhibiting all the classic signs of being a crank for years. It is just being realistic.

Ethelred
frajo
2.8 / 5 (4) Aug 05, 2011
Does the number 6000 degrees Kelvin mean anything to you?


To me it means that somebody doesn't know when not to use the word "degree".
omatumr
1 / 5 (6) Aug 05, 2011
Pseudo-scientific evidence of a H-filled Sun (SSM), oscillating solar neutrinos, and CO2-induced global warming (AGW) are vanishing as stock markets in the once "Free West" collapse, and we learn that:

1.) Henry Kissinger himself made the agreement in 1971 with leaders of the Communist Block of nations to end the US Apollo Missions, "the space race", and to unite nations [1] against a "common enemy" (Man-Made Global Climate Change) to avoid the possibility that the entire world might be vaporized as Hiroshima was on 6 Aug 1945;

2.) Richard Nixon was selected to be the "fall guy" for this decision [2], but Nixon started to implement the decision on 5 Jan 1972 [3] before arriving in China with Henry Kissinger on 21 Feb 1972 to "officially" make the agreement.

1. See addendum (page 9)

http://dl.dropbox...oots.pdf

2. Video Summary of Richard Nixon

http://www.histor...on/audio

3. http://claudelafl...ams.html
Ethelred
3.3 / 5 (8) Aug 05, 2011
To me it means that somebody doesn't know when not to use the word "degree".
Did you understand the meaning?

I suspect you did.

So that leaves this.

Little things for little minds.

Now if you want to discuss the rigid iron surface concept then have at it.

Please note the way Oliver refers to pretty much all scientists in the post right after yours. If you don't find that insulting then you have blinders on.

Pseudo-scientific evidence of a H-filled Sun
Apparently spectral data is now a pseudo science.

oscillating solar neutrinos,
Another thing with evidence to support it that Oliver hates and thus prefers to insult the scientists that did the work. They had the vile incompetence to disagree with Oliver.

and CO2-induced global warming (AGW)
Sorry but CO2 IS a greenhouse gas and there is more then there used to be. Oliver insults all those scientists as well. Claims all they want is grants and will lie to get them.>>
Ethelred
3.7 / 5 (6) Aug 05, 2011
once "Free West" collapse, and we learn that:
That Oliver has fantasies about what Henry Kissinger could do. Apparently he thinks Kissinger had the power to make treaties. In secret. And bind Ronald Reagan, George H Bush, Bill Clinton, George W. Bush, and now Obama to his will. And somehow this is supposed to support his Neutron core in the Sun ideas.

That one isn't cranking. Its conspiracy fantasies.

Look if you feel the need to defend Oliver go right ahead. I don't see how you can do so with reason or evidence but he can't do it. Maybe you can. Would YOU like to explain how the Sun could have a rigid iron surface when it has a surface temperature of 6000K? Or perhaps you can explain how he didn't actually insult anyone with that post?

Ethelred
Javinator
5 / 5 (8) Aug 05, 2011
The universe expands because

a.) Neutron stars emit neutrons:

Pulsar => Neutron and ~10-22 MeV

b.) Free neutrons decay to H-atoms, and

Neutron => H-atom and 0.782 MeV

c.) H-atoms are much, much bigger than neutrons

V (H-atom)/V (neutron) ~ 1,000,000,000,000,000


But why?

What you're claiming has no discernible ties to universal expansion.

I question the reasoning behind your claims and you respond by repeating the claims.
omatumr
1.4 / 5 (10) Aug 05, 2011
Former President Eisenhower warned us on 17 Jan 1961 about the dangers of government sponsored "pseudo-scientific, post-modern, politically-correct, consensus-science" promoted by Al Gore, the UN's IPCC, the US NAS, PNAS, the UK Royal Society, MNRS, Nature, Science, etc.

www.youtube.com/w...ld5PR4ts

Those illusions cannot be rescued now by the Red Brigade as the public witnesses first-hand the results of four decades of misinformation about the origin, composition and source of energy of the Earth and the Sun.

Ethelred
3 / 5 (4) Aug 05, 2011
Frajo and Paul please note this:
Those illusions cannot be rescued now by the Red Brigade
I am the person Oliver is referring to as the Red Brigade. He has done it many times. When he isn't calling me a NASA plant I am some sort of Commie Pinko anti-Oliver villain, sometimes with vast swarms of minions. If you think this a fantasy of mine try noting the many times he calls me EthelRed with a side helping of Associates.

He would rather call me a commie than answer relevant questions.

composition and source of energy of the Earth and the Sun.
How about YOU support your claim of a rigid iron surface when the temperature is 6000K and the Sun has way less than 1 percent iron at that surface.

Apparently Oliver thinks ridiculous claims of a nefarious world wide government with the evil intent of stopping nuclear war proves that the Sun has a neutron core and an iron surface.

Paul if you still think that Oliver is not a Crank you are not living in the real world.

Ethelred
yyz
5 / 5 (8) Aug 05, 2011
"2.) Richard Nixon was selected to be the "fall guy" for this decision [2], but Nixon started to implement the decision on 5 Jan 1972 [3] before arriving in China with Henry Kissinger on 21 Feb 1972 to "officially" make the agreement."

Off topic (but one of your favorites I guess), your last link to the essay by Claude Lafleur, "No More Dreams, Mr. President" contains no mention of China or Henry Kissinger. Despite this fact, you use this same reference above and on at least one other thread I've seen. I think you need to update your "historical view" once again and refrain from posting links you erroneously believe back up your statements.

You have made similar errors in past postings wrt your own published science papers. This recurring pattern appears to be more than just a simple oversight. Why waste people's time with irrelevant links?
SteveL
5 / 5 (4) Aug 05, 2011
And someone who was not a crank is attributed as having said: "The definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over again expecting different results." This common-sense aphorism, sometimes attributed to Albert Einstein.

So, when tired old ideas which have no supporting evidence and do not meet the standards for the critical acclaim of leading scientests in the field are repeated ad nauseam, where does that leave us?
SteveL
5 / 5 (3) Aug 05, 2011
Oliver said: "that Sun has a neutron star at the core and a rigid iron surface"?

Curious, because he also recently posted:
A photosphere of waste products accumulates around the pulsar, as the Sun did.

Gravitational interactions of orbiting planets with the pulsar jerk it around inside the glowing ball of waste products (photosphere), to produce solar cycles of magnetic activity, as the Sun does.

That action also keeps the interior partially stirred, bringing more heavy elements up to the top of the photosphere.
Can't have it both ways.
omatumr
1.4 / 5 (10) Aug 05, 2011
Hi Steve:

The Sun appears to have a rigid iron-rich mantle surrounding the pulsar that generates the brightly glowing sphere of waste products (91% H and 9% He) that emits photons and is called the photosphere.

That is the conclusion to experimental measurements

http://arxiv.org/...2.1499v1

Former President Eisenhower warned us on 17 Jan 1961 about the danger to our free society from government-sponsored "absolutely certain, pseudo-scientific, post-modern, politically-correct, consensus-science."

www.youtube.com/w...ld5PR4ts

Forty years ago, Henry Kissinger and Richard Nixon apparently made international agreements that produced four decades of misinformation about the origin, composition and source of energy of the Earth and the Sun.

Is that why our economic system is collapsing today while leaders of the scientific community tell us anthropologic global warming (AGW) should be our first concern?

Fortunately, politicians have much less control than they imagined !
Pyle
3.4 / 5 (5) Aug 05, 2011
paul:
all I see from you is nonsense, negativity and insults.

Provide an example of this from any of my previous posts..PD
Ok.

Therefore the minimum age of the universe must be 27.4 LY.

Whoops, forgot to add billion to my previous post for 13.7 & 27.4 LY as the minimum radius & diameter of the visible Universe.

not everything is expanding proportionate to "a center". If this were true galactic collisions would never occur.

Explosive forces drive things apart so fast it is never possible for their vectors to intersect

If you'd have made this statement on this site ten years ago, you would have been the focus of derision of some of the most prominent posters presently posting on this site.

a collision of a couple of ping pong balls that will have immediate consequences for life on this planet as we know it.

these are the "big bang purists" who are as closed minded as the 5000 year creationists.


There's more, but I'm tired.
Ethelred
4 / 5 (4) Aug 06, 2011
Can't have it both ways.
I can't help it that Oliver contradicts himself. He also uses circular reasoning to claim that the Sun has lots of iron.

Ethelred
Gawad
1 / 5 (1) Aug 07, 2011
If you're asking me to pull something out of my ass,

you can have this:

so we really haven't mastered this yet!


Those of us who are serious professional scientists, engineers, and technologists have a different approach, it comes from our brains.

Hey, you asked. If you can't handle the answer, don't get all huffy, puffy, negative and insulting. You might even end up with some kind of superiority complex or some such!
pauldentler
1 / 5 (3) Aug 08, 2011
If you're asking me to pull something out of my ass,

you can have this:

so we really haven't mastered this yet!


Those of us who are serious professional scientists, engineers, and technologists have a different approach, it comes from our brains.

Hey, you asked. If you can't handle the answer, don't get all huffy, puffy, negative and insulting. You might even end up with some kind of superiority complex or some such!


@Gawad: I'm an employer with a technical staff. Post your resume somewhere we can all see it. We can all then review it for your math proficiency and in the process garner a lot more about the manner of your crude posts. I look at a lot of resumes, and when followed up by even the briefest of communications, I can often spot even the most minor manner of enhancements. OK?
Pyle
4 / 5 (4) Aug 08, 2011
Add that one ^^ to my previous list.

paul, add something to the conversation instead of whatever it was you were trying to accomplish with the last post. Gawad too and same to me as well I guess.

In that vein. Here is another recent paper that is tangential to this one. It talks about what we can expect in the coming months/years with a couple of different radio surveys that are ongoing.

http://arxiv.org/...30v1.pdf

Gawad
4.2 / 5 (5) Aug 08, 2011
@Pyle:
I did honestly try: Paul asked for my opinion on a phenomenon NO ONE has any evidence based answer for (the source of Dark Energy) and I gave it to him. He replied that I should use my brains instead. Well, I can't add anymore to the conversation at this point, given his inability to come to grips with the notion of an unbound finite universe, the meaning of a Hubble Volume or his inability to distinguish between gravitationally bound objects and those that are merely under segnificant gravitational influence.

@Dentler:

Post your resume

That won't be necessary. I've no intention of "seeking employment" from the likes of you as I do not tolerate pretentious assholes as either "employers" or "employees". And especially not when their most significant achievement is cracking pots.

@Pyle again:

I regret that this probably doesn't qualify as adding much to the discussion, but it takes two to tango and I've yet to see Brainiac add anything to ANY discussion.
Ethelred
3 / 5 (4) Aug 09, 2011
@Gawad: I'm an employer with a technical staff.
And how is this relevant to the discussion. Unlike Oliver I don't give a damn about your credentials, though I did check. You really should not use your real name on the WEB without a good reason.

Now what can you say that is RELEVANT? How can you contribute real information to the discussion? Since you think math is more important than Oliver does then if you have math that is relevant to the discussion how about you post it or a link to somewhere where you can write it since text really isn't conducive to complex formula.

If all you can do is demand that people produce evidence that they have an education that is worthy of your mighty intellect why are you here? Of course it is true that getting huffy and demanding credentials doesn't pass muster at Physicsforum or even Not Even Wrong. Actual reason and evidence are what is considered useful on most science discussion sites.

Ethelred
omatumr
1 / 5 (4) Aug 09, 2011
Post-modern consensus science, personal attacks, and smear tactics have been used as propaganda tools to promote the global climate scam since 1971 .

The decision was apparently made during Kissingers secret visit to China in 1971 [1] to use Anthropologic Global Climate Change as the common enemy to:

a.) Unite Nations;
b.) End the Cold War, the Space Race; and
c.) The threat of Mutual Nuclear Annihilation.

In an attempt to negate the Suns obvious control over Earths climate, the model [2] of a homogeneous Sun in hydrostatic equilibrium became official government dogma.

1. The Bilderberg Sun, Climategate & Economic Crisis
http://dl.dropbox...oots.pdf

2. The Bilderberg Model of the Photosphere and Low Chromosphere
http://adsabs.har...oPh.3.5G
Ethelred
4 / 5 (4) Aug 09, 2011
Post-modern consensus science,
Post modern is a meaningless noise.

personal attacks, and smear tactics
If the truth hurts that is your problem.

I have dealt with dubious scientific claims many times. Mostly you just ignore what I say. It took DOZENS of post just to get acknowledge that I mentioned the iron stack tests and even then you refused to accept the FACT that NO ONE has EVER seen an non-isolated neutron decay. EVER. Tons of iron, many tons of heavy water NEVER.

Not even your students support you.

Yet you spam and spam and spam. You are Crank Oliver. That is pure Crank behavior.

If you don't like being called a Crank than STOP.

And you personal history does count. You are NOT a reliable source for anything. No one that lived a lie as a predator all their life can be trusted. Since you are a known liar and your science is execrable I see no reason I shouldn't point that out.

Ethelred
omatumr
1 / 5 (4) Aug 09, 2011
Post-modern consensus science, personal attacks, and smear tactics have been used as propaganda tools to promote the global climate scam since 1971 .


Thanks, Ethelred, for letting us know that your comrades are getting worried now that the economy is collapsing, together with public belief in post-modern consensus science.

If you had any comprehension of physics you would have checked the experimental data [1] yourself, instead of believing the propaganda of Al Gore and the UN's IPCC.

1. The APEIRON Journal, in press (2011)

http://arxiv.org/...2.1499v1

Magnette
5 / 5 (4) Aug 10, 2011
Post-modern consensus science, personal attacks, and smear tactics have been used as propaganda tools to promote the global climate scam since 1971 .


Thanks, Ethelred, for letting us know that your comrades are getting worried now that the economy is collapsing, together with public belief in post-modern consensus science.

If you had any comprehension of physics you would have checked the experimental data [1] yourself, instead of believing the propaganda of Al Gore and the UN's IPCC.

1. The APEIRON Journal, in press (2011)

http://arxiv.org/...2.1499v1



Now, I'm just an engineer who's trying to learn but even I can see that the maths doesn't work and trying to justify your reasoning by quoting a self written, non peer reviewed paper is just plain ridiculous.

You may as well give up and go do the maths before you continue making a fool of yourself.
Ethelred
4.2 / 5 (5) Aug 10, 2011
Thanks, Ethelred, for letting us know that your comrades
My comrades work retail, just like I do.

If you had any comprehension of physics you would have checked the experimental data [1] yourself, i
I did. Just like I checked on your court cases myself.

yourself, instead of believing the propaganda of Al Gore and the UN's IPCC.
That is bullshit. I don't care what Al Gore says and never did. I am going on the FACT that CO2 is a greenhouse gas and is increasing. Those are facts.

And your paper is crap. Just as it was the last time I read it. And the time before that and times I read the original crap you based that crap on.

I am still waiting for you tell us what evidence there is to support Neutron Repulsion. Your Table supports the Pauli Exclusion Principle.

Ethelred

Please sign in to add a comment. Registration is free, and takes less than a minute. Read more

Click here to reset your password.
Sign in to get notified via email when new comments are made.