Researchers use real data rather than theory to measure the cosmos

December 12, 2014 by Francesca Davenport

For the first time researchers have measured large distances in the Universe using data, rather than calculations related to general relativity.

A research team from Imperial College London and the University of Barcelona has used data from astronomical surveys to measure a standard distance that is central to our understanding of the expansion of the .

Previously the size of this 'standard ruler' has only been predicted from theoretical models that rely on general relativity to explain gravity at large scales. The new study is the first to measure it using observed data. A standard ruler is an object which consistently has the same physical size so that a comparison of its actual size to its size in the sky will provide a measurement of its distance to earth.

"Our research suggests that current methods for measuring distance in the Universe are more complicated than they need to be," said Professor Alan Heavens from the Department of Physics, Imperial College London who led the study. "Traditionally in cosmology, general relativity plays a central role in most models and interpretations. We have demonstrated that current data are powerful enough to measure the geometry and expansion history of the Universe without relying on calculations relating to general relativity. 

"We hope this more data-driven approach, combined with an ever increasing wealth of observational data, could provide more precise measurements that will be useful for future projects that are planning to answer major questions around the acceleration of the Universe and dark energy."

The standard ruler measured in the research is the baryon acoustic oscillation scale. This is a pattern of a specific length which is imprinted in the clustering of matter created by small variations in density in the very early Universe (about 400,000 years after the Big Bang). The length of this pattern, which is the same today as it was then, is the baryon acoustic oscillation scale.

The team calculated the length to be 143 Megaparsecs (nearly 480 million light years) which is similar to accepted predictions for this distance from models based on general relativity.

Published in Physical Review Letters, the findings of the research suggest it is possible to measure cosmological distances independently from models that rely on general relativity.

Einstein's theory of general relativity replaced Newton's law to become the accepted explanation of how gravity behaves at large scales. Many important astrophysics models are based on general relativity, including those dealing with the expansion of the Universe and black holes. However some unresolved issues surround general relativity. These include its lack of reconciliation with the laws of quantum physics and the need for it to be extrapolated many orders of magnitude in scales in order to apply it in cosmological settings.  No other physics law have been extrapolated that much without needing any adjustment, so its assumptions are still open to question.

Co-author of the study, Professor Raul Jimenez from the University of Barcelona said: "The uncertainties around general relativity have motivated us to develop methods to derive more direct measurements of the cosmos, rather than relying so heavily on inferences from models. For our study we only made some minimal theoretical assumptions such as the symmetry of the Universe and a smooth expansion history."

 Co-author Professor Licia Verde from the University of Barcelona added: "There is a big difference between measuring distance and inferring its value indirectly. Usually in cosmology we can only do the latter and this is one of these rare and precious cases where we can directly measure distance.  Most statements in cosmology assume general relativity works and does so on extremely large scales, which means we are often extrapolating figures out of our comfort zone.  So it is reassuring to discover that we can make strong and important statements without depending on and which match previous statements. It gives one confidence that the observations we have of the Universe, as strange and puzzling as they might be, are realistic and sound!"

 The research used current data from astronomical surveys on the brightness of exploding stars (supernovae) and on the regular pattern in the clustering of matter (baryonic acoustic oscillations) to measure the size of this 'standard ruler'. The matter that created this standard ruler formed about 400,000 years after the Big Bang. This period was a time when the physics of the Universe was still relatively simple so the researchers did not need to consider more 'exotic' concepts such as in their measurements.

 "In this study we have used measurements that are very clean," Professor Heavens explained, "And the theory that we do apply comes from a time relatively soon after the Big Bang when the physics was also clean. This means we have what we believe to be a precise method of measurement based on observations of the cosmos. Astrophysics is an incredibly active but changeable field and the support for the different models is liable to change. Even when models are abandoned, measurements of the cosmos will survive. If we can rely on direct measurements based on real observations rather than then this is good news for cosmology and astrophysics."

Explore further: Light from galaxy clusters confirms theory of relativity

More information: Heavens A., Jimenez J., and Verde L. (2014) "Standard rulers, candles and clocks from low-redshift Universe." Physical Review Letters, 2014. DOI: 10.1103/PhysRevLett.113.241302

Related Stories

Light from galaxy clusters confirms theory of relativity

September 28, 2011

All observations in astronomy are based on light emitted from stars and galaxies and, according to the general theory of relativity, the light will be affected by gravity. At the same time all interpretations in astronomy ...

New test may provide 'smoking gun' for modified gravity

June 20, 2014

(Phys.org) —Since 1916, general relativity has provided a description of gravity that can explain many observations, including objects in free fall, gravitational lensing by massive objects, and black holes. Despite the ...

Recommended for you

Sci-fi holograms a step closer with tiny invention

January 24, 2017

Australian National University physicists have invented a tiny device that creates the highest quality holographic images ever achieved, opening the door to imaging technologies seen in science fiction movies such as Star ...

Modeling the rhythmic electrical activities of the brain

January 24, 2017

Researchers studying the brain have long been interested in its neural oscillations, the rhythmic electrical activity that plays an important role in the transmission of information within the brain's neural circuits. In ...

Camera able to capture imagery of an optical Mach cone

January 23, 2017

(Phys.org)—A team of researchers at Washington University in St. Louis has built a camera apparatus capable of capturing moving imagery of an optical Mach cone. In their paper published in the journal Science Advances, ...

67 comments

Adjust slider to filter visible comments by rank

Display comments: newest first

Basilioexablm CASTLE
3.7 / 5 (6) Dec 12, 2014
Real data has to be "plugged in" into some theoretical model. Unless you are listing data as in the old Handbook of Chemistry and Physics.
wasp171
1.4 / 5 (18) Dec 12, 2014
Who said that the universe is expanding or has a beginning?
Only theoretical models.
It was NEVER actually measured.
Even Hubble questioned his skimpy data but was overruled by the religious drive of "father" Lamaitre et al.
Check the Trouble of Physics by Lee Smolin and the new book by Alexander Unzicker-The Higgs Fake.
Please, READ before criticise!
Protoplasmix
4.7 / 5 (14) Dec 12, 2014
So it is reassuring to discover that we can make strong and important statements without depending on general relativity and which match previous statements.
Equally reassuring, if not terribly surprising, to see general relativity pass yet another test, and a good test it is calibrating the new BAO standard ruler using the standard candles.
PhineasFogg
1.5 / 5 (17) Dec 12, 2014
Who said that the universe is expanding or has a beginning?
Only theoretical models.
It was NEVER actually measured.
Even Hubble questioned his skimpy data but was overruled by the religious drive of "father" Lamaitre et al.
Check the Trouble of Physics by Lee Smolin and the new book by Alexander Unzicker-The Higgs Fake.
Please, READ before criticise!

Careful, Stinger, or you will attract the ire of the establishment stooges like Cap Stumpydick and Aunty Ira.
srikkanth_kn
5 / 5 (6) Dec 12, 2014
the need for it to be extrapolated many orders of magnitude in scales in order to apply it in cosmological settings


?? can some explain what this means ?
Protoplasmix
4.6 / 5 (10) Dec 12, 2014
@srikkanth_kn
In physics there are extremely small scales, as with subatomic particles, and extremely large scales, as with the cosmos.

Use google to "define extrapolate" if you need.

"order of magnitude" – usually powers of 10, e.g., an increase from 10 to 1000 is 2 orders of magnitude (10^1 to 10^3), an increase from 1000 to a million is 3 orders of magnitude (10^3 to 10^6). Doesn't have to be 10, could be a variable, x, in an equation – an increase from x-squared to x-cubed is 1 order of magnitude (x² to x³).

Relevant quotes from the article:
Einstein's theory of general relativity replaced Newton's law to become the accepted explanation of how gravity behaves at large scales. Many important astrophysics models are based on general relativity,
...
Most statements in cosmology assume general relativity works and does so on extremely large scales, which means we are often extrapolating figures out of our comfort zone.
Protoplasmix
4.5 / 5 (17) Dec 12, 2014
Careful, Stinger, or you will attract the ire of the forum in general
^^^ fixed that for you – a better friend would be more like, "yo, wispy, it's a science forum, stop embarrassing yourself—the article—please READ before criticize!"
Steve 200mph Cruiz
4.6 / 5 (20) Dec 13, 2014
Who said that the universe is expanding or has a beginning?
Only theoretical models.
It was NEVER actually measured


Wrong, the steady state model of the universe was abandoned 100 years ago. Light is a wave, as a wave it is subject to Doppler effects. So if things aren't moving away from us why are far away objects "redder"? If they aren't moving away, that means the entire universe is heating up all the time, thats a blatant violation of the laws of thermodynamics which violates preatty much every law of nature in turn.

The big bang makes perfect sense. One law of nature is that the entropy of a system is always increasing, if the universe is constantly moving towards a more chaotic state, doesn't that imply a time when everything was perfectly ordered? If everything is perfectly ordered how can space exist because space only increases the chances of disorder.
Steve 200mph Cruiz
4.6 / 5 (18) Dec 13, 2014
Also here are some things we can measure that the big bang explain and that explain the big bang: The proportion of chemicals in the universe, the CMB, and the Doppler shifts of galaxies. The Big Bang is the ONLY idea that explains all these phenomena
imido
Dec 13, 2014
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
imido
Dec 13, 2014
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
ShotmanMaslo
1.6 / 5 (7) Dec 13, 2014
So that the formation of Universe from "nothing" doesn't violate the thermodynamics and Steady state Universe model yes? In Steady state Universe the Universe just doesn't heats up - it doesn't change at all.


So universe is a perpetuum mobile? What a violation of thermodynamics.

Universe was not formed from "nothing". It was likely formed from some physical system where formation of an universe is thermodynamically preferred. Exactly what that thing was is unclear.
viko_mx
1.7 / 5 (11) Dec 13, 2014

The expansion of the universe, black holes and invisible phenomena that modern astrophysics with philosophical approaches try to explain reality in which we live is only for consumption of the general public, much of which does not have the basic knowledge to be able to be doubted in this pseudo science. Frankly speaking, I can not find a scientific reason for the adoption of GR theory in academia and society. There is no solid evidence for it which can withstand a thorough scientific analysis and the results of computer simulations relying upon it differ significantly with observed reality. Therefore scienties add virtual mass in these simalation models.
PhineasFogg
1.4 / 5 (9) Dec 13, 2014
@Steve
Wrong, the steady state model of the universe was abandoned 100 years ago. Light is a wave, as a wave it is subject to Doppler effects. So if things aren't moving away from us why are far away objects "redder"? If they aren't moving away, that means the entire universe is heating up all the time, thats a blatant violation of the laws of thermodynamics which violates preatty much every law of nature in turn.

I am not disagreeing with you, but wish to point out that there are other equally valid explanations for redshift, e.g. photons decay (expand) over time so that redshift is dependent on the age of the light not the movement of its source away from us, for one.
swordsman
1.4 / 5 (11) Dec 13, 2014
Great news! Real measurements are essential, compared to questionable theory. I have proven that Einstein's theory of relativity is not relevant. It was the mistake of the century, produced by the misinterpretation of Minkowski with the acceptance of Einstein. Real measurements, according to the laws of physics and electromagnetism lead to correct answers and excellent correlations. Particle theory is partial theory, and billions of dollars are being wasted. The basic problem is that physicists of more than a century ago knew more about electromagnetic radiation (upon which relativity theory depends) that today's physicists.
srikkanth_kn
5 / 5 (6) Dec 13, 2014
@protoplasmix
thanks for reply- but i understand plain meaning of extrapolate. however, general relativity should by itself be applicable at large cosmological scales - 'extrapolation' in this context seems confusing -because the article calls it as one of the 'issues'

the only other 'issue' that makes sense to talk about is that GR is not reconciling with quantum mechanics- which is well known. I wanted to know how / why 'extrapolation' could be seen as issue (unless i am missing something obvious in this article)
Mike_Massen
4.7 / 5 (12) Dec 13, 2014
viko_mx claimed
Frankly speaking, I can not find a scientific reason for the adoption of GR theory in academia and society. There is no solid evidence for it which can withstand a thorough scientific analysis and the results of computer simulations relying upon it differ significantly with observed reality.
GR (& SR) are constantly proven by frequent correction factors to GPS timing.

Why viko_mx, do you IGNORE Global Positioning Satellites (GPS) ?

You have been told this before yet are mute/dumb on any reply ?

Did your god tell you space has no GR or Special Relativity (SR) Properties ?

How do u explain GPS will NOT work without SR & GR ?

The maths application to GPS via SR & GR is consistent with relativity & not only Einstein but Lorentz, why viko_mx, do U ignore it ?

Did the shadow of a bible (of a nasty god that can't communicate) make your sight to physics so blind ?

You can now buy atomic clocks very cheaply & prove it for yourself !
Mike_Massen
4.7 / 5 (12) Dec 13, 2014
swordsman made a STAGGERING claim
I have proven that Einstein's theory of relativity is not relevant. It was the mistake of the century, produced by the misinterpretation of Minkowski with the acceptance of Einstein.
Since GR (& SR) calculations fit very well with GPS then what do u claim is wrong ?

Where swordsman, is your "proof" Einstein's Relativity is "not relevant" ?

swordsman claimed
Real measurements, according to the laws of physics and electromagnetism lead to correct answers and excellent correlations.
GPS makes REAL measurements, do u need to study GPS perhaps, U know how to do that via google ?

swordsman claimed
The basic problem is that physicists of more than a century ago knew more about electromagnetic radiation (upon which relativity theory depends) that today's physicists.
Evidence for this (also outrageous) claim ?

Who knew how & when, and how was this knowledge replaced & by what ?

Details matter swordsman please ?
Mike_Massen
4.6 / 5 (10) Dec 13, 2014
PhineasFogg claimed
..there are other equally valid explanations for redshift, e.g. photons decay (expand) over time so that redshift is dependent on the age of the light not the movement of its source away from us, for one.
There are differential methods which show this not to be the case, and allow for issues re gravitational lensing, not that I understand the details but, from my early physics training at uni, the consistency of the explanations do appear sound and that is the universe is expanding and the rate is accelerating.

This doesnt mean there are not local gravitational anomalies & local collisions, eg Andromeda & our Milky Way galaxy will collide, we are part of a local group & vast but, that doesnt mean the whole universe is not expanding just because we observe seeming local non-expansion.

Photon age has no metric in respect of its correlations given the differential factors to nullify or provide a working coefficient of its probability...
Protoplasmix
4.7 / 5 (12) Dec 13, 2014
... e.g. photons decay (expand) over time ...

Using COBE data (and other experiments) a lower limit of around 3 years on the photon rest-frame lifetime has been found—this equates with a lifetime of about 10^18 (that's a billion billion) years in the visible spectrum. See this Letter from Heeck, "How Stable is the Photon?" (Max-Planck-Institut für Kernphysik) and also this article on it, "Big Bang light reveals minimum lifetime of photons" (nature.com).

If by 'expand' you mean "redshift" this is quite well understood and can happen for a variety of reasons—all supported by an abundance of different experiments and measurements.
Protoplasmix
4.7 / 5 (12) Dec 13, 2014
however, general relativity should by itself be applicable at large cosmological scales - 'extrapolation' in this context seems confusing -because the article calls it as one of the 'issues'

Ah. Well, keep in mind that when we look out into space we're also seeing things as they were some time ago (depending on how far away they are) so it's not like we can go there & then, and as Prof. Verde stated, "There is a big difference between measuring a value directly and inferring its value indirectly." Using baryon acoustic oscillation and supernovae to measure the distance has shown independently of general relativity, that general relativity is indeed applicable at cosmological scales, and that there's more than one way to accurately measure cosmological distances.
moka
1 / 5 (6) Dec 13, 2014
see my work vixra:1410.0124
Unfortunately, doesn't exist DM as particles, since the inflation needs to be viewed as a decompression of a viscoelastic spring with a constant K(G, niu), and which it was firstly compressed due of gravity (like it happen in a black hole) with an immense gravitationally energy in order to squeeze the space-time curvature at near Plank radius of 10^-35[m]. At this dimension a declick (instability) it happens as to be followed by the first pure elastic decompression (BING-BANG), or inflation, and when the curvature regains its big value 10^8[m], with the cost of near initial energy ~10^19GeV and, remaining only a small quantity ~10^3GeV as to be used to "extract" from the vacuum the matter particles, that form galaxies-planets-stars an theses modify (locally) the space-time curvature (niu). This viscosity (niu) it could assimilated with DM
imido
Dec 13, 2014
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
imido
Dec 13, 2014
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
brodix
1 / 5 (5) Dec 13, 2014
If space is expanding relativistically, in order to explain why we appear at the center of this expansion, why doesn't the speed of light increase proportionally, in order to remain Constant???? It was one of the original patches, to match theory with observation, but they completely overlooked the fact that if those distant galaxies are actually moving away, such that it will take light longer to cross this distance, that assumes a stable dimension of space, as defined by the speed of light. Some try to argue light is just being carried along by this expansion and is only measured locally, but the basis of the proof for this expansion is the redshift of that very light crossing intergalactic space. So we are supposed to believe space expands, based on the redshift of this light, but have a stable dimension of space against which to compare it, based on the speed of the same light!!? Go figure.
Protoplasmix
5 / 5 (10) Dec 13, 2014
The life-time of photons is given with their decoherence time, it is in range of few milliseconds and after then the photon is recreated somewhere else, which brings the impression, it's literally eternal.
Is that the Zephyr interpretation of quantum mechanics? Are you referring to microwave photons trapped with Rydberg atoms? Quite a difference from the spacetime for the CMB.

the scattering of light with vacuum fluctuations is responsible for it [redshift]
Referring to this diagram:
O_______A_____________________________B (scale: 1 "_" = 1 km),
if that's true then the measured redshift by an observer, O, of a light source in motion from point A to point B should be less than measuring the redshift of a source stationary at point B, because in the latter case all the photons propagate through a greater volume of vacuum, but we know no such result has ever been measured, don't we, iZeph?
kienhoa68
not rated yet Dec 13, 2014

The big bang makes perfect sense. One law of nature is that the entropy of a system is always increasing, if the universe is constantly moving towards a more chaotic state, doesn't that imply a time when everything was perfectly ordered? If everything is perfectly ordered how can space exist because space only increases the chances of disorder.

No, it does not predict perfect order. It's a relative state.
imido
Dec 13, 2014
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
imido
Dec 13, 2014
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
nikola_milovic_378
1 / 5 (7) Dec 14, 2014
In full consideration of phenomena in the universe, based on the Big Bang theory and relativity, there are so many illogical, more than unknown phenomena with which today's science fights.
The first misconception science is taking the appearance of a BB (scientific mirage) as the beginning of the formation of the universe, which raises a lot of questions that nobody can answer on the basis of logic and natural laws that are formed us. If the BB was created out of nothing and nowhere, that he could produce all of this perceptual entity in the matter and energy which should be called COSMOS, and do not confuse it with the universe. If the universe is expanding, where it expands and what is out there anywhere he is now expanding and ate there before that scientific maniacs BB?
nikola_milovic_378
1 / 5 (7) Dec 14, 2014
How can one measure something in the universe when, what we see, everything is in motion? We circling around our axis, and the sun, then in our galaxy, galaxies in a cluster of galaxies and all circling around the center of the Cosmos. ? Who can claim that he could have something to follow in distant space, when the picture before him now, and in the right place (which does not exist at all as stationary) and there before as much time as it takes to light reaches the observer? A big question is whether this is just the light from that object or like it does us.? The universe is a sphere of infinite radius, filled with a substance-ether, which gave the COSMOS, which is "drowned" in the ether in the universe. Nothing in the universe was not created by accident and disappeared, all this takes place under the control of the Absolute consciousness of the universe (ACU), which represents an immense power to create a spiritual entity of the universe (SEU).
nikola_milovic_378
1 / 5 (7) Dec 14, 2014
When science can not see the true and fair view of the object at such distances? Only then, when you fail to master some sense that there is an infinite (current) speed correspondence. It can not be done, ever, by means of the matter. We have the ability to achieve and that, if we respected the SEU and our intuition, which is one link our individual (IC) consciousness with ACU. How to achieve this? Knowing that more true cause of the phenomena around us and in us. We still, almost nothing is known about the properties of matter and its accompanying conditions: gravity, magnetism, electrical charge, heat, then space for the movement of matter and time to measure this movement.
nikola_milovic_378
1 / 5 (6) Dec 14, 2014
Some information about ACU will bring us closer and then we'll be all clear, and mathematical models and programs, like a mirage-theory, as BB and the theory of relativity, only contaminate our IĆ and take us back to the "apartheid" of the mind, which, through free will and various wish us away from the ACU and SEU.
Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (10) Dec 14, 2014
Cap Stumpydick and Aunty Ira.
so PhineasFogg is delirious_neuron! huh!
equally valid explanations for redshift, e.g. photons decay
would you please link the studies that support this conjecture? (sounds like tired light) thanks groupie #2!
knowledge of redshifts and blueshifts has been applied to develop several terrestrial technologies (such as Doppler radar and radar guns)*
*See Feynman, Leighton and Sands (1989)...
WIKI
so, we have working models and empirical proof of the doppler shift of light, so IOT claim that another tired light model is relevant, you must provide a study supporting it, right? because i don't think tired light model is supported by studies, especially with things like this: http://arxiv.org/...94v1.pdf
which supports redshift from NON tired light models
this article says it all, really
http://news.scien...re-tired

malapropism
5 / 5 (9) Dec 14, 2014
Who said that the universe is expanding or has a beginning?
Only theoretical models.

So how would you suggest either be based in actuality rather than argued in theoretical models? Take out a tape measure? Go back and watch?
brodix
1 / 5 (6) Dec 14, 2014
Captian,
The Doppler effect works by having a moving source in a stable medium, yet when it was discovered that all these distant galaxies appear to be moving directly away from us, as though we are at the center of this expansion, it was then argued that this was actually a relativistic expansion of space itself and so every point appears as the center.
Yet what was overlooked is that in order to be relative, the speed of light would have to increase proportional to the expanding space, in order to remain constant! But then there would be no doppler effect, since the light wouldn't shift.
The fact is that we are at the center of our view of the universe and this would strongly suggest an optical explanation. As it is now, we have this relativistic expansion, without C, Inflation and now Dark Energy, to keep patching theory to observation. Usually in science, when theory and observation don't match, its time to start coming up with a new theory, but when it's religion...
Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (10) Dec 15, 2014
@brodix
i am going to challenge you to provide evidence right out of the gate: being you have been here for a while, you should know this already
Doppler effect works by having a moving source in a stable medium
a "medium" might be required for sound to be transmitted for us to hear, but it is not relevant to light
there is NO aether or other medium in space

So, i am suggesting that, for us to be on the same page, you provide some links explaining what you mean
I will start: https://en.wikipe...Redshift
that above link has decent references and links supporting the conjectures made in it, especially with regard to the physics involved

Please provide a similar link discussing your reasoning
THANKS
but when it's religion...
religion has no place in science
the scientific method has a purpose and is used for a reason

if you are another Zephir-type trying to push some "mainstream science is now a religion" conspiracy bull, then forget responding
imido
Dec 15, 2014
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
imido
Dec 15, 2014
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Captain Stumpy
4.6 / 5 (10) Dec 15, 2014
which you demonstrate so much, that you're actually serving as a living evidence of religious traits of modern science for us.
@ZEPHIR
so... my requirement of you and others to back up their conjecture with evidence supporting their speculations is proof of religion in science?

REALLY?
i would say that it is proof that science works!

SCIENCE is about evidence, and being able to support your own conjecture with said evidence... your problem is that you've never been able to do that at all, zephir

the only references you have are reddit, vixra and non peer-reviewed sources of failed idiots who've had pulled studies because they published pseudoscience which you've tried to pass off as LEGIT

so, if me requiring EVIDENCE of your conjecture is somehow religion, WTF do you call ren82's and jvk's creationist crap?
https://en.wikipe...Arkansas

you still sore about that study that falsified YOUR religion(aw/daw)? http://arxiv.org/...1284.pdf
Captain Stumpy
4.6 / 5 (10) Dec 15, 2014
Science is always based on verification of theories and models
@ZEPHIR
which i provided above
the rest of that crap about
which serve as a subject of short-term belief in given moment
= PERSONAL CONJECTURE WITHOUT EVIDENCE
you say this is because science FALSIFIED your religious belief in aw/daw and proved it to be pseudoscience

so you are against ALL mainstream science because it has evidence... what else is new?

ABOVE i made a point regarding the doppler effect and light which directly ties into redshift etc
This is supported in the links as well as modern equipment developed and used, AS STATED ABOVE

where is your evidence refuting it?
why argue a point if you can't bring EVIDENCE?
(thats called PSEUDOSCIENCE)

that only supports my conjecture about your:
-Dunning-Kruger
-support of pseudoscience
-inability to refute mainstream science
-that you need an education (USE THIS: http://ocw.mit.ed...=physics )
brodix
1 / 5 (4) Dec 15, 2014
Captain,
Medium was probably not the best term. I suppose frame would work.
Doppler works by movement in a larger frame. There is the denominator of the frame and the doppler effect is due to each wave having to travel a different length to the stationary observer, from the moving transmitter. This changing distance amounts to the numerator. The train moving down the tracks isn't stretching the space, as the tracks don't stretch, only the distance in this stable frame is increasing. Similarly the cosmic yardstick is the speed of light and if those galaxies are redshifted because of doppler effect, the theory is still assuming stable units, as measured by the speed of light. Thus it will take light longer to cross this distance as the galaxies move away and so the light waves become redshifted because they are stretched. That's why they say those distant galaxies will eventually disappear.
brodix
1.7 / 5 (6) Dec 15, 2014
As for religion, if you go back to the ancients, say the Egyptians, science/math and religion started as opposite sides of the same coin, as description and explanation of cosmic order. Say astronomy and astrology. The problem was that explanation is top down authority and description is bottom up examination. That their vitalistic religious explanations are problematic is due to our sterile view of nature, compared to their organic views.
Consider epicycles; The mathematical description was highly accurate, because it was based on observation, but the explanation, of giant cosmic gearwheels, was based on the mechanical mechanisms that were high tech back in the day.
Similarly I think we will eventually find the current belief in the mathematically platonic foundations of reality, such as spacetime, will prove to be erroneous explanations of the mathematical descriptions of relativity. By abstract reductionism, you end up with the skeleton, not the seed, but thats another post.
Torbjorn_Larsson_OM
5 / 5 (9) Dec 15, 2014
Re maximal entropy of the universe, it, like remaining thermodynamics isn't well defined for the observable universe. But entropy is, and no it increases as it should. For a good analysis, see Lineweaver and Egan on this.

Re anti-science trolls defaming science, they are defaming hardworking people. :-/

@wasp: Read the article, it is good.

As opposed to your references, which are bad: Smolin is fringe, and the title implies Unzicker is a nut (but I have never heard of him - is he a scientist even?).

@srikkanth: It is meaningless drivel to make a faulty point. (The scientists motivation is rather contrived, say BAO distance scale is derived from cosmology. )

GR is reconciled with quantum physics on these scales (outside of big bang or black holes), and thermodynamics is also extrapolated to these scales, shy of the scale of the observable universe.
Torbjorn_Larsson_OM
5 / 5 (9) Dec 15, 2014
@brodix:

- Re cosmological doppler shift: There is a part of it that has to account for the expansion during travel of course, But the primary effect is the stretching of the photon's wavelength as it travels through a stretching space. See Wikipedia's entry on this.

- Re science, you are confusing it with the religious claim that "natural science" was the same as productive science. The latter emerged during the Enlightenment, when secular activities could free themselves from religious oppression and control.
PhineasFogg
1 / 5 (5) Dec 15, 2014
@MM
PhineasFogg claimed
..there are other equally valid explanations for redshift, e.g. photons decay (expand) over time so that redshift is dependent on the age of the light not the movement of its source away from us, for one.
There are differential methods which show this not to be the case,
So, you say "There are differential methods which show this not to be the case". Perhaps you could provide a link for them?


Photon age has no metric in respect of its correlations given the differential factors to nullify or provide a working coefficient of its probability...

What does this mean? Try writing in English.
Given that redshift might be a combination of Doppler effect, photon decay by age, and perhaps other factors, a sample from known readings adjusted by the removal of the top and bottom percentiles (as being non-representative e.g blueshifted for example) leaves a pretty convincing argument that redshift correlates with photon age.
PhineasFogg
1 / 5 (7) Dec 15, 2014
@CapStump
Cap Stumpydick and Aunty Ira.
so PhineasFogg is delirious_neuron! huh!

Who the f*** is delirious_neuron?
equally valid explanations for redshift, e.g. photons decay
would you please link the studies that support this conjecture? (sounds like tired light) thanks groupie #2!
because i don't think tired light model is supported by studies, especially with things like this: http://arxiv.org/...94v1.pdf]http://arxiv.org/...94v1.pdf[/url]


http://arxiv.org/...94v1.pdf]http://arxiv.org/...94v1.pdf[/url] is irrelevant to this discussion.
this article says it all, really
http://news.scien...re-tired

No it doesn't, the effect could equally by ascribed to time itself passing more slowly in the distant past, and several other reasons.
brodix
not rated yet Dec 15, 2014
Torbjorn,
The premise of relativity is that since nothing can travel faster than light, there are no atomic oscillations at the speed of light, because that would combine with velocity to exceed the speed of light. So as velocity decreases, the rate of oscillation can increase proportionally, so clock rate increases relative to how slow you go. Thus the speed of light remains constant, because the clock used slows as you speed up, until you reach lightspeed and there is "no time," because the clock is stopped.
Now since gravity is "equivalent" to acceleration, a strong gravity field is both pulling everything together and slowing the clock rate proportionally. So time presumably slows down, as you fall into the black hole, as does the space shrink, so the speed of light remains constant to the space. It's a bit of a tautology actually, but the assumption is the math abstracted from this is somehow foundational to the physical processes from which it was abstracted.
brodix
not rated yet Dec 15, 2014
Therefore these measures of duration and distance are more foundational than the space and actions being measured.
So when they discovered that we appear as the center of this expansion, it was an Ah Ha moment and they decided that space itself must be expanding. What they forget, is that if it's to be based on that relativistic math, then the speed of light would have to increase, in order for the clock rate to remain proportional to the distance. The whole CONSTANT thingy, remember? But if that were to actually happen, there would be no redshift, because the light would be "energized!!"
As it is, the Doppler effect requires a stable measure against which to compare the expansion. So the wave length is stretched as it travels through this expanding space; You still have to have a stable dimension of space to compare it. What defines this measure? The universal constant is the speed of light in a vacuum, remember? So you are going to say the vacuum itself is being stretched?
brodix
5 / 5 (1) Dec 15, 2014
Then why doesn't the speed of light increase, in order to remain constant to this vacuum???
Are you saying there are two vacuums? The one which the speed of light remains constant and the one which expands, based on the redshift of that very same intergalactic light?
I'm sorry if I seem confused, but this is the sort of math that would get an accountant in serious legal trouble.
imido
Dec 15, 2014
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
brodix
not rated yet Dec 15, 2014
imido,
Gravity is treated as "equivalent" to acceleration, but the surface of the planet doesn't seem to be rushing out, on order to keep us stuck to it. Could there be some effect causing redshift that is "equivalent" to recession, without having those distant galaxies actually rushing away?
The reason gravity is treated as a contraction of space is because space is treated as a measurement and mass points draw together. Now the contraction of gravity and the expansion of space are inversely proportional, resulting in overall flat space. "Omega=1." So mathematically, what is expanding between galaxies, is balanced by what is drawing into them and according to my understanding of how math normally works, this would mean there would be no excess expansion.
Physically what is happening is mass falls into gravitational vortices and energy radiates out.
brodix
5 / 5 (1) Dec 15, 2014
If these effects are balanced, the result would be a cosmic convection cycle, which describes planetary and stellar activity, so why not galactic activity?
Then the inward curvature of mass/gravity is balanced by an outward curvature of intergalactic radiation and Einstein's cosmological constant would be resolved.
imido
Dec 15, 2014
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
brodix
5 / 5 (2) Dec 15, 2014
imido,
"the images of distant galaxies should appear smaller (and much less luminous), than we observing by now. Instead of it, they do appear larger and more luminous"

Here is an interesting link on the Tolman effect;
http://www.americ...folktale
imido
Dec 15, 2014
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Captain Stumpy
4.1 / 5 (9) Dec 15, 2014
Who the f*** is delirious_neuron?
Really, P-Fogg?
you are going to quote delirious but then ask who he is? either you are being a troll with that or you are really delirious being stupid... either way, your question is stupid, baiting and trolling
http://arxiv.org/...94v1.pdf is irrelevant to this discussion
1- no it is not irrelevant
2- it doesn't work with the tired light model
3- if you had read it or the other links i provided, you would know that
the effect could equally by ascribed to time itself passing more slowly in the distant past, and several other reasons
then supply studies from reputable peer reviewed publications supporting your conclusions, like i am trying to do

THAT is how this works...
i am trying to provide supporting evidence for my claims, and you provide links supporting your claims... but so far, you got NADA

why is that?
isnt there reputable science supporting your assertions?
vlaaing peerd
5 / 5 (10) Dec 16, 2014
I have proven that Einstein's theory of relativity is not relevant.


You must be a smart guy then, feel free to enlighten us.
PhineasFogg
1 / 5 (7) Dec 16, 2014
@CaptainS
Who the f*** is delirious_neuron?
Really, P-Fogg?
you are going to quote delirious but then ask who he is? either you are being a troll with that or you are really delirious being stupid.. either way, your question is stupid, baiting and trolling

You seem to be suffering from the paranoid delusion that everyone who says something you do not like are actually the same person using different names. You should see a psychiatrist..
http://arxiv.org/pdf/astro-ph/0210394v1.pdf is irrelevant to this discussion
1- no it is not irrelevant
2- it doesn't work with the tired light model
3- if you had read it or the other links i provided, you would know that

1 It is irrelevant because it merely deals with the change in redshift, and never considers the CAUSE of redshift.
2 Yes it does, it works with any model because it only provides the maths for the change in redshift.
3 I have read it several times and, unlike you, understood it.
Frosted Flake
5 / 5 (6) Dec 16, 2014
If they aren't moving away, that means the entire universe is heating up all the time, thats a blatant violation of the laws of thermodynamics which violates pretty much every law of nature in turn
This is the most funny read I experienced after while.. So that the formation of Universe from "nothing" doesn't violate the thermodynamics and Steady state Universe model yes? In Steady state Universe the Universe just doesn't heats up - it doesn't change at all.


And who made this Steady State universe? Whether "god did it" or "it always was" you still have a thermodynamic problem. And the same lack of explanation featured by the Big Bang theory.

If you are going to say "My theory is better" try to have a better theory.
Frosted Flake
5 / 5 (4) Dec 16, 2014
if the universe is constantly moving towards a more chaotic state, doesn't that imply a time when everything was perfectly ordered
And who ordered it? A God? In addition, it's not even true that the "universe is constantly moving towards a more chaotic state", if it "cools itself".


Yet another thermodynamic problem. Perhaps it should be considered that our ignorance can prevent us noticing that we are ignorant.
Captain Stumpy
4.5 / 5 (8) Dec 17, 2014
You seem to be suffering from the paranoid delusion
@PhineasFogg/delirious
if it walks/talks/argues like a deliriousneuron/duck...
never considers the CAUSE of redshift
i said that it supported the redshift under the current MS Theory (MST)
current MST also is supported by CMBR, which falsifies tired light (tl)
http://www.astro....dlit.htm
http://www.astro....cmb.html
there are more than just that single study in the arguments above, and the only reason you latched onto that one is that you think it can be used by tl as well as expansion, but the maths for tl are slightly different, as shown here in some examples: https://en.wikipe...ed_light
tl must answer the same questions as current MST, and it fails

therefore i am correct
& you are trying to redirect from the main argument

CONCLUSIONS - tired light model is falsified not only by the CMBR but by all the other evidence
brodix
not rated yet Dec 17, 2014
Captain,
If redshift is an optical effect, than CMBR would be the black body radiation of all the ever more distant sources, shifted entirely off the visible spectrum and therefore the solution to Olber's paradox.
Captain Stumpy
4 / 5 (4) Dec 17, 2014
Captain,
If redshift is an optical effect, than CMBR would be the black body radiation of all the ever more distant sources, shifted entirely off the visible spectrum and therefore the solution to Olber's paradox.
@brodix
which takes us back to the beginning of the argument, though, doesn't it?

where is the evidence?
the second links specifically addresses the issue, IMO

http://www.astro....cmb.html

imido
Dec 17, 2014
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
brodix
not rated yet Dec 17, 2014
Captain,
Which goes to Olber's paradox, that it would a combined infinity of sources, all from over that horizon line of being redshifted entirely off the visible spectrum.
As it is, you haven't explained how there is both a stable vacuum, as defined by the speed of light and an expanding vacuum, as measured by the redshift of the same light. The theory still assumes standard lightyears to measure these expanded dimensions.
Also both inflation and dark energy are now needed to keep BB cosmology working. I'm a skeptic.
PhineasFogg
1 / 5 (2) Dec 20, 2014
You seem to be suffering from the paranoid delusion
@PhineasFogg/delirious
if it walks/talks/argues like a deliriousneuron/duck..

Wow! I've just realised that, using the same logic, Captain Stumpy is actually Uncle Ira! They both frequently use the word "the", they both post a load of crap, they both attack anybody who says anything they do not like, they both use copious sock puppets to upvote their own postings and downvote others! Its absolutely obvious! Cap, you are definitely a moron.

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.