Question over Big-Bang

[beamish]

I am still trying to figure out what the actual question is

[lbiar]

I am still trying to figure out what the actual question is

I treat to explain how need to be the expansion according to Hubble's law and homogeneity to demonstrate that it's not possible (reductio ad absurdum).

[themos]

You really think that all the world's physicists have missed an elementary argument?

[lbiar]

You really think that all the world's physicists have missed an elementary argument?

With your permission:

1 - where is the error of my note?

2 - reductio ad absurdum is a good solution to show tha anything is incorrect.

3 - all my work treat to show that universe can't expand - in my page: The universe does not expand

4 - I have not find any graphic over how expand the universe according to Hubble's law and homogeneity, I think is probably that the argument really was incorrect it¡s easy to say: the different of expansion is compensate by stretch, but it needs to demonstrate, this I write here is I think the only one demonstration possible and it's false.

Thanks by your answer, but I preferr you say where is my error.

[Doc]

You could be right and this is a major break through or you could be wrong, either way I think you are telling/asking the wrong type of forum.

You need to take your notes higher then us to someone who really knows.

[Ant]

I believe that DOC is right - I fully realize that this is the section for talking about theories etc...

But I really think that you are in the wrong forum and that further discussion on this is pointless. There must be other forums that are better suited to this type of discussion, especially when you're asking US to point out errors.

Thanks

Ant

[George Jones]

If it is alright with the moderators, I am willing to invest a moderate (but not too large) effort.

lbiar: my views are fairly mainstream; if we were standing together with chalk in our hands in front of a chalkboard, I think communication would be much better, but we still might end up disagreeiing.

lbiar, if a photon heading directly toward us is now at a distance s/4 (in light-years) from us, how long will it take the photon to reach us?

[simon84]

My spidey senses are tingling.....

[July]

Sir Ibiar,you've forced me to reply...coz i'm so careful in writing an talk..i think your views support mine.first you should check out:

www.deceptiveuniverse.com/Shapiro.htm

maybe will be useful 4 you.2nd I've some notes: the Doppler effect is general relativity theory is not based on two objects moving with respect to each other but based on the fact that space in between them expands .

The photon, if you want to take it serious as a particle, has constant speed c, i.e. never accelerates, and has no mass. Therefore I don’t see how it could generate gravitational waves. One could, however, think that light is only the mediator of an interaction between an emitter and an absorber which are massive particles. Particles emit only if the accelerate and particles which absorb light begin to accelerate. Those would probably generate also gravitational waves.

[lbiar]

You could be right and this is a major break through or you could be wrong, either way I think you are telling/asking the wrong type of forum.

You need to take your notes higher then us to someone who really knows.

Sorry if I disturb.

I note (I believe) that this is against the mainstream.

lbiar, if a photon heading directly toward us is now at a distance s/4 (in light-years) from us, how long will it take the photon to reach us?

If begin the travel in s/4 we see it at s/2 and take t/2 (half time of universe) to become to us. (50% expansion and 50% stretch).

Sir Ibiar,you've forced me to reply...coz i'm so careful in writing an talk..i think your views support mine.first you should check out:

www.deceptiveuniverse.com/Shapiro.htm

maybe will be useful 4 you.2nd I've some notes: the Doppler effect is general relativity theory is not based on two objects moving with respect to each other but based on the fact that space in between them expands .

The photon, if you want to take it serious as a particle, has constant speed c, i.e. never accelerates, and has no mass. Therefore I don’t see how it could generate gravitational waves. One could, however, think that light is only the mediator of an interaction between an emitter and an absorber which are massive particles. Particles emit only if the accelerate and particles which absorb light begin to accelerate. Those would probably generate also gravitational waves.

hello July: we have already speaked in emails.

I don't speak over stretch and by that I take in account : "fact that space in between them expands "

xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

For all: I have made a resume, I have put it in the post I speak over this and in the next post.

Maybe better make a new thread? . With your permission and help I like continue in your forum.

(remember, I need your feedback)

Thanks.

[lbiar]

Resume of what I say here: (in post 25 of this thread)

(against the mainstream)

The light that travels from s (age of the universe x light speed) is not show because it’s stretch 100% (stretch is at light speed), but according to my calculation is really of 2 x 50%. So I speak better of s/2 (half of distance), here the light travel 50% and is stretched 50% so the stretch would be 150,000 km/s by light year (or by any distance) according to homogeneity, but this is not true. (25% is the same stretch and half time, 100% is 2 times 50%). According to Hubble’s law and theory that say that theory is the same in all places the speed of expansion need to be constant and not accelerated (in accelerated, near to us the expansion would be more).

[davy999]

42

I have tried to understand the reasoning but as it is such a complex subject without extremely clear english and a book marked "the inflation theory for idiots" that I fear my brain will explode too if i try to follow this thread.

But I did at least understand the request for my first answer

[July]

maybe you are right but you should ask a spcialized scientist..and take into your consideration:

In Einstein's universe, time and distance may stretch like rubber, but the speed of light remains immutable…you are confusing yourself by thinking of the rate of expansion as a speed. It's not. It's a percentage per unit time, approximately H = 0.007% per million years. What you describe here is the case of a constant Hubble parameter, which is equivalent to

exponential acceleration.

In a non-accelerating universe the Hubble parameter will be proportional to 1/t. Distance d = v*t, v=const -> H = d/v ~ 1/t.

Observations and measurements in 1998 surprised most scientists, including those doing the work, finding the expansion of the universe is currently accelerating , although the Hubble factor is still decreasing over time.

The Hubble "constant" is not really constant varying with time according to your choice of cosmological model.

Try as a starter: http://www.physicsforums.com/newrepl...te=1&p=2413312

and New Wrights tutorial and FAQ: Frequently Asked Questions in Cosmology

[Captain Tripps]

[lbiar]

maybe you are right but you should ask a spcialized scientist..and take into your consideration:

In Einstein's universe, time and distance may stretch like rubber, but the speed of light remains immutable…you are confusing yourself by thinking of the rate of expansion as a speed. It's not. It's a percentage per unit time, approximately H = 0.007% per million years.

No.

The theory say that: "expansion is “70.6 ± 3.1 (km/sec)/Mpc” (1 megaparsec is “3.26 million light-years”)", also that expansion is the same in all points.

With my calculation, the universe expanding according to Hubble's law and homogeneity would need to expand at 150,000 km/s by light year

In the resume I say that according to expansion theory the objects (s in my notes) at years of the universe x light years = size visible of the universe (+ a few more that it's not visible) it's not visible because stretch of the wave and expansion are the same and by that never become the light to us, for this is needed that universe expand at light speed, later in my calculus I say that it's the half because 100% of expansion (or stretch) is 2 times 50%.

Thanks by your notes.

[themos]

With my calculation, the universe expanding according to Hubble's law and homogeneity would need to expand at 150,000 km/s by light year

This is wrong.

[George Jones]

No.

The theory say that: "expansion is “70.6 ± 3.1 (km/sec)/Mpc” (1 megaparsec is “3.26 million light-years”)",

and 1 light-year is 9.46 trillion (10^12) km. Consequently,

70.6 km/(sec x Mpc) = 70.6 km/(sec x (3.26 million x 9.46 trillion km))

= 2.29 x 10^-18/sec (note that km on top cancelled with km on bottom)

This give the current value of the Hubble constant in standard units. Now, convert seconds to years:

1 = (60 sec/min)(60 min/hr)(24 hr/day)(365.25 day/year)

= 3.16 x 10^7 sec/year

Therefore, 1/sec = 3.16 x 10^7/year; use this in above

H = 2.29 x 10^-18/sec

= 2.29 x 10^-18 x 3.16 x 10^7/year

=7.23 x 10^-11/year

=7.23 x 10^-5/(million years).

This is the value that July gave.

also that expansion is the same in all points.

At any given time, the Hubble constant is constant at all points in space, but as time changes, so the does the Hubble constant, i.e., the vaule of the Hubble constant in the past is different than it is now. I'll post a plot of the value of Hubble constant over the history of the universe in a few minutes.

With my calculation, the universe expanding according to Hubble's law and homogeneity would need to expand at 150,000 km/s by light year

themos answered this.

The maths involved in current cosmological modesl are much more complicated than the above.

[lbiar]

I find hera a few problems:

Also according to Hubble’s law (distance-speed) maybe accelerating : 1-2-4-8-16 but also 2 objects at different speed 1-2 in distance is 1-2 and at double distance is 2-4 (also is according to Hubble’s law) but theory say that expansion is the same in all places, by that accelerating is not possible because in this case the near universe would expand more quickly that farther universe (present-pass).

If the expansion is accelerated by distance (more distance more speed, growing : 1-2-4-8) the note of “70.6 ± 3.1 (km/sec)/Mpc” would need to say at what speed is in 2 mpc, … but if it’s constant don’t need to say by /Mpc because is how say that any car travel at 80 km/hora by km (mpc is unit of distance). A car traveling to us at 100 km/hour not arrive never if the road expand at 100 km/hour.

In the example with expansion constant: s/2 is double distance and speed that s/4 and s is double that s/2.

To obtain that a car traveling to us at 80 km/hour, the only solution is expand the road at 80 km/hour.

and resume would be:

Resume:

The light that travels from s (age of the universe x light speed) is not show because it’s stretch 100% (stretch is at light speed), but according to my calculation is really of 2 x 50%. So I speak better of s/2 (half of distance), here the light travel 50% and is stretched 50% so the stretch would be 150,000 km/s by light year (or by any distance) according to homogeneity, but this is not true. (25% is the same stretch and half time, 100% is 2 times 50%). According to Hubble’s law and theory that say that theory is the same in all places the speed of expansion need to be constant and not accelerated (in accelerated, near to us the expansion would be more).

I go to arrange it in their place.

Thanks.

(I don't answer, believe that this answer the notes)

[themos]

Why don't you read this [astro-ph/9905116] Distance measures in cosmology and email the author with your observations?

[Doc]

Just out of curiosity what do you do Ibiar for a job? Are you writing this as part of a degree?

Just trying to figure out why this is so important for you.

[lbiar]

Many thanks to all, thanks by your help:

I can to cost a few see my errors, but after thinking a while I understand that you say me that the expansion is accelerated with compensation in stretch.

I have the answer, I have thinked and obtain the answer (to my favor), I write it later but I like to give the thanks to all. (maybe make any graphic or textual help, ...)

I know that need feedback, without this I blind only what I like to think.

I would say that wait my answer and later it all help me with feedback.

Many thanks to all. (sure)

[George Jones]

Here is an example of an accelerating universe which has a Hubble constant that decreases with time.

Consider a toy universe and galaxies A, B, C, D at three different instants of cosmological time. As time passes, the universe expands, so the distance from us of each of these galaxies increases.

Table of proper distances d from Milky Way. Each row gives the distances from us to the different galaxies at the same instant in time. Each column gives the distances to the same galaxy at the different instants in time.

           A     B     C      D

t = 1     1     2     3      4

t = 2     4     8    12    16

t = 3     9    18    27    36

Table of recessional speeds v from us. Each row gives the speeds between us and the different galaxies at the same instant in time. Each column gives the speeds for the same galaxy at the different instants in time.

           A     B     C      D

t = 1     2     4     6      8

t = 2     4     8    12    16

t = 3     6    12    18    24

What are the values of the Hubble constant H at the three times? Since v = Hd, the Hubble constant is given by H = v/d. This give that H equals 2, 1, and 2/3 at times 1, 2, and 3.

Note: at each instant in time, the Hubble constant is constant, i.e., independent of the galaxy used to calculate it; the Hubble constant decreases with time.

What about acceleration or deceleration of the expansion of this universe? During the time interval from t = 1 to t = 2, Galaxy A "moves" a distance Delta d = 4 - 1 = 3. During the later but equal-length time interval from t = 2 to t =3 the same galaxy, Galaxy A, "moves" a greater distance, Delta d = 9 - 4 = 5. This is an indication that the universe is accelerating. The fact that this universe is accelerating is independent of which galaxy is used.

This toy model is a Freidman-Robertson-Walker universe that has its scale factor given by a(t) = t^2.

[lbiar]

I add here expansion increased, the last was constant:

Explanation 1 (expansion increased) (according to the theory):Here are 2 impossibles:

1 – I put here example of a series of 2-4-6-8-10, …

0 - s/4 – s/2 – 3s/4 -s

10 - 8 - 6 - 4 – 2 – expansion, more at present and by that near us

10 – 10 – 10 – 10 - 10 – visual expansion (100% = 40)

adjusting expansion and stretch all give 10 (5 would be 50% and with stretch x2 = 10)

s = size of visible universe (in light years) or better = age of the universe x light speed

after t/4 the result is:

12 – 10 - 8 - 6 - 4 – expansion, more at present and by that near us

12 – 12 – 12 – 12 - 4 – visual expansion (100% = 40) – we see half of before of the universe

s/4 now is show how s/2, is good, the light in t/2 travel s/2

s/2 now would be s, but light can travel from there because it would need t/2 and not t/4 (remember that s really is not show, but it’s showed s-few years), remember that in t/4 less we see all the visual universe (age of the universe x light speed) and the light can’t travel this distance, by this we can only see in the example the 75% of visual universe (age of the universe x 75% of light speed) or 25% less, each t/4 more we will see 25% less: in the example s/2 is 20 and by that in t/4 only can to be visible 30 and not 40.

We see objects at 13.7 billion light years and 379,000 years, so we see 99,999% or more, the relation to light speed is 2.76 e-5 and by that this is impossible ( http://bigbangno.wordpress.com/expan...s-html/#tag02a ).

2 – In the example:

10 – 10 – 10 – 10 - 10 – visual expansion (100% = 40 = age of the universe x light speed = s)

by this 10 is 1/4 but 10 also is t/4 and by that the universe would expand at light speed and this is impossible : this would be at 300,000 km/s against expansion of “70.6 ± 3.1 (km/sec)/Mpc”

Thanks. I need your feedback for help.

[lbiar]

I need to say now : sorry for my error in post 25, the speed is constant.

Until now I have not see the error, my mind has give me this error, I was sure it's well, but it's a constant speed and against by that with Hubble's law.

May have any value or simply I delete it.

Sorry for the disturb, I treat to make good, but sometimes say errors.

(I need to be sure if post 48 is correct) - please say me erors, ...

thanks.

[lbiar]

I have arrange post 48 with series correct and a second impossible.

Thanks.