Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast
Results 1 to 30 of 70

Thread: The Universe not expands

  1. #1
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Posts
    74

    The Universe not expands

    (I agree your comments, critics and feedback)

    I have write a work over this title, this is a few big (would be better a resume?) and my english is poor how you can see.

    This work is according to the visual expansion of the universe and with visual accelerated expansion of the universe.

    It's in a web page (the web page only has this info) but I don't know if I can put here the link.

    The text have 3 pages and I put here in 3 posts:

    1 - questions - is for a into of the work

    2 - first page: abstracts, introduction, Why only an optic effect is possible according to Physic Laws?, ....

    3 - page of arguments: 20 arguments and 7 curiosities

    4 - Hypotheses (I don't write this by now, there is many info here).

    If there is not problem I can put here the web page where is the work.

    Thanks.

    ----------------------------------------------
    Author: Luis Biarge Baldellou
    Email: lbiar@mail.com
    Last edited by lbiar; 2010-May-19 at 11:33 PM.

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Posts
    74
    Questions (first of all)

    (This work is according to the visual expansion of the universe and with visual accelerated expansion of the universe)

    - 1q: The universe expand in any radius at light speed: How can accelerate? How fast expands the diameter (radius x 2)? (notes: we see the cosmic microwave background radiation – it expands, not travel – an object at lightspeed by expansion is not visible) (Reference 1/H) : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hubble%27s_law

    - 2q: A gas and also a solid can be compressed/expanded and the result is the same gas or solid with the same mass, but: How do you can expand/compress space if you compress actually had less space (space destroyed) and if you expand has more space (new space created)?

    - 3q: A galaxy is not syncronized in their movements and gravity, it is not instantaneous: How can be synchronized all the expansion of the universe that is much higher?

    - 4q: If you buy 1 meter of tape and get only 0.5 meters think you getting ripped off even if the seller says it is compressed: Why we believe that the universe expands?

    - 5q: If the nearby universe is the future of the distant universe and much more separation (much expanded). How is it possible that near there are not many fewer stars and galaxies, or more separation?

    - 6q: The velocity of expansion is constant or nearly and the distance grows continuously: How can the expansion decrease per unit of space?. How can the expansion be instantaneous and inexhaustible at all points of space in accordance with Hubble’s law?. How can instantly compute the decrease in all points? (Note: It is an expansion, so no velocity and if equivalent speed is constant, the expansion per unit of space is decreasing. For a constant expansion, the equivalent speed would grow exponentially: 1,2,4,8,16,32,…)

    - 7q: How can the universe expand equally in all points according to Hubble’s law and subtract the areas with gravity as the theory says?. And expansion by unit of space different in each axis, for example: the X axis with an expansion of 1, Y of 1.2 & Z of 1.3?. (Notes: the Milky Way for example measures 100,000 light years in size and the theory says there is no expansion in areas with gravity).

    - 8q: The expansion of the universe needs to expand space in places with low or zero gravity: How can to expand the space there?. And how may have been compressed with such low gravity, and spread slowly as required by Hubble’s law and almost the same low gravity?

    - 9q: How do you explain the creation of stars and galaxies into a universe in expansion?. And the collision of galaxies?. And all this in the nearby universe many times expanded?

    - 10q: Hubble’s law, the expansion of the universe at light speed in each radio and see the radiation of cosmic microwave background that we need in an area without moving and near the center of the universe: What is the probability of actually fulfill these conditions?. How could the universe expand at a higher speed of light as the theories say and at the same time we see the cosmic microwave background if it is an expansion and therefore speed of light or more would be invisible?

    - 11q: According to the theory of relativity the most distant stars and very fast have slowed their watches and are very small in size. How is it possible to see and have had time to create, …?. O: How could not move as the theory says that space is created between?. And the last question in relation to the theory of the Big Rip?

    - 12q: If the expansion is equal in all directions according to theories: How can agree with Hubble’s law a flat expansion (cubic) where the diagonal is greater than the sides against a spherical expansion is the only one in which the expansion would be equal in all directions?.

    - 13q: If the universe is flat geometry (called Euclidean), which means that parallel lines continuously maintain the same distance: How can agree with Hubble’s law if only a spherical expansion agree with this law?.
    Last edited by lbiar; 2010-May-20 at 09:16 AM.

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Posts
    74
    first page (without links)

    Abstracts

    Currently, astronomers believe the universe is expanding because all the evidence seems to point in that direction, but such expansion is impossible according to the hypotheses presented. These hypotheses are accordingly in concordance with accepted laws of standard physics.

    As the universe seems to be expanding seemingly the only solution is that it is solely a visual effect.

    The solution accordingly is apparent (hypothesis 14h): that light is bent and ultimately stretched by gravity as shown from General Relativity. The greater the distance the more light is bent and stretched in accordance with prevailing gravitational influences in its vicinity. At distances of millions and billions of light years there would be a significant increase in this bending and stretching of E.M. radiation resulting in it being greatly red-shifted. This hypotheses also seems to be consistent with the hypothesis of the accelerated expansion of the universe.

    Here presented are 20 arguments (hypotheses, or doubts) against the accepted expansion idea and also other related hypotheses that might indicate that there may be alternatives to the accepted universe-expansion theory such as the hypothesis of gravitational red-shifting presented.
    Index

    Introduction
    Why only an optic effect is possible according to Physic Laws?
    What happens really?
    Why is misinterpreted as expansion?
    How is the Universe?
    Start and end of the Universe
    Arguments (and curiosities)
    Hypotheses
    Doubts, Critics, Comments
    Introduction

    This work may surprise you, but agree with the laws of physics and mathematics. Here, I try to show that expansion of the universe is impossible and everything is just an optical effect. Like an optical effect that we see this in accordance with the laws of physics where there is distance-size relationship visible.

    From the theory of relativity we know that light is bent by gravity. No one has demonstrated or experienced that space can expand. The expansion of the universe occurs mainly in parts of the universe with little or no gravity). The expansion of the universe is also against the math because it’s like saying 1=2=3=4=…=10000=…, for example in meters (one-dimensional) are that 1 meter after 2, …

    I summarize that the expansion of the universe is against the laws of physics and mathematics

    When we talk about the expansion of the universe we can only speak about creating or expanding space and in the latter case is difficult to explain because it was compressed and also mostly in areas with very low or zero gravity.

    The laws of physics are so strictly that any error is taken as a miracle.

    Demonstrate that something is true is often impossible.


    Why only an optical effect is in accordance with the laws of physics?

    According to the theory of the expansion of the universe, it’s expanding equally in all directions (3d) and in relation to the distance (distance-speed) and this how later I demonstrate is not possible according to physic laws where there no instantaneous nor inexhaustible and where even gravity also has a delay, as seen for example in spiral galaxies.

    In my arguments are several that show that the expansion is not possible and that what we see can only be an optical effect.

    You can travel at constant speed, but when we talk about this equivalent expansion becomes an expansion decreasing as 2 points A and B are separated at a constant rate equivalent regardless of the distance between them and thus the expansion would require instantaneous and process to fulfill the Hubble’s law.

    What happens really?

    The light is bent by gravity, this curvature according to one of my hypothesis (14h) increases continuously by increasing the gravity in micro-metric form and therefore is not visible in short and long distances, but it is noticeable in very long distances (distances of millions of light years) in which generates a small curvature which shows an effect equivalent to the expansion of the universe and red-shift.

    The effect is like an open book where we see that each page appears shorter than the previous one (circle 1 in Fig 1). If we wanted it all finished pages in the same position we should make each page a little longer and after millions of pages would find a significant difference. Another example is the internal and external rails of a curve (they have different radius).

    Light is cuved by gravity

    This is a visually that the universe is expanding because the road traveled by light is extended continuously by the gravity increasing. But the expansion is not of the space, but the road traveled by light and bent by gravity.

    This solution also supports the accelerated expansion theory because more and more the gravity grows and thus the curvature is increased (or accelerated expansion).

    By this hypothesis 2 points at the same visual distance may really be at different distances because the light travels the same distance, but one of theirs can travel more curvature than the other (points 1,2 and 3 in fig 1). Also, think that the road may curve in the 3 axes.

    Why is misinterpreted as expansion?

    For all the visual effects as if the universe really is expanding: red-shift, time delay, … because the light travels along a road increasingly longer, but this cannot be the result of that the universe is in expansion as it is against the laws of physics.

    The visual effect is the same expansion, but can only result from an effect like a mirage or optical illusion and much like the perspective (distance-size). In a mirage we can go to the place of origin and check it, but in the universe is not possible.

    Really expands the road of the light, but not the space.


    How is the Universe?

    Contrary to the theory of expansion of the universe this really is infinite in time and space because the expansion is against the laws of physics and mathematics. In arguments and hypotheses are explained in more detail.

    Start and End of the Universe

    Contrary to the theories of the Big Bang and expansion, and according to my hypothesis (it can’t expand), the universe is infinite in time and space, in the beginning the universe would have only hydrogen (might have other elements, but are not required for reach the universe we know today), this after a while (perhaps billions or trillions of years) won the first stars.

    There are theories and/or astronomers who say that a homogeneous universe could not create stars, but do not take into account that the universe has billions of years of time for it, too that the universe may be more or less homogeneous, but this is not the same as saying that the hydrogen atoms cannot move freely in any direction. This is similar to a terrain or rampant leveled, if we let time we see that rain creates channels, … and according to this theory would be impossible because the ground is leveled and rain falls homogeneously. In general, in nature no two identical objects.

    The universe has no beginning or end (infinite past and future).

    It is easy to understand that the end of the universe will be cold black holes and some will absorb other, perhaps one day there is only one black hole, but I do not think so because these black holes will be far enough from each other, but time is infinite.

    Currently in the center of many galaxies are black holes and they get bigger ever more rapidly absorbing material. A black hole can be hot or cold, after a long time is assumed that the activity is curbed and cooled. In the same way that there are collisions of galaxies and absorbs also happen to black holes.

    Earth and the Sun are in a position outside the Milky Way and so will be near the last to be absorbed by the black hole of the Milky Way galaxy unless it is absorbed by another galaxy (or collision).

    The universe began with no light (if we can talk about the start of something infinite) and almost certainly no energy or waves, … with the first stars and hot bodies (like Jupiter) began the first conversion of matter into energy and began to warm up, but not homogeneously, over time the universe loses a bit of matter converted into energy and this latter usually ends up in heat, heat dissolved in the huge space are micro-degrees and is not distributed homogeneously. Over time, increases energy and matter decreases a bit and in the future there will only black holes and some dissolved residual heat in the infinite universe.


    Arguments (and curiosities)

    I give here arguments against the expansion (and also against the Big Bang), some are more irrefutable and others creates more or less reasonable doubt. One only irrefutable argument is sufficient to demonstrate that something is false, but I prefer to write all my arguments and let the reader decide which you like better.

    These arguments are not sorted from most to least irrefutable, but rather in chronological order so that when I talk about any topic that has already been tried before and did not need to give additional information on it.

    There are 20 Arguments: 1a – Space cannot be created nor destroyed, 2a – If Universe expand, it’s at double of light speed, 3a -Expansion (unknown force) has more power that gravity (know force), 4a – Instantaneous and inexhaustible, 5a – Expansion only can be constant, 6a – Space has memory over how many need to expand, 7a – For farthest Stars the time need to go many more slowly (speed – time), 8a – Farthest Stars need to be many more little (speed – size), 9a – Farthest Stars need to be many more little-light power, 10a – Galaxies collision and new stars, 11a – If Universe expand can’t be how we see, 12a – We are at Universe center or is an optic effect, 13a – An infinite Universe and without expansion would see exactly how we see the Universe, 14a – Optic effect = Hubble’s law, 15a – Dark matter of Universe end, 16a – A Universe without expansion facilitate continued creation of stars, planets,.., 17a – Hubble’s constant may coincide with that any year is visible one light year more, 18a – Cosmic noise, 19a – Expansion need forces not know and not show until now, 20a – In an expansive Universe would be easy to find the Universe center.

    There are 7 curiosities. 1c – Expansion = Universe with relation matter/space decreasing, 2c – The space expansion need to be in count the space occupied by matter, 3c – Worlds near light speed and live at Universe end, 4c – If space can expand would have to thing in eliminate the first Thermodynamics law, 5c – Expansion & Big-Bang can’t explain Universe start & end, 6c – Any strange theory supported by big brains can seem good, 7c – The paradoxical of that farthest stars is the maximum we can see in the future.

    Go to arguments (and curiosities) page

    Hypotheses

    I write here hypotheses connected with this work.

    There are 26 hypotheses: 1h – Space can’t neither be created nor destroyed, 2h – The dark matter are radiations emitted by stars before light, 3h – Space can’t compress by gravity, 4h – Space curvature neither expand nor compress space, 5h – The light is curved near gravitational objects, 6h – Space can’t compress, 7h – Universe neither expand nor contract, is unchangeable, 8h – Universe heat up (by e=mc2), 9h – The Universe was not empty, always has been not empty, 10h -The Universe start had hydrogen and was not empty, 11h – Origin of the Universe, 12h – Universe evolution, 13h- Universe grow in gravity, 14h – The way that light travel is curved by gravity, 15h – Hubble’s law is by an optic effect, 16h – Origin and cause of galaxies, 17h – The Universe is infinite in time, 18h – The Universe is infinite in space, 19h – The Universe is finite & stable, 20h – The dark matter are stars in formation, 21h – Each galaxy will end in a black hole but not all the Universe, 22h- The cosmic noise is generated near us, 23h – Stars in future will die older, 24h – Universe can exist at any gravity level, 25h – Galaxies are similar to brush that concentrate matter & leave big empty spaces, 26h – Light is curved by gravity.

    Go to hypotheses page

    Doubts, Critics, Comments.

    Actually empty.
    Last edited by lbiar; 2010-May-19 at 10:54 AM.

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Posts
    74
    page of arguments (1 of 2):

    Arguments against expansion

    (work against the mainstream)

    I give here arguments against the expansion (and also against the Big Bang), some are more irrefutable and others creates more or less reasonable doubt. One only irrefutable argument is sufficient to demonstrate that something is false, but I prefer to write all my arguments and let the reader decide which you like better.

    These arguments are not sorted from most to least irrefutable, but rather in chronological order so that when I talk about any topic that has already been tried before and did not need to give additional information on it.

    Irrefutable arguments are: the expansion needs to be instantaneous and inexhaustible according to Hubble’s law, the accelerated expansion of the universe is impossible because the universe expands at the speed of light and we see the cosmic background, space can not expand or create, the expansion per unit of space is decreasing and needs to be processed (like a PC) and also discount the spaces with gravity and all that instantly, expansion = creation, nature is mathematics, but not the expansion of the universe, expansion is not arithmetic or geometric, but in lightyears gains in every radio, galaxy collisions and creation of new stars, … (There are 20 arguments and seven curiosities).

    1a – [argument] & [law corollary or Theory or hypothesis] – Space cannot be created nor destroyed

    By the first law of thermodynamics (The law of conservation of energy) we know that energy can neither be created nor destroyed, the same applies to space, so this may be a corollary or an addiction to the first law of thermodynamics: space, matter, time and nothing physical can be created nor destroyed, some may be transformed as energy, some can be compressed as the matter, but nothing can be created or destroyed.

    The expansion of the universe may be related to magic laws, but not with the physic laws.

    This is without considering that the space can be compressed-expanded as the matter, but according to the theory of expansion space is expanding normally in areas with very low gravity and therefore very difficult it was compressed.

    Below I argue also that the space can’t be compressed-expanded.
    2a – If Universe expand, it’s at double of light speed

    As we see objects at 13.7 billion light years and 379,000 years after the Big Bang (Reference = http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Redshift ) the Universe need to expand near light speed and it’s considered that expands at light speed or very near (1/t or 1/H-Reference = http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hubble%27s_law ).

    The light from these farthest object came out of them 13.7 billion years ago. These objects are at 13.7 billion years and the universe is 13,700,379,000, according to this reference, so 13700379000/13700000000 = 1,000027664 or a difference of 2.76 e-5 with the speed of light. This is almost the speed of light.

    As we see this in a radius and is equal in the other radius, we can say that the expansion is twice the speed of light (or very near) (2x).

    Knowing that the universe really expanding at the speed of light by radius also shows that the accelerated expansion of the universe is also impossible because even if it could exceed the speed of light as the theory admits would not allow to see the cosmic background (if they meet or exceed the speed of light would not see because it’s an expansion). Or: if Universe expands at light speed how can accelerates?

    By the expansion theory of the universe and by the speed of expansion at lightspeed in every radius only in a point of no speed near the center of a universe with spherical expansion we can see in all directions the end of the universe = the cosmic microwave background radiation. (Remember this is an expansion, not a travel).

    Since the expansion is at the speed of light and constant (or nearly), the Big Rip already should be effective (and even in the distant past). Also, said the theory that there is no motion and therefore: Why exist the Big rip theory that speaks over speed and motion?.
    3a – Expansion (unknown force) has more power that gravity (know force)

    Every day and every moment we notice the gravitational force, but according to the theory, the expansion is stronger although no one has noticed its effects not yet discovered.

    The universe is expanding at light speed and needs this force to expand at lightspeed in each radio (dark energy, ..). That an unknown force has more power than other well-known force does not seem credible and against physic laws.
    4a – Instantaneous and inexhaustible

    Instantaneous: light, gravity, particles,… travel at light speed or less, this creates a delay, but according to expansion and Hubble’s law the expansion force need to be instantaneous in all Universe points.

    A galaxy is not synchronized (with delay): How is it possible then that all the Universe expansion is synchronized (without delay)?

    Inexhaustible: is not attenuated against the other forces being attenuated by distance, so that the expansion has the same power in all parts of the universe and in all directions. (More according to an optical effect that with a force).

    Instantaneous and Inexhaustible that need Universe expansion theories are both against physic laws.

    Only optic effect doesn’t lose force with distance and is the same in all directions and according to physic laws.
    5a – Expansion only can be constant

    The Universe only can expand constantly neither increasing nor decreasing since it is very nearly or equal to light speed during millions of years. 3 next cases are against Hubble’s law (distance-speed):

    - If expansion is increasing: the numbers can’t balance, it’s not possible (by that also is not possible the inflationary universe). If the speed increases the universe would simply be less, so 1+2+3+4 does not give 4 of average (4 in the example is lightspeed where wee see actually the microwave background) and if exceed the lightspeed would not be the end of the universe.

    - If the expansion is decreasing at first would have to exceed the speed of light, would reverse inflationary theory and therefore difficult to explain the first moments of the Big Bang and would be very curious that today the average is the speed of light.

    - An irregular expansion needs to be instantaneous, it’s not logic, would need more laws, …

    As the expansion can only be constant, the unit of space (meter, inch, light year, litre, …) needs to expand in decreasing since the distance between two points is increasing, but separate at constant speed equivalent.

    A rocket or vehicle can travel at constant speed, but the expansion is not a travel, it expands the middle space at constant equivalent speed and thus where once there was 1 meter and it expands 1 meter (expansion of 100%), then we have 2 meters and expands also 1 meter (expansion of 50%). The expansion is only in areas with low or zero gravity (according to the theory) so it has to be attributed to the empty space computing powers (decreasing and take account of spaces with gravity and with movement) and instant connection so all points know how much they have to expand on each axis (all in 3d with spaces with gravity).

    Since the expansion is at lightspeed is not possible the accelerated expansion of the universe because it would exceed the speed of light and, although according to the theories is possible, not allowed to see the cosmic background. The accelerated expansion can only be an optical effect as explained in my hypothesis of light curved.

    The expansion is neither arithmetic nor exponential, is by light years in each radius of each axis, strange in nature, but normal if it is an optical effect because it is as light travels.
    6a – Space has memory over how many need to expand

    How the expansion is decreasing by space unit this space need to know how many has to expand by space unit.

    So this space (majority empty) has memory or process (like a computer) how many need to expand and also has in count the solids and spaces with gravity and movement that have not expansion (actual theories say that Universe only expand in places without gravity) and all this instantaneous for don’t contradict Hubble’s law (all in 3d).

    By this 1 point on the axis X can expand for example 1, in axis Y having close space with gravity expand 1.2 and in Z axis have a larger space with gravitiy expand 1.3.

    They are not stars separating, in this case would be logic, but is the middle space that expand by that need decrease and instantaneously in all the Universe. This detail would be logic in 2 stars separating, but not with an expanding space.

    All this is against physic laws and by that expansion is not possible according physic laws.
    7a – For farthest Stars the time need to go many more slowly (speed – time)

    (This point and next connected are against the theory that speaks over not motion and only expand the space intermediate, but according to the Big rip theory that speak over speed and motion and by that they are arguments if considering motion – see note at the end of 9a)

    By Relativity Theory we know that at more speed more slowly go the time (speed – time) and near light speed the times go very slowly. By that the farthest Stars that travel near the light speed according to Big Bang and expansion theory need to have a time very slowly and so be younger or not to be created.

    The visible Universe would be many more little since the farthest stars only have 379000 years of our time from Big Bang to light it and this time would be few years in their time.
    8a – Farthest Stars need to be many more little (speed – size)

    (depends on whether there is movement or not as in the previous argument – see note at the end of 9a)

    By Relativity Theory we know that at more speed less size (speed – size), so the farthest Stars need to be many more little, they travel near light speed.
    9a – Farthest Stars need to be many more little-light power

    (depends on whether there is movement or not as in the previous argument)

    The farthest Stars that have time more slowly need to have less light power since time that for us are thousand years for there are few years or days.

    How their internal clock goes more slowly time is for us a century by there is few years and so burn combustible in relation to their internal clock and by that give a light power many less that near stars.

    By 7a,8a and 9a seem difficult that light may be visible if considering there is motion. Another solution say that nothing is moving and the space is created between theirs without moving – maybe, but is difficult to understand because this would mean that universe don’t expand at light speed. And: How do you explain that expand just at light speed and nothing move? And in this case would exceed lightspeed and don’t see Universe end.
    10a – Galaxies collision and new stars

    By the expansion, stars and galaxies separates and this difficult each time more the galaxies collision and new stars creation.

    There is at least a collision at near 5000 million light years (reference CL0958+4702 = http://www.astronomy.com/asy/default.aspx?c=a&id=5877 ), this is near incompressible at so far space with so big red-shifts and separation, but also seem more difficult at near universe that is the future of that far space and by that the near would be more expanded and by that more impossible the galaxies collision and new stars.

    Galaxies are 13700 million years separating between theirs and with 2x light speed between far ends of Universe, the collision would be today impossible in far (more separation) and near galaxies (less past and by that would have more separation).

    By Big Bang Theory the objects we see at 13.7 billion light years (reference = http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Redshift ) made 13700 million years were at maximum of 379000 light years from Universe center and today are at 13700 million light years, distance that is 13700.000.000 / 379000 = 36147 times bigger in 1 only direction. The Universe is three-dimensional so it expands by this theory 36147x36147x36147 = 47.229.872.948.523 times.

    Note also that in Universe initial more little and with expansion constant (decrement expansion by space unit) at initial Universe the separation was many more speed and so more quickly separate the galaxies by unit of space).

    In the expanded Universe the galaxies would have to separate more and more and the density each time is less with the time, so each time is less probable the collision. Same occurs with stars creation that need gas concentration.
    11a – If Universe expand can’t be how we see

    Stars with red-shifts would be little; also more little is less light power (if there is motion).

    Stars with red-shifts by slow down time need emit with less light power (if there is motion).

    Stars near universe center traveling slowly would give more light and seem bigger (if there is motion).

    Galaxies collision and new stars would be less or null at present and more in past (density decreasing) and difficult to create different stars later of first generation (all would be old stars) because at first years the expansion by space unit would be infinitely bigger and by that a big matter separation.

    Far Universe is past and by that would to have much more star density that near Universe.

    Nothing is instantaneous and inexhaustible, but visual expansion seems it and Hubble’s law need it.

    It’s very casual that Universe age and visible light years are near the same in all directions.

    All this show that if the Universe would expand would in other visible form and it would not obey Hubble’s law.
    Last edited by lbiar; 2010-May-19 at 12:48 PM.

  5. #5
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Posts
    74
    page of arguments (2 of 2):

    12a – We are at Universe center or is an optic effect

    There is not geometric figures that admit the expansion three-dimensional how needs Hubble’s law less the sphere center.

    It’s few the probability that us are in the middle of the Universe.

    The point of Universe is not so indifferent since near the end the images would be red-blue by the speed, far of centre can’t see the other side of universe, the stars toward center Universe would see very big and with many light (time without time slowly in a Universe center spherical with less speed at centre) that don’t travel so quickly, … and all this is against Hubble’s law.

    Only in one Universe of one dimension would be not important the point (but also in an uni-dimensional Universe only at centre and without speed would see both side with a radius expansion at light speed.

    Also near Universe center has more density that the far Universe, but with pass expansion would be opposite less at center. Probably would easy calculate where is the Universe center because it doesn’t obey Hubble’s law.

    All this seems against physics laws.
    13a – [argument] & [hypothesis] & [curiosity] – An infinite Universe and without expansion would see exactly how we see the Universe

    How in perspective (an optic effect) the stars are showed with a size equivalent to distance:

    More distance is older and by that less density of stars.

    Physical laws and over all the gravity explain the operation of an infinite or finite but stable Universe (finite bad explain, but better that expansion)..

    Gravity … is attenuated with distance and there is nothing instantaneous.

    There is not words at light speed neither center nor end… and we can stay in any point of the Universe.

    The relation visible light years and years from first stars are near the same and may exist stars farthest and in an infinite Universe we would see same that actually see (same light years in distance). We see 13700 million light-years and first stars have this time (this don’t need to be same lineal distance from us, but we see same light year that years from first stars). (reference HE 1523-0901 – 13.2 billion years – in Milky Way)

    The optic effect like perspective obeys Hubble’s law and is proportional to distance (less red-shifts) and according to physic laws and my hypothesis over curved light is according to physic laws and Hubble’s law and red-shifts.

    In an infinite Universe without expansion we can think that the far Universe is how was near Universe in past and near Universe is how probably is far Universe at present days.

    By expansion, Big bang and string theories the probability of Universe how we know is very low, but with an infinite Universe the probability is 100% or near.

    In the Universe there are many hydrogen, stars in formation, elements with few density, light elements that seem normal in an infinite Universe and in my hypothesis and difficult to explain in an expansive and/or Big bang theories.

    An infinite Universe has no first and end time, all that we see it’s easy to understand how an optic effect and time (elements from stars, …), an expansive Universe need a first day and can speak over the probabilities of that first day and what happens before first day, …
    14a – Optic effect = Hubble’s law

    The only one form possible and know today to explain Hubble’s law is how an optic effect (like perspective) that is equal in all direction and has relation with distance. And also the only form according to physic laws.

    In nature there is not 2 objects equal less distance-speed in all axis from Hubble’s law, less an optic effect.
    15a – Dark matter of Universe end

    Looking at the Universe end we are seeing the past and by that signs received (not light) are starts in formation, gas clouds … from a Universe (past) still without stars (light) but stable and conform to gravity law and physic laws.

    That far Universe still not visible is similar to the near Universe in the past before first stars and also stable (farther is how near Universe make more years), what Universe still without light, but already emit signs since already has hot points and stars near activate, ….

    The theoretical dark matter from Universe end (and the dark energy) is needed in expansion theory to balance a Universe finite, but this dark matter need more dark matter to balance the first and so until the infinite. This is how to try balance a rope hold only by one side. It’s against physics laws.

    So obtain only how solution an infinite Universe.

    The dark energy and the dark matter from Universe end according to expansion need to be more power that gravity to explain stability and expansion and also need to be expanded or created because in a growing Universe the perimeter also grow. So Universe expansion also need dark matter creation and this is totally against physic laws.


    16a – A Universe without expansion facilitate continued creation of stars, planets,..

    Only a Universe without expansion facilitate the creation of stars in past, present and future meanwhile have hydrogen sufficient and well relation between this and the other elements more heavy. This is according to physic laws.
    17a – Hubble’s constant may coincide with that any year is visible one light year more

    Each year can see one light year more from light and other signals and this has relation probably with the variation in time of Hubble’s constant.

    Also may be other causes that permit appreciate an acceleration of expansion when Hubble’s constant is against.

    Expansion can’t be neither increasing nor decreasing how I say in point 5.
    18a – Cosmic noise

    By Big Bang theory is supposed it’s a radiation that comes from Universe end, but it’s so intense that is not possible with attenuation (according to physic laws). Also, for that possibility we need to stay at center Universe since the noise is equal in all directions and consider that this noise is not exhausted, is how if we can see the Big bang light forever (we see stars in past, but just in past when time and light years coincide, and hear thunderclap with delay, but only a moment and not infinite in time after).

    By their intensity (it’s noted in radio and TV sets) is sure that is generated very nearer.

    A probably origin many more probably is that it’s generated by hydrogen and this is by all sides in the Universe and infinitely more near. Maybe this or other causes, but not by Big Bang.

    That cosmic noise become from Big Bang is against physic laws: attenuation, without time (why don’t we see the light and read the noise?), ….
    19a – Expansion need forces not know and not show until now

    Solar system and galaxies … use the same physics laws: gravity, centrifuge forces, but the expansive Universe needs new forces unknowns (not demonstrates) how dark matter and dark energy.

    An infinite Universe doesn’t need new laws and forces, an expansive Universe need theirs: dark matter, dark energy, expansion stronger that gravity … (remember that dark matter needs more dark matter later or new laws).
    20a – In an expansive Universe would be easy to find the Universe center

    In a spherical expansive Universe (the only one possible according to geometry and Hubble’s law) the center would have many more density. By expansion must have more density in past.

    The reality is against it: we can’t see a center universe and far Universe have less density in all directions since it’s the past and by that a younger and less density Universe. This is according to a Universe homogeneous and infinite and against a Universe in expansion and finite.
    CURIOSITIES

    1c – Expansion = Universe with relation matter/space decreasing

    The expansion is of space, but not of matter, this means a Universe with relation matter/space decreasing. (without consider this is against physic laws and against mathematics). It’s against mathematics because supposing that 1=2=….=1000=…. (1 litre later is 2 litres, …) or in relation matter/space that 1/1=1/2=…..=1/1000=… (without consider that need to create space how I say before).
    2c – The space expansion need to be in count the space occupied by matter

    Space has expansion and not the matter and by that need to take into account the space occupied by matter to expand according to Hubble’s law.

    In case of expand space and not matter there are more problems: less density …
    3c – Worlds near light speed and live at Universe end

    The curiosity, anecdotal and paradoxical from live in a world like this where all is red-blue … Also, to be at Universe end and take out a hand or launch a ball. In this case, we need to agree not live at Universe end.
    4c – If space can expand would have to thing in eliminate first Thermodynamics law

    If space can expand (really create) probably also energy and by that would need eliminate this law.
    5c – Expansion & Big-Bang can’t explain Universe start & end

    These theories of expansion can’t explain Universe start & end, what was before, what will be later, matter, time, space …

    A Universe not in expansion can explain it, or better don’t need this point. I give hypothesis below.

    Really these theories take the image visual they see and create theories strangers, against physic laws to explain this, creating new objects (never seen), ….
    6c – Any strange theory supported by big brains can seem good

    The expansion and Big Bang has been supported by great astronomers and physics in the form that only good ideas are taken good and this good ideas are the origin for new ones.

    Suppose: One scientific say a theory, this is bad (or semi-bad) and by that is rejected, the same scientific or another correct part of the work or a new one (many times university students, thesis,…) and for example obtain success in 1/10 of the theory, … so the system advances. Only are taken good or very good ideas and the theory each time is better and seem more true and good.

    In this form many errors may seem true. I think this is how expansion and Big bang have developed because all this theories are really against physic laws, but they invent: dark matter, dark energy, anti-matter, anti-gravity, space is growing in the middle of, …. and the system grow, but really need new ideas because it has many problems that have today the Universe expansion theories, really this expansion theory even is in development and has many problems and errors.

    More: I give here arguments that Universe expansion is impossible, but remember that demonstrate anything don’t exist is really impossible (for example: how do you demonstrate that can’t speak with dead people?), they need really prove that exist. They need to give arguments or proofs of that expansion and Big bang exist and they are not really give any proof. Normally the science give proofs that any is true, in this case of Universe expansion the work is bad made, they are not give really no one proof.

    Many of reason to explain Universe expansion and Big bang seem near used in past to demonstrate that Earth was flat and that Earth was in middle of Universe and Sun and stars around Earth. Also, when we don’t know why anything happens is not cause to invent Gods and solutions without basis.

    This work made me feel how the boy in “THE KING’S NEW CLOTHES” from Christian Andersen where many people say that is true anything really impossible.
    7c – The paradoxical of that farthest stars is the maximum we can see in the future

    The farthest stars and the cosmic background radiation by light curvature probably would be the farthest stars we can see in future and also according to the accelerated expansion theory in future the farthest visible distance will be less.

    How we today can see the cosmic background radiation also we will see at future these new stars when they light if the real distance is not less in this time.

    This is according to physic laws and Relativity Theory because the light has a speed and all that need more speed (1/t or more) is not show. Here is not real speed, but there is speed according to light curvature and red shifts by this.
    Last edited by lbiar; 2010-May-19 at 10:55 AM.

  6. #6
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Posts
    4,692
    You have to learn what the mainstream really says. I'll try to answer some of your questions.

    Quote Originally Posted by lbiar View Post
    Questions (first of all)

    - 1q: The universe expand in any radius at light speed: How can accelerate? How fast expands the diameter (radius x 2)? (notes: we see the cosmic microwave background radiation – it expands, not travel – an object at lightspeed by expansion is not visible) (Reference 1/H) .
    Special relativity only limits the speed of stuff through space. The transmission of information from one place to another. The universe expanding does not violate this law and in actuality further limits the apparent speed of information being transmitted.

    Quote Originally Posted by lbiar View Post
    - 2q: A gas and also a solid can be compressed/expanded and the result is the same gas or solid with the same weight, but: how do you can expand/compress space if you compress actually had less (destroyed) and if you expand it increases (created)?
    Good thing space isn't a gas or a solid so the analogy doesn't have to hold. That said "expand" might not be the best term to use. Maybe "grow" or "created" would be a better term for you.

    Quote Originally Posted by lbiar View Post

    - 3q: A Galaxis is not synchronized, it is not instantaneous: How can be synchronized expansion of the universe that is much higher?
    Don't have any idea what you mean by this.

    Quote Originally Posted by lbiar View Post

    - 4q: If you buy 1 meter of tape and get only 0.5 meters think you getting ripped off even if the seller says it is compressed: Why we believe that the universe expands?
    Because it is the best explanation for the observations that are made.

    Quote Originally Posted by lbiar View Post
    - 5q: If the nearby universe is the future of the distant universe and much more separation (much expanded). How is it possible that near there are not many fewer stars and galaxies, or more separation?
    This question is muddled. When we look out into space the galaxies further out remain the same size in the size because of the way expansion works.

    The green dot in the centre represents our position in the universe. As objects recede away from us due to cosmic expansion their size remains the same size even though the distance is further. This is counter to our normal experience of objects appearing smaller the further away they are. The actual objects are NOT actually growing it is just the light paths are altered to make them seem larger. If expansion suddenly stopped these galaxies would stop moving away from us and over time they would appear to get smaller even though, at that point, they are no longer moving away from us.


    Quote Originally Posted by lbiar View Post
    - 6q: The velocity of expansion is constant or nearly and the distance grows continuously: How can the expansion decrease per unit of space?. How can the expansion be instantaneous and inexhaustible at all points of space in accordance with Hubble’s law?. How can instantly compute the decrease in all points? (Note: It is an expansion, so no velocity and if equivalent speed is constant, the expansion per unit of space is decreasing. For a constant expansion, the equivalent speed would grow exponentially: 1,2,4,8,16,32,…)
    Not sure what your argument is here. Expansion is at a rate of ~72km/s/Mpc. So at 2 Mpc it is ~144km/s, at 4Mpc it is ~288km/s and so on.

    Quote Originally Posted by lbiar View Post

    - 7q: How can the universe expand equally in all points according to Hubble’s law and subtract the areas with gravity as the theory says?. And expansion by unit of space different in each axis, for example: the X axis with an expansion of 1, Y of 1.2 & Z of 1.3?. (Notes: the Milky Way for example measures 100,000 light years in size and the theory says there is no expansion in areas with gravity).
    It doesn't subtract with gravity. There are just some scales where the force of gravity is greater then the force of expansion. There could be expansion within our galaxy but even at the scale of a galaxy it amounts to almost nothing.

    Quote Originally Posted by lbiar View Post
    - 8q: The expansion of the universe needs to expand space in places with low or zero gravity: How can to expand the space there?. And how may have been compressed with such low gravity, and spread slowly as required by Hubble’s law and almost the same low gravity?
    Not sure what you are asking here.

    Quote Originally Posted by lbiar View Post
    - 9q: How do you explain the creation of stars and galaxies into a universe in expansion?. And the collision of galaxies?. And all this in the nearby universe many times expanded?
    Easy, just as I can walk up an escalator that is moving down. At the scales of solar systems, galaxies and even clusters of galaxies gravity pull things together FASTER then expansion tries to move them apart.

    Quote Originally Posted by lbiar View Post
    - 10q: Hubble’s law, the expansion of the universe at light speed in each radio and see the radiation of cosmic microwave background that we need in an area without moving and near the center of the universe: What is the probability of actually fulfill these conditions?. How could the universe expand at a higher speed of light as the theories say and at the same time we see the cosmic microwave background if it is an expansion and therefore speed of light or more would be invisible?
    The CMBR is light from points in space time that over the last 13.3 billion years recession velocity is just under c. We only appear to be at the centre as the CMBR source is more a "when" then a where. It happens to be a spherical shell around us but all locations have their own spherical shell.

    Quote Originally Posted by lbiar View Post
    - 11q: According to the theory of relativity the most distant stars and very fast have slowed their watches and are very small in size. How is it possible to see and have had time to create, …?. O: How could not move as the theory says that space is created between?. And the last question in relation to the theory of the Big Rip?
    Don't mistake the apparent time shift with an actual time shift. Those distant stars experience time just like we do. They are not frozen in time. There is no SR transformation here. It is strictly a doppler shift. Just like a ambulance moving away from us sounds like it has a lower pitch siren but really doesn't. The doppler shift is only an apparent doppler shift and not a real shift in time.

    Quote Originally Posted by lbiar View Post
    - 12q: If the expansion is equal in all directions according to theories: How can agree with Hubble’s law a flat expansion (cubic) where the diagonal is greater than the sides against a spherical expansion is the only one in which the expansion would be equal in all directions?.
    You're getting confused about what spatially flat actually means


    Those triangle are all Euclidean. Expansion does not alter the fact in any way. The angles will always add up to 180°

    Quote Originally Posted by lbiar View Post
    - 13q: If the universe is flat geometry (called Euclidean), which means that parallel lines continuously maintain the same distance: How can agree with Hubble’s law if only a spherical expansion agree with this law?.
    flat geometry does not require parallel line to maintain the same distance. A non expanding space would require that but we are not in a non expanding universe.

  7. #7
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Posts
    4,692
    Quote Originally Posted by lbiar View Post
    page of arguments (1 of 2):

    Arguments against expansion
    ...

    1a – [argument] & [law corollary or Theory or hypothesis] – Space cannot be created nor destroyed
    Says you but unfortunately for you the universe doesn't have to obey your view of how it should work.
    Quote Originally Posted by lbiar View Post

    By the second law of thermodynamics we know that energy can neither be created nor destroyed, the same applies to space, so this may be a corollary or an addiction to the second law of thermodynamics: space, matter, time and nothing physical can be created nor destroyed, some may be transformed as energy, some can be compressed as the matter, but nothing can be created or destroyed.
    First of all I'd suggest that you learn more about what the actual 2LoT (2nd Law of Thermodynamics) actually says and not your layman's understanding says. Secondly don't introduce your own bits into the 2LoT. The 2LoT says that the entropy in an isolated system will increase over time. There is nothing in there that prevents energy/matter from getting created or destroyed and NOTHING about space.

    Quote Originally Posted by lbiar View Post
    The expansion of the universe may be related to magic laws, but not with the physic laws.
    Just because we don't yet understand all the details about the physical laws relating to expansion does not make them "magic". Even if we never understand said laws doesn't make them "magic"

    Quote Originally Posted by lbiar View Post
    This is without considering that the space can be compressed-expanded as the matter, but according to the theory of expansion space is expanding normally in areas with very low gravity and therefore very difficult it was compressed.

    Below I argue also that the space can’t be compressed-expanded.
    2a – If Universe expand, it’s at double of light speed

    As we see objects at 13.7 billion light years and 379,000 years after the Big Bang (Reference) the Universe need to expand near light speed and it’s considered that expands at light speed or very near (1/t or 1/H-Reference).

    The light from these farthest object came out of them 13.7 billion years ago. These objects are at 13.7 billion years and the universe is 13,700,379,000, according to this reference, so 13700379000/13700000000 = 1,000027664 or a difference of 2.76 e-5 with the speed of light. This is almost the speed of light.
    The CMBR is light from ~13.4 billion years ago and is receding roughly at 0.9998c but the actual object are NOT moving through space at this speed.

    No real need to go any further. You are building your ideas on faulty logic and understanding of what the actual science says. So in essence you are objecting to some other universe and not the universe we find ourselves in.

  8. #8
    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Posts
    1,648
    Our Universe doesn't expand in a space. It is the space which expands.
    Actually the expanssion is an illusion created by quantum information because the Holographic Principle.
    Mainstream physics accepts our reality is a hologram made on a screen and volume is only an illusion (Suskind, Maldacena, 't Hooft, Beckenstein, Smolin, Verlinde....)
    Big Bang is a moment when the quantum information had started to contact and interfere. We do not know how large is the Universe - it is far beyond our observable horizon. We may conclude when it started because of Hubble law. The information came in relation in the whole Universe at once but an observer can see the events which come to him with a speed of light. Therefore the Event Horizon expands for him.

    Why the average density of the Universe decreases ?
    It is only our observation. Actually due to Holographic Principle the information contents depends on the area of the screen not on the volume. The empty Vacuum is build of virtual particle-antiparticle pairs (2D) Any observation needs additional relation therefore all observation are in a space with a volume (3D). Therefore the amount of the information supplied proportional to area (R^2) is observed as decreasing density in volume proportional to R^3.

    This model agrees with quantum information and observations. Nothing strange. SR and Energy is conserved.

  9. #9
    Join Date
    Aug 2002
    Posts
    9,462

    czeslaw could you please NOT give your own ATM interpretations of mainstream physics. If you want to discuss your interpretation, then do that in your own thread. You know how it works here.
    All comments made in red are moderator comments. Please, read the rules of the forum here, the special rules for the ATM section here and conspiracy theories. If you think a post is inappropriate, don't comment on it in thread but report it using the /!\ button in the lower left corner of each message. But most of all, have fun!

    Catch me on twitter: @tusenfem
    Catch Rosetta Plasma Consortium on twitter: @Rosetta_RPC

  10. #10
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Posts
    74
    Thanks WayneFrancis, I treat to aswer your notes.

    (maybe any aswer is not correct, if it's so remember me).

    Quote Originally Posted by WayneFrancis View Post

    Special relativity only limits the speed of stuff through space. The transmission of information from one place to another. The universe expanding does not violate this law and in actuality further limits the apparent speed of information being transmitted.
    this is 1q: Theories say that universe can expand more that light speed, but if this would true we could not see the universe end, but we see the the cosmic microwave background radiation, this means that we see the end and by that the expansion is not more that light speed, is near just light speed.

    Remember that this is a expansion and not a travel, in a expansion if the universe expand more at light speed or more we can't see the cosmic microwave background radiation.

    If accelerate we can't see the cosmic microwave background radiation and if accelerate and decelerate is agains Hubble's law (distance-speed).

    At this we need add that the expansion is decreasing and need to be computer and transmit nstantly to all point (instantaneous). Is decreasing because if 2 point A and B for example are with a distance original of 1 meter and this expand 1 meter (100%), later are at 2 meters and expand also 1 meter (50%). This is how universe expand.

    In this point I have this reference (it has not taken the link) : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hubble%27s_law


    Quote Originally Posted by WayneFrancis View Post
    Good thing space isn't a gas or a solid so the analogy doesn't have to hold. That said "expand" might not be the best term to use. Maybe "grow" or "created" would be a better term for you.
    - question 2q: if we speak over created then: How can created space? From what? The space according to my argument 1 can't be created nor destroyed.

    Also remember that the space need to be created in 3d in all point, in relation decreasing and in spaces normally with very low gravity or zero and this means processing and instantaneous.

    Actual theories say that the expansion is only in places without gravity, by that also need process the spaces with gravity (and this is moving) and so a point may expand in X axis 1, in Y axis, 1.1 and Z axis 1.12 and in relation with all the other points of universe and instantaneous.

    Quote Originally Posted by WayneFrancis View Post
    Don't have any idea what you mean by this.
    - question 3q: I say that a galaxy is many little that universe and is not sincronized (gravity, light, .. has delay) and by that: How can be synchronized expansion of the universe that is much higher? .

    In universe the expansion is sincronized (instantaneous) according to Hubble's law and this how I say before is not constant, is decreasing and need to computer places with gravity.

    Quote Originally Posted by WayneFrancis View Post
    Because it is the best explanation for the observations that are made.
    - question 4q: In this case I say that this explanation has many errors from my point of view.

    Quote Originally Posted by WayneFrancis View Post
    This question is muddled. When we look out into space the galaxies further out remain the same size in the size because of the way expansion works.

    The green dot in the centre represents our position in the universe. As objects recede away from us due to cosmic expansion their size remains the same size even though the distance is further. This is counter to our normal experience of objects appearing smaller the further away they are. The actual objects are NOT actually growing it is just the light paths are altered to make them seem larger. If expansion suddenly stopped these galaxies would stop moving away from us and over time they would appear to get smaller even though, at that point, they are no longer moving away from us.
    - question 5q: I believe that I post and you answer has not relation, but I treat to anwser.

    To my question, the theory say that the expansion is equal in all points (less gravity zones), by that the near universe is the far universe in future and by that in near universe the gallaxies need to be many times more separated that in far universe. From past (far universe) to present (near universe) the expansion has need to separate the galaxies big distances.

    To your note, I apologize but the fig is incorrect, according to theories the expansion is equal in all point, is not spherical.

    More : "As objects recede away from us due to cosmic expansion their size remains the same size even though the distance is further" I thing so and by that I don't have nothing to say.


    Quote Originally Posted by WayneFrancis View Post
    Not sure what your argument is here. Expansion is at a rate of ~72km/s/Mpc. So at 2 Mpc it is ~144km/s, at 4Mpc it is ~288km/s and so on.
    - question 6q: I'm according to you in what you say, but that you say at "universe time"/2 was half, because the universe expand at light speed.

    We see objects at 13.7 billion light years and 379,000 years after the Big Bang, by that the Universe need to expand near light speed and it’s considered that expands at light speed or very near - reference: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Redshift

    The light from these farthest object came out of them 13.7 billion years ago. These objects are at 13.7 billion years and the universe is 13,700,379,000, according to this reference, so 13700379000/13700000000 = 1,000027664 or a difference of 2.76 e-5 with the speed of light. This is almost the speed of light.

    To see that object at that distance the universe need to expand at light speed because distance and years is near the same.

    Remember that if expansion accelerate or deccelerate is against Hubble's law (distance-speed).

    By all this I say also that expansion would be decreasing.

    Quote Originally Posted by WayneFrancis View Post
    It doesn't subtract with gravity. There are just some scales where the force of gravity is greater then the force of expansion. There could be expansion within our galaxy but even at the scale of a galaxy it amounts to almost nothing.
    - question 7q: is the same that substract places with gravity or that gravity is greater that the force of expansion, according to Hubble's law the empty space need to have in count how many space has not expansion according to Hubble's law.

    By this how I say before, 1 point can expand at each axis different.

    In other case the expansion would be not constant, with changes, .. because we can't see later a galaxy but we can see the sides and according to theory the universe expand in all direction, not only in the direction we see.


    Quote Originally Posted by WayneFrancis View Post
    Not sure what you are asking here.
    - question 8q: According to actual theory the Universe only expand in places without gravity, so: How can expand there? From what, or is a creation of space from nothing?.

    If the space was compressed (need for expanding) How can be compressed in that pace without gravity? And why expand slowly and not all the compressed space at the same time if there is nothing know to maintain it compressed and/or to expand gradually?

    I think that a creation only can make it a GOD.

    Quote Originally Posted by WayneFrancis View Post
    Easy, just as I can walk up an escalator that is moving down. At the scales of solar systems, galaxies and even clusters of galaxies gravity pull things together FASTER then expansion tries to move them apart.
    - question 9q: Maybe I have bad this question into a gallaxy or cluster how you say but I refer here out of this clusters. According to theory the separation each time is bigger and probably in a universe in expansion this cluster can not would make. For be a cluster before have need to approach and this in a universe in expansion is difficult. (in this case we can't know if the cluster was before of expansion).

    Quote Originally Posted by WayneFrancis View Post
    The CMBR is light from points in space time that over the last 13.3 billion years recession velocity is just under c. We only appear to be at the centre as the CMBR source is more a "when" then a where. It happens to be a spherical shell around us but all locations have their own spherical shell.
    - question 10q: I believe you say near I say.

    I give a few more information by that: We see the CMBR, if the universe expand at more speed that lightspeed we could not see it (or receive it), because in a expansion if this is equal or more that light speed you don't see that (In a travel you see that).

    The CMBR is near light speed (I have read 13.7 billion how I say before in 1 reference) is near the universe age (379,000 years after the Big Bang), by that if we have any speed we probably can't see this in all sides, by that we need to have not motion and very near to the center of the universe. In 2a (argument 2) I make the calculus and is 2.76 e-5 from lightspeed.

    Also I explain in other point that only a spherical expansion is according to Hubble's law, maybe this has not many relation with this point.


    Quote Originally Posted by WayneFrancis View Post
    Don't mistake the apparent time shift with an actual time shift. Those distant stars experience time just like we do. They are not frozen in time. There is no SR transformation here. It is strictly a doppler shift. Just like a ambulance moving away from us sounds like it has a lower pitch siren but really doesn't. The doppler shift is only an apparent doppler shift and not a real shift in time.
    - question 11q: In this point I understand there are theories in all directions.

    Any theories say that is not motion and that expand space intermediate, I speak over that down in arguments: 7a,8a and 9a, that I have read in other post in this thread.

    Other theories how Big-rip need speed.

    By that I consider there are theories in the 2 directions.

    This question is in the direction that there is speed.

    If we consider there is motion my notes are correct because how you say is not actual time shift but if they don't go to that speed we see more near and is according to Hubble's law.

    Quote Originally Posted by WayneFrancis View Post
    You're getting confused about what spatially flat actually means

    Those triangle are all Euclidean. Expansion does not alter the fact in any way. The angles will always add up to 180°
    flat geometry does not require parallel line to maintain the same distance. A non expanding space would require that but we are not in a non expanding universe.
    - question 12q: Here you probably has reason.

    In your figure I see spherical expansion and not Euclidean, I don't see "parallel lines continuously maintain the same distance" and for me the spherical expansion is not Euclidean.

    Maybe I have mistake here but I don't understand how can be spherical and don't cross parallels.

    But theory say that the expansion is the same in all point and direction, don't is important the place of the universe, for my this is against Hubble's law.

    Thanks.

  11. #11
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Posts
    74
    Thanks WayneFrancis another time, I treat to aswer your notes.

    (maybe any aswer is not correct, if it's so remember me).


    Quote Originally Posted by WayneFrancis View Post

    Says you but unfortunately for you the universe doesn't have to obey your view of how it should work.
    this is 1a: You has true.

    But I don't understand then how space can be created?

    Only in universe expansion maybe any proof of pobrably space expansion or creation, but I say that space creation is against physic laws.

    Quote Originally Posted by WayneFrancis View Post
    First of all I'd suggest that you learn more about what the actual 2LoT (2nd Law of Thermodynamics) actually says and not your layman's understanding says. Secondly don't introduce your own bits into the 2LoT. The 2LoT says that the entropy in an isolated system will increase over time. There is nothing in there that prevents energy/matter from getting created or destroyed and NOTHING about space.

    Just because we don't yet understand all the details about the physical laws relating to expansion does not make them "magic". Even if we never understand said laws doesn't make them "magic"
    this is over "By the second law of thermodynamics":

    Sorry, you has reason, a bad reference for me. I need to repare this mistake.

    Is The law of conservation of energy - The first law of thermodynamics. Sorry another time.

    By the other I'm against your note : "There is nothing in there that prevents energy/matter from getting created or destroyed and NOTHING about space", the conservation of energy and that nothing can to be created.

    That this is not "magic" would be the first time that physic admit the creation of anything from nothing, at least I don't know near believe this may be.

    I have not much to say if physic admit creation from nothing.

    Quote Originally Posted by WayneFrancis View Post
    The CMBR is light from ~13.4 billion years ago and is receding roughly at 0.9998c but the actual object are NOT moving through space at this speed.

    No real need to go any further. You are building your ideas on faulty logic and understanding of what the actual science says. So in essence you are objecting to some other universe and not the universe we find ourselves in.
    this is 2a: with your note of CMBR I agree that.

    I don't say that travel, ... I say here that the expansion is at lightspeed in any radius.

    I don't understand: Why you say "faulty logic and understanding" if really I think I use always the logic and physic laws?

    Over that I speak over "other universe" I'm against you say, I only speak over that the universe can't expand, because this need that space expand in decreasing form and equal in all point according to Hubble's law and this need to be instantaneous that it's agains physic laws.

    All this of expansion of creation of space for me is near a miracle and far of physic, but also accepting that the space may create or expand (for me is difficult), this don't answer: Why is decreasing and consider points with gravity and all this is Instantaneous and inexhaustible?, and accepting that proccess this decreasing form and instantaneous (for me is difficult), I don't understand: Why the space expands equal in all points and that is against Hubble's law that relationate speed and distance and by that only may be a spherical expansion ...

    Sorry if disturb, but I think that all this notes don't change nothing over my work. I keep and hold my work.

    Thanks another time by your notes.
    Last edited by lbiar; 2010-May-19 at 05:17 PM.

  12. #12
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Posts
    74
    Hello czeslaw:

    Quote Originally Posted by czeslaw View Post
    Our Universe doesn't expand in a space. It is the space which expands.
    True, but this space how I say is more near a creation because how was compress over all in empty spaces.

    Quote Originally Posted by czeslaw View Post
    We do not know how large is the Universe - it is far beyond our observable horizon.
    True, but we see the cosmic microwave background radiation and by that can say that we see the end of the universe or the radiation from Big bang.

    Quote Originally Posted by czeslaw View Post
    Why the average density of the Universe decreases ?
    It is only our observation.
    I don't think so. If the space (volume) increase (expansion) and the matter no, the density need to decrease.

    Thanks.

  13. #13
    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Posts
    1,648
    There are not my interpretations - I think it is good to read what the famous physicists wrote:
    Gerard 't Hooft - http://lanl.arxiv.org/abs/gr-qc/9310026
    Leonard Susskind - http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/hep-th/pdf/9409/9409089v2.pdf
    Jacob Beckenstein - http://community.livejournal.com/ref_sciam/1190.html
    Erik Verlinde - http://www.wired.com/beyond_the_beyo...c-information/

  14. #14
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Posts
    74
    Quote Originally Posted by czeslaw View Post
    There are not my interpretations - I think it is good to read what the famous physicists wrote:
    Gerard 't Hooft - http://lanl.arxiv.org/abs/gr-qc/9310026
    Leonard Susskind - http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/hep-th/pdf/9409/9409089v2.pdf
    Jacob Beckenstein - http://community.livejournal.com/ref_sciam/1190.html
    Erik Verlinde - http://www.wired.com/beyond_the_beyo...c-information/
    Over this notes of Holographic Principle I believe I have nothing to say.

    I believe there is none or few relation with I say and would extend the discussion to other concepts.

    Thanks.

  15. #15
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Posts
    1,759
    Quote Originally Posted by lbiar View Post
    Sorry if disturb, but I think that all this notes don't change nothing over my work. I keep and hold my work.

    Thanks another time by your notes.
    You seem to have a very limited knowledge of what the mainstream understanding is, and this has led you to build a shaky structure on top of a shakier foundation. I recommend, before you go much further, that you do some reading on the subject.

    Good summaries for the lay audience may be found here:

    http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/cosmology_faq.html

    There are other places, but that's a good one to start with.

  16. #16
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Posts
    74
    Quote Originally Posted by WayneFrancis View Post
    No real need to go any further. You are building your ideas on faulty logic and understanding of what the actual science says. So in essence you are objecting to some other universe and not the universe we find ourselves in.
    Quote Originally Posted by Geo Kaplan View Post
    You seem to have a very limited knowledge of what the mainstream understanding is, and this has led you to build a shaky structure on top of a shakier foundation. I recommend, before you go much further, that you do some reading on the subject.

    Good summaries for the lay audience may be found here:

    http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/cosmology_faq.html

    There are other places, but that's a good one to start with.
    For both:

    If I try to argument against the universe expansion, is normal that I use distint arguments that you.

    This is how a lawyer that say to district attorney that he don't use the same arguments and proofs, and:

    By WayneFrancis: "You are building your ideas on faulty logic and understanding of what the actual science says": Why I need to use the logic and understanding of actual theories if I try to demonstrate the opponent?

    By Geo Kaplan: "You seem to have a very limited knowledge of what the mainstream understanding": Why I need to change my arguments by that say WayneFrancis? . Also is sure I against what say in the page you post.

    Think also a people that treat to demonstrate that Big Foot don't exist and people that believe that exist ask him for use the same arguments that theirs for demonstrate that exist. This would be insanity.

    Don't mistake that anything is to give arguments here (against mainstream) and another to give the reason to all. I have argumented to all that WayneFrancis has sayd. Another thing is that for me that don't give any new information.

    Thanks another time to both, but understand that I treat to demonstrate against you say.
    Last edited by lbiar; 2010-May-19 at 10:04 PM.

  17. #17
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    a long way away
    Posts
    10,993
    Quote Originally Posted by lbiar View Post
    Why I need to use the logic and understanding of actual theories if I try to demonstrate the opponent?
    You need to understand the theory you are attempting to criticize it before you can make a good argument against it. You clearly do not understand very much about modern cosmology so it is hard to take your assertions seriously.

    It is like me arguing that people cannot breath oxygen. My reason: oxygen is blue (because I say so) and people are pink. Therefore they cannot breath oxygen. They must be breathing nitrogen, because I think it is pink. Biochemistry is irrelevant because it has nothing to do with my "theory".

    That is how "logical" and well informed your argument sounds.

    It is hard to give a more detailed refutation (kudos to WayneFrancis for trying) because your ideas are so confused. I don't think this is just because you are writing in English. I think they would be equally confused and meaningless in Spanish.

  18. #18
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Posts
    1,759
    Quote Originally Posted by lbiar View Post
    For both:

    If I try to argument against the universe expansion, is normal that I use distint arguments that you.

    This is how a lawyer that say to district attorney that he don't use the same arguments and proofs, and:

    By WayneFrancis: "You are building your ideas on faulty logic and understanding of what the actual science says": Why I need to use the logic and understanding of actual theories if I try to demonstrate the opponent?

    By Geo Kaplan: "You seem to have a very limited knowledge of what the mainstream understanding": Why I need to change my arguments by that say WayneFrancis? . Also is sure I against what say in the page you post.

    Think also a people that treat to demonstrate that Big Foot don't exist and people that believe that exist ask him for use the same arguments that theirs for demonstrate that exist. This would be insanity.

    Don't mistake that anything is to give arguments here (against mainstream) and another to give the reason to all. I have argumented to all that WayneFrancis has sayd. Another thing is that for me that don't give any new information.



    I believe that I make well here my arguments and answers. Another thing is that I say: "sorry if I disturb"

    Thanks another time to both, but understand that I treat to demonstrate against you say.
    Arguments and opinions are fine, but in science, there is a higher threshold. The fact that you misunderstand the overwhelming evidence for the mainstream view is not in your favor. If you are unable to state the mainstream view correctly, it's doubtful that you can refute it.

    You don't have to worry about "disturbing" us (!). What you do have to worry about, though, is presenting a poorly constructed argument here.

    We fully understand that you are here to "demonstrate against what we say." We're just eager to see you do so in a way that is consistent with the experimental evidence that exists. You have presented nothing of the sort, so your "demonstrations" are simply your opinions without evidentiary support. Do you understand the difference between a "theory" (small "t", and colloquially taken to be synonymous with "random guess") and a Theory (a scientific theory, which makes falsifiable predictions, and is supported by experiment)? Right now, your ideas are in the former category. The mainstream view is in the latter. If you read through the entire faq by Prof. Wright, you will see the considerable evidence that has led to the mainstream view. If you see a demonstrable flaw, then by all means point it out. But just expressing opinion is futile. Everyone has one, but not everyone is right.

  19. #19
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Posts
    74
    Sorry to all, probably I need this notes (argue), but this don't is how I see it. Later explain.

    I don't like to say that what you say is not good, but I see that I don't argument well.

    Later answer all this, according to faq by Prof. Wright.

    I can't answer now. Probably my bad english also difficult all.

  20. #20
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Posts
    74
    Sorry. Probably I deserve this notes. (I answer here to the 2 last notes)

    "You need to understand the theory you are attempting to criticize it before you can make a good argument against it"

    I don't believe so, but I go treat to criticize theirs.

    "If you read through the entire faq by Prof. Wright, you will see the considerable evidence that has led to the mainstream view"

    I treat there:

    In that page : http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/co...tml#BBevidence say:

    xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

    "What is the evidence for the Big Bang?"

    - "The darkness of the night sky - Olbers' paradox. " - I'm according to this, in my work I speak over visual expansion of the universe (but I add that is not real expansion, only visual)

    - "The Hubble Law - the linear distance vs redshift law" - I'm also according to this and I speak many in my work over Hubble's law.

    - "Homogeneity - fair data showing that our location in the Universe is not special." - I'm also according to this and - I speak many also of this (I have counted 6 times up here)

    - "Isotropy - very strong data showing that the sky looks the same in all directions to 1 part in 100,000. " - I'm also according to this, by that I say that expansion only can be spherical according to Hubble's law.

    - "Time dilation in supernova light curves." - I'm also according to this - and speak over it in my work. (I call it "time delay"). How I say I speak that universe has expansion visual.


    - "Existence of the blackbody CMB. This shows that the Universe has evolved from a dense, isothermal state." - I'm also according to this, and I use many time to argument that we see the universe end and by that the expansion can't be more that light speed. In my hypotheses I speak more over it.

    xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

    So, how you can see I'm according with many of this evidences, I against to the idea that are from Big bang. I put in first post that : (This work is according to the visual expansion of the universe and with visual accelerated expansion of the universe) - with this I have obtain help but I need more help.

    I also thinked that this was well explain in my work but I see that no. I need to make understand in my work I'm according with all this.

    I see all my work is in 0% value, I need many help because I don't explain well and how you say seem "misunderstand the overwhelming evidence for the mainstream view is not in your favor".

    In the notes with "WayneFrancis" I have treated to answer the notes he has write, but saying that for me don't obtain nothing new or new information.

    In this 2 later post, I see really I'm very distant from I thinked and my work is bad write and create misunderstand or all at same time. And probably my form of write create enemies. (I have all very difficult).

    Maybe you have reason and first of all take a point to begin, until now, how I see now, all seem a war, without mutual points. Probably is my fault and don't inform well (I thinked the transmission was well, until now).

    I wait you can understand my error for not need all time say sorry.

    Sorry another time by my disturb, I need your help if you like help me.
    Last edited by lbiar; 2010-May-19 at 11:40 PM.

  21. #21
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Location
    Arlington Hts, Illinois
    Posts
    1,814
    Quote Originally Posted by lbiar View Post
    Questions (first of all)

    - 1q: The universe expand in any radius at light speed: How can accelerate? How fast expands the diameter (radius x 2)? (notes: we see the cosmic microwave background radiation – it expands, not travel – an object at lightspeed by expansion is not visible) (Reference 1/H) : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hubble%27s_law
    English must not be your native language so I guess I will have to take that into consideration. No object is moving at light speed in the universe. Special relativistic effects only concern objects' reference frames that pass one another. Light that moves from a light bulb has wave fronts moving outward at speed c from the source. Like dropping a pebble in a pond, waves spread into expanding circles at speed relative to the water a velocity that differs from the velocity opposite ends of any measured diameter does. There they move much faster from one another than they do relative to the water or to the position where the pebble was dropped.

    - 2q: A gas and also a solid can be compressed/expanded and the result is the same gas or solid with the same weight,
    This is false. The result will have the same mass but not the same weight. Your mass is the same whether you stand here or on the Moon but your weight measured on the lunar surface will be 1/6 of your weight measured on the terrestrial surface.
    but: how do you can expand/compress space if you compress actually had less (destroyed) and if you expand it increases (created)?
    I think you need to download a translation service. I cannot understand this.

    - 3q: A Galaxis is not synchronized, it is not instantaneous: How can be synchronized expansion of the universe that is much higher?
    This sentence is not clear either.

    - 4q: If you buy 1 meter of tape and get only 0.5 meters think you getting ripped off even if the seller says it is compressed: Why we believe that the universe expands?

    - 5q: If the nearby universe is the future of the distant universe and much more separation (much expanded). How is it possible that near there are not many fewer stars and galaxies, or more separation?
    There is no one location in the universe that the space of the universe is expanding from. You are making the assumption that space existed before the Big Bang. There would be fewer stars in the universe the more distant we looked outward , provided we would be located at the spot where expansion began. The density remains fairly constant but the more distant we look we should be the galaxy clusters getting denser and not more rarified. Eventually, in all directions, we should see the same object no matter which way we point our telescopes since we are looking back further and further in time. That object exists and is called the cosmic microwave background. The further we look back in time, the hotter the CMB should be measured to be and that has been verified.

    - 6q: The velocity of expansion is constant or nearly and the distance grows continuously: How can the expansion decrease per unit of space?. How can the expansion be instantaneous and inexhaustible at all points of space in accordance with Hubble’s law?. How can instantly compute the decrease in all points? (Note: It is an expansion, so no velocity and if equivalent speed is constant, the expansion per unit of space is decreasing. For a constant expansion, the equivalent speed would grow exponentially: 1,2,4,8,16,32,…)
    What is driving expansion deals with an energy that seems to oscillate. It expanded and weakened with time as expected and then increased its rate of expansion.

    - 7q: How can the universe expand equally in all points according to Hubble’s law and subtract the areas with gravity as the theory says?. And expansion by unit of space different in each axis, for example: the X axis with an expansion of 1, Y of 1.2 & Z of 1.3?. (Notes: the Milky Way for example measures 100,000 light years in size and the theory says there is no expansion in areas with gravity).
    You are misreading many things. Scientists cannot measure spatial expansion locally because, although expansion exists locally, it is too small on the local scale in comparison to gravitational contractions taking place. We can measure nearby galaxies coming toward us in our local group but none of the very distant galaxies are blue shifted at all. All are red shifted. All are moving away.

    - 8q: The expansion of the universe needs to expand space in places with low or zero gravity: How can to expand the space there?. And how may have been compressed with such low gravity, and spread slowly as required by Hubble’s law and almost the same low gravity?
    Expansion doesn't need to expand in places with low or zero gravity. Expansion is just more easily measured there because the distances are much greater. If the space expanded by only one hair width between you and I, we would not notice the difference and we will fall to the ground and drop objects to it just as we always have, overcoming any spatial expansion attempts to separate us. But over great distances the hair widths really add up and they overcome the gravity of the whole universe.

    On a similar note, the reason you and I can have a shape that is not spherical is because the force of gravity between all our body cells is weaker than the electrical forces that permit us to have the shapes we have. However, if our mass of your body was as great as the earth, your shape would become spherical.

    - 9q: How do you explain the creation of stars and galaxies into a universe in expansion?. And the collision of galaxies?. And all this in the nearby universe many times expanded?
    I just did explain it. Local forces of gravity are greater than the local force of expansion. Only on a universal scale is expansion greater.

    - 10q: Hubble’s law, the expansion of the universe at light speed in each radio and see the radiation of cosmic microwave background that we need in an area without moving and near the center of the universe: What is the probability of actually fulfill these conditions?. How could the universe expand at a higher speed of light as the theories say and at the same time we see the cosmic microwave background if it is an expansion and therefore speed of light or more would be invisible?
    There is no center of the universe. All the matter of the universe along with all of the space of the universe was at the same place and that one place has no location.

    - 11q: According to the theory of relativity the most distant stars and very fast have slowed their watches and are very small in size. How is it possible to see and have had time to create, …?. O: How could not move as the theory says that space is created between?. And the last question in relation to the theory of the Big Rip?
    You need to study relativity more closely and more thoroughly. No watches "slow" and special relativity does not deal with spatial expansion. General relativity does.

    I would begin to study relativity but asking yourself the following questions:

    What constitutes "rest"?
    What constitutes motion?
    What constitutes a change in motion?
    What are shared motions?
    What is uniform motion?
    What is a reference frame?
    Is there an equivalence principle between uniform motion and rest?
    Since water waves move with respect to water and sound waves move with respect to air, then what does light waves move with respect to?
    What experiments have been done concerning the above questions and how have their results changed our views of the laws of motion?
    - 12q: If the expansion is equal in all directions according to theories: How can agree with Hubble’s law a flat expansion (cubic) where the diagonal is greater than the sides against a spherical expansion is the only one in which the expansion would be equal in all directions?.

    - 13q: If the universe is flat geometry (called Euclidean), which means that parallel lines continuously maintain the same distance: How can agree with Hubble’s law if only a spherical expansion agree with this law?.
    Where do you get the impression that only spherical expansion agrees with Hubble's Law? Hubble's law only states that the recession velocity of a distant extragalactic object (one outside the local group) is directly proportional to the distance, D. The constant of proportionality is the Hubble Constant, H 0 and v = H0D

  22. #22
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Posts
    4,692
    Quote Originally Posted by czeslaw View Post
    Our Universe doesn't expand in a space. It is the space which expands.
    Actually the expanssion is an illusion created by quantum information because the Holographic Principle.
    Mainstream physics accepts our reality is a hologram made on a screen ...
    The holographic principle is not mainstream. It's an interesting idea but not sure it really is useful in any real way to explain features of the universe that the mainstream does not.
    That said it is much more compatible with observations then Ibiar's understanding. I'll leave it at that as to not derail this thread.

  23. #23
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Posts
    4,692
    Quote Originally Posted by tusenfem View Post

    czeslaw could you please NOT give your own ATM interpretations of mainstream physics. If you want to discuss your interpretation, then do that in your own thread. You know how it works here.
    Whoops sorry, this is what I get for reading and responding to posts in the order they appear without reading ahead. Sorry for responding to that post.

  24. #24
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Posts
    1,759
    Quote Originally Posted by lbiar View Post
    In this 2 later post, I see really I'm very distant from I thinked and my work is bad write and create misunderstand or all at same time. And probably my form of write create enemies. (I have all very difficult).

    Sorry another time by my disturb, I need your help if you like help me.
    Please don't worry about "creating enemies" here. Disagreements can get heated sometimes, but don't think that an attack on your ideas is the same as an attack on you personally. And if we fail to observe that basic rule of civility, the mods are very good about reacting appropriately to such breaches of decorum.

    That said, your English does make it tough to understand what you are saying, so forgive me if I ask a lot of questions that you think you've already answered.

  25. #25
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Location
    Arlington Hts, Illinois
    Posts
    1,814
    Ibiar, I would just ask one question at a time and not make such a laundry list of posts and a too many lists within each post.

  26. #26
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Posts
    4,692
    Quote Originally Posted by lbiar View Post
    Thanks WayneFrancis, I treat to aswer your notes.

    (maybe any aswer is not correct, if it's so remember me).



    this is 1q: Theories say that universe can expand more that light speed, but if this would true we could not see the universe end, but we see the the cosmic microwave background radiation, this means that we see the end and by that the expansion is not more that light speed, is near just light speed.

    Remember that this is a expansion and not a travel, in a expansion if the universe expand more at light speed or more we can't see the cosmic microwave background radiation.

    If accelerate we can't see the cosmic microwave background radiation and if accelerate and decelerate is agains Hubble's law (distance-speed).

    At this we need add that the expansion is decreasing and need to be computer and transmit nstantly to all point (instantaneous). Is decreasing because if 2 point A and B for example are with a distance original of 1 meter and this expand 1 meter (100%), later are at 2 meters and expand also 1 meter (50%). This is how universe expand.

    In this point I have this reference (it has not taken the link) : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hubble%27s_law
    I don't think you understand what the CMBR is. The CMBR isn't an "universe end" really. It represents a surface in space/time. This surface is spherical and its distance increase with time. The CMBR is actual light from the SoLS (surface of last scattering). The SoLS is point in time after the big bang when the universe became largely transparent to photons. Every point is a point of origin for CMBR for some other point in space. Even if you could see through the CMBR you'd only be able to see a bit further because you're not so much looking through space but back through time and by definition you can not look back in time to what was "before" time.

    Expansion is a property of space. 1 point in space does not need to transmit any information to any other point in space about how it is expanding. It is strictly a property that currently says for every 1Mpc it will grow by about ~72km every second.

    So in your example if there are 2 points in space that are separated by 1m and you wanted to wait for that to expand to 2m then you would be waiting a VERY long time.
    in 1000 years those 2 points in space would have only receded apart by 73 nanometre. That is ~10,000 times smaller then a millimetre. Yes during that time that 73 nanometre would have also expanded but by an equal 0.0000073%. After billions of years when that 1 meter become 2 meters then it will take the same amount of time to double but it will double by 2x the amount.

    (I'm ignoring that the expansion appears to be increasing over time currently too.)


    Quote Originally Posted by lbiar View Post
    - question 2q: if we speak over created then: How can created space? From what? The space according to my argument 1 can't be created nor destroyed.
    Like I said before your argument is wrong. It is you just making a unsupported claim. There is no violation of any law that says space can not be created or destroyed.

    Quote Originally Posted by lbiar View Post
    Also remember that the space need to be created in 3d in all point, in relation decreasing and in spaces normally with very low gravity or zero and this means processing and instantaneous.

    Actual theories say that the expansion is only in places without gravity, by that also need process the spaces with gravity (and this is moving) and so a point may expand in X axis 1, in Y axis, 1.1 and Z axis 1.12 and in relation with all the other points of universe and instantaneous.
    What you are saying doesn't make sense and I'll put that down to the translation from your native language to English. Space expanding does NOT require any information to be transmitted to any other point in the universe. Just like the water in my kettle does not need to know that the water in your kettle boils at 100c to have it self boil at 100c. The boiling point of water is a property of water and is dependant on only pressure (I'm assuming pure water). Like wise expansion of space is just a property of space. It might be effected by energy but this in immaterial to any point in space being dependent on knowing how fast or slow any other point in space is expanding.

    Quote Originally Posted by lbiar View Post

    - question 3q: I say that a galaxy is many little that universe and is not sincronized (gravity, light, .. has delay) and by that: How can be synchronized expansion of the universe that is much higher? .
    Your logic is faulty. By your argument the speed of light should be different for every point in space because not all space can communicate what the speed of light is. Expansion is much like the speed of light. It is a constant across all of space for a given Hubble time (H0)

    You've got a VERY loose understanding of what the actual science is and making wrong assumptions and then building on that to think the mainstream's explanation is wrong. If you don't understand what the mainstream answer is, which you clearly do not, then you can NOT criticise it. It would be like a 3 year old saying that aspirin isn't an anti-inflammatory drug because it is a pill and pills can't possibly reduce inflammation because you'd be adding more stuff to what is inflamed. You clearly don't understand what the mainstream says because your arguments are full of inaccurate representations of what the actual science says.

    I brief scan of the rest of your arguments amount to the same thing. You do not understand what the mainstream explanation actually is and thus your arguments are not valid for the universe we live in. This might be because translations of explanations are not very good or it might be because you are not reading the right material. In the end it doesn't matter why your misunderstanding exists the solution is the same. You need to actually learn and understand what the science actually says before making arguments against the science.

  27. #27
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Posts
    4,692
    Quote Originally Posted by lbiar View Post
    ...

    But I don't understand then how space can be created?

    Only in universe expansion maybe any proof of pobrably space expansion or creation, but I say that space creation is against physic laws.
    This is the half the problem. It doesn't matter what you understand. The laws of nature don't depend on you, me or anyone else understanding them. Simply saying "I say that space creation is against physic laws" does not mean that it is. People used to argue that gravity can't be the way Newton said it was because they couldn't explain it. 300 years later we still don't know the "how" of gravity. What we do know is that gravity has a predictable effect. Same goes for expansion. We might not ever know what causes the expansion but this does not stop it from happening neither does it stop us from being able to predict its effects.

    Quote Originally Posted by lbiar View Post
    this is over "By the second law of thermodynamics":

    Sorry, you has reason, a bad reference for me. I need to repare this mistake.

    Is The law of conservation of energy - The first law of thermodynamics. Sorry another time.
    This doesn't change the issue because you clearly don't understand what the 1st Law of Thermodynamics is trying to say and what impact cosmic inflation may or may not have on it. Again I don't believe you have a firm enough grasp on these scientific concepts to use the for or against any other concept.

    Question for you
    Q1. Please state why you think that expanding space breaks the 1st law of thermodynamics and why this is a fatal flaw for expanding space.

    Quote Originally Posted by lbiar View Post
    By the other I'm against your note : "There is nothing in there that prevents energy/matter from getting created or destroyed and NOTHING about space", the conservation of energy and that nothing can to be created.

    That this is not "magic" would be the first time that physic admit the creation of anything from nothing, at least I don't know near believe this may be.

    I have not much to say if physic admit creation from nothing.
    Not that it relates to expansion of space very much but virtual particles can be viewed as energy being created and then destroyed.


    Quote Originally Posted by lbiar View Post

    this is 2a: with your note of CMBR I agree that.

    I don't say that travel, ... I say here that the expansion is at lightspeed in any radius.

    I don't understand: Why you say "faulty logic and understanding" if really I think I use always the logic and physic laws?
    But you are not. You are using a misunderstanding of physical laws. You don't understand what the actual science says then base your ideas off that misunderstand.

    Quote Originally Posted by lbiar View Post


    Over that I speak over "other universe" I'm against you say, I only speak over that the universe can't expand, because this need that space expand in decreasing form and equal in all point according to Hubble's law and this need to be instantaneous that it's agains physic laws.
    No it is only against your misunderstanding of physical laws. It would be like someone claiming that water can not boil at 30°C because they don't understand that the boiling point of water is only 100°C at normal atmospheric pressure at sea level. The actual boiling point of water is derived from the following equation.

    Just because you don't understand or know of this doesn't matter. The fact is independent of your knowledge and much like the expansion of space water anywhere else in the universe does not need to know about any other water in the universe to boil. Just like space in any part of the universe doesn't need to know about how fast any other point in space is expanding to expand itself.

    What you are are doing is called "logical fallacy". Based on misconception what the actual science says and some incorrect reasoning in your arguments you are coming up with incorrect conclusions.

  28. #28
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Posts
    74
    Quote Originally Posted by blueshift View Post
    No object is moving at light speed in the universe
    Ok. It's the speed equivalent. If we see see objects at 13.7 billion light years and 379,000 years after the Big Bang this objects expand near light speed equivalent.

    Quote Originally Posted by blueshift View Post
    This is false. The result will have the same mass but not the same weight. Your mass is the same whether you stand here or on the Moon but your weight measured on the lunar surface will be 1/6 of your weight measured on the terrestrial surface.
    Sorry. Better your answer: mass.

    Thanks by this correction.

    Quote Originally Posted by blueshift View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by lbiar View Post
    but: how do you can expand/compress space if you compress actually had less (destroyed) and if you expand it increases (created)?
    I think you need to download a translation service. I cannot understand this.
    The note is that when compress the space is less space (the space is destroyed).

    Would be better so?: "How do you can expand/compress space if you compress actually had less space (space destroyed) and if you expand has more space (new space created)?"


    Quote Originally Posted by blueshift View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by lbiar View Post
    - 3q: A Galaxis is not synchronized, it is not instantaneous: How can be synchronized expansion of the universe that is much higher?
    This sentence is not clear either.
    A galaxy is not syncronized in their movements and gravity, it is not instantaneous: How can be synchronized all the expansion of the universe that is much higher?

    WayneFrancis also say don't understand it.

    Quote Originally Posted by blueshift View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by lbiar View Post
    - 5q: If the nearby universe is the future of the distant universe and much more separation (much expanded). How is it possible that near there are not many fewer stars and galaxies, or more separation?
    You are making the assumption that space existed before the Big Bang. There would be fewer stars in the universe the more distant we looked outward , provided we would be located at the spot where expansion began
    I ask here: if farther space is past and according to expansion theory today the separation is many more bigger: Why the near space has not less density or more separation between galaxies?

    Quote Originally Posted by blueshift View Post
    What is driving expansion deals with an energy that seems to oscillate. It expanded and weakened with time as expected and then increased its rate of expansion.
    I say that equivalente speed of expansion is constant, because we see the CMBR, by that if 13.7 billion light years and 379,000 years after the Big Bang only can expand the universe near light speed, and it's consider that universe expand at light speed - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hubble%27s_law

    If the universe expand at constant rate the universe wold be many times little or many more bigger and then we could not see the CMBR. If expansion is equal or bigger that lightspeed we could not see the CMBR.

    According to Hubble's law (distance-speed) the expansion of the universe need to be constant (al equivalent speed constant) and by that the expansion need to be decreasing by unit.

    If middle universe distance has a speed of 1/2 lightspeed, where the universe end there (from our visual point) the speed also was light speed because if it was 1/2 lightspeed the universe would be more little.

    How we see objects at 13.7 billion light years and 379,000 years after the Big Bang this objets need to distance near light speed, can't accelerate because if now go at lightspeed then universe would be little (1+2+4+8 don't give of average 8), and if accelerate we could not see the CMBR, because if the speed equivalent is lightspeed or more we can't see an object (is expansion of space intermediate, not a travel).

    so I consider error this : "expected and then increased its rate of expansion"

    Quote Originally Posted by blueshift View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by lbiar View Post
    - 7q: How can the universe expand equally in all points according to Hubble’s law and subtract the areas with gravity as the theory says?. And expansion by unit of space different in each axis, for example: the X axis with an expansion of 1, Y of 1.2 & Z of 1.3?. (Notes: the Milky Way for example measures 100,000 light years in size and the theory says there is no expansion in areas with gravity).
    You are misreading many things. Scientists cannot measure spatial expansion locally because, although expansion exists locally, it is too small on the local scale in comparison to gravitational contractions taking place. We can measure nearby galaxies coming toward us in our local group but none of the very distant galaxies are blue shifted at all. All are red shifted. All are moving away.
    I refer here that according to Hubble's law the space need equally in all point, but need also by theories substract areas with gravity (according to theories: the universe don't expand in places with gravity), all this need power of computer (adding also that the expansion is decreasing by unit and not constant or increased according to Hubble's law). Then by this a point of space (a point of group) need many times expand at rates differents in any axys.

    If spaces without gravity don't need expand and expand spaces without gravity: How do you think that the universe syncronize all this?

    Quote Originally Posted by blueshift View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by lbiar View Post
    - 8q: The expansion of the universe needs to expand space in places with low or zero gravity: How can to expand the space there?. And how may have been compressed with such low gravity, and spread slowly as required by Hubble’s law and almost the same low gravity?
    The theories say so: In places with gravity (galaxies, ..) there is not expansion. I don't remember where I read but here is a reference:
    "These stars and galaxies do not subsequently expand, there being no force compelling them to do so" - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metric_expansion_of_space

    Quote Originally Posted by blueshift View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by lbiar View Post
    - 9q: How do you explain the creation of stars and galaxies into a universe in expansion?. And the collision of galaxies?. And all this in the nearby universe many times expanded?
    I just did explain it. Local forces of gravity are greater than the local force of expansion. Only on a universal scale is expansion greater.
    Then, when universe was many times little: How can expand if "Local forces of gravity are greater than the local force of expansion" and in that moment the gravity was many bigger with a universe very little?

    Quote Originally Posted by blueshift View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by lbiar View Post
    - 10q: Hubble’s law, the expansion of the universe at light speed in each radio and see the radiation of cosmic microwave background that we need in an area without moving and near the center of the universe: What is the probability of actually fulfill these conditions?. How could the universe expand at a higher speed of light as the theories say and at the same time we see the cosmic microwave background if it is an expansion and therefore speed of light or more would be invisible?
    There is no center of the universe. All the matter of the universe along with all of the space of the universe was at the same place and that one place has no location.
    I think so, but according to Hubble's law and CMBR and that "we see objects at 13.7 billion light years and 379,000 years after the Big Bang" only a spherical expansion and to be in a point without moviment permit us to see the CMBR


    Quote Originally Posted by blueshift View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by lbiar View Post
    - 11q: According to the theory of relativity the most distant stars and very fast have slowed their watches and are very small in size. How is it possible to see and have had time to create, …?. O: How could not move as the theory says that space is created between?. And the last question in relation to the theory of the Big Rip?
    You need to study relativity more closely and more thoroughly. No watches "slow" and special relativity does not deal with spatial expansion. General relativity does.
    There are theories that say that there is not motion, but if there is not motion : Why exist Big rip theory?

    Probably you has reason and I need "to study relativity more closely and more thoroughly"


    Quote Originally Posted by blueshift View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by lbiar View Post
    - 12q: If the expansion is equal in all directions according to theories: How can agree with Hubble’s law a flat expansion (cubic) where the diagonal is greater than the sides against a spherical expansion is the only one in which the expansion would be equal in all directions?.

    - 13q: If the universe is flat geometry (called Euclidean), which means that parallel lines continuously maintain the same distance: How can agree with Hubble’s law if only a spherical expansion agree with this law?.
    Where do you get the impression that only spherical expansion agrees with Hubble's Law? Hubble's law only states that the recession velocity of a distant extragalactic object (one outside the local group) is directly proportional to the distance, D. The constant of proportionality is the Hubble Constant, H 0 and v = H0D
    Any expansion flat or distint to spherical is against Hubble's law. Hubble's law relationate speed-distance and in a cubic expansion by example the diagonal is bigger that the sides. Also in a cubic expansion if we can see CMBR at that distance in other sides would be more near, ... The geometry is strict.

    Thanks.

  29. #29
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Posts
    74
    Quote Originally Posted by Geo Kaplan View Post
    Please don't worry about "creating enemies" here. Disagreements can get heated sometimes, but don't think that an attack on your ideas is the same as an attack on you personally. And if we fail to observe that basic rule of civility, the mods are very good about reacting appropriately to such breaches of decorum.
    I understand, but I need help, I bad transmit my work.

    If I lose your help, I see difficult to other ways.

    Quote Originally Posted by Geo Kaplan View Post
    That said, your English does make it tough to understand what you are saying, so forgive me if I ask a lot of questions that you think you've already answered.
    Is a problem, but I have not other solution by now.

    With your ask I need to answer and also I can see errors and how may be better sometimes.

  30. #30
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Posts
    74
    Quote Originally Posted by blueshift View Post
    Ibiar, I would just ask one question at a time and not make such a laundry list of posts and a too many lists within each post.
    Probably the best is how you say.

    Already say me the moderator.

    But, I need to give all the work in one step, or put the webpage (I believe I can't).

    Maybe how you say treat only 1 point in any time.

    I admit your suggestion: What you believe? Begin 1 point each time, I post for each theme (I don't know if moderator admit this).

    How you say there are many points and don't arrange none.

Similar Threads

  1. Spacetime Expands? - The Answer
    By Occams Ghost in forum Against the Mainstream
    Replies: 158
    Last Post: 2008-May-10, 11:06 AM
  2. Holmes expands
    By ngc3314 in forum Astrophotography
    Replies: 30
    Last Post: 2007-Nov-05, 08:18 PM
  3. Does Universe expands or collapses ?
    By czeslaw in forum Against the Mainstream
    Replies: 13
    Last Post: 2007-Sep-25, 02:12 PM
  4. Universe expands because new matter is being created.
    By asciirock in forum Against the Mainstream
    Replies: 23
    Last Post: 2003-Jan-21, 01:43 PM

Tags for this Thread

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •