The expansion of the universe

[Nokton]

In deference to Albert, did he not explain the relationship between
speed, gravity, and the observer, as tied in with ones concept of time.
In view of this, how is our current evaluation of the expansion valid,
when the calculations are determined by our time frame. How would the
calculations work out to intelligent beings in a different time frame?
Nokton.

[Jim Colyer]

If I remember correctly, Einstein did not believe the universe is expanding.

[Nokton]

Originally Posted by Jim Colyer

If I remember correctly, Einstein did not believe the universe is expanding.

Hi Jim, my question was not about what Albert believed, but his determination of space, time, gravity, and their interrelationship.
The point I was trying to make, was, would another intelligent
observer in a different time frame than ours, agree with our current
estimate of the rate of expansion.
Thankyou for your response,
Nokton.

[dmill1220]

Originally Posted by Nokton

Hi Jim, my question was not about what Albert believed, but his determination of space, time, gravity, and their interrelationship.
The point I was trying to make, was, would another intelligent
observer in a different time frame than ours, agree with our current
estimate of the rate of expansion.
Thankyou for your response,
Nokton.

Hi Peter,
Jim Coyler is right in that Einstein did not believe in the expansion of Space, but as to your question, would another intelligent
observer in a different time frame than ours, agree with our current
estimate of the rate of expansion?.
That would have to depend on their time frame of reference.

If I'm not mistaken, Current theory is that after the BB, the universe started its expansion at a steady rate, then the expansion was sped up somehow in the past at some point.
It is still continuing to speed up, and that is according to our current understanding of the Doppler effect on the Photon.

If they were observing way back in the past, they would not see the same expansion rate. IF they are observing in our time, from a relatively close by location, It should be the same I would think.

The Red shift or the Doppler effect in empty space, In my mind, (may) be effected by the great unknown Dark energy and dark matter, that we have had to invent to explain our observations. but now I believe that we have finally glimpsed dark matter halos around some Galaxies.

Look up Dr. Vera Rubin, her discovery of the rotational speed of stars orbiting their host Galaxy, do not follow Newtons law, and leaves us with a big question. is it variable Gravity or dark matter, then there is the polarization of the CMB that has been discovered and its unkown why it shows this alignment.

The Tired Light theorists have not gone away, look up Compton ray scattering or tired light on WIKI. Tired light - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

But I ask, Could something like dark matter or energy have an effect on the energy of the photon resulting in a incorrect measurement of the redshifts?

Zwicky suggested that photons might slowly lose energy as they travel vast distances through a static Universe by interaction with matter or other photons, or by some novel physical mechanism. Since a decrease in energy corresponds to an increase in light's wavelength, this effect would produce a redshift in spectral lines that increase proportionately with the distance of the source. The term "tired light" was coined by Richard Tolman in the early 1930s as a way to refer to this idea.

Mainstream Science has thrown out this idea, but I have to wonder since dark matter and dark energy can effect the orbital speeds of stars and matter, could it somehow effect the photon over vast intergalactic distances by the Process that Fred Zwicky proposed?


Dennis

[Nokton]

Originally Posted by dmill1220

Hi Peter,
Jim Coyler is right in that Einstein did not believe in the expansion of Space, but as to your question, would another intelligent
observer in a different time frame than ours, agree with our current
estimate of the rate of expansion?.
That would have to depend on their time frame of reference.

If I'm not mistaken, Current theory is that after the BB, the universe started its expansion at a steady rate, then the expansion was sped up somehow in the past at some point.
It is still continuing to speed up, and that is according to our current understanding of the Doppler effect on the Photon.

If they were observing way back in the past, they would not see the same expansion rate. IF they are observing in our time, from a relatively close by location, It should be the same I would think.

The Red shift or the Doppler effect in empty space, In my mind, (may) be effected by the great unknown Dark energy and dark matter, that we have had to invent to explain our observations. but now I believe that we have finally glimpsed dark matter halos around some Galaxies.

Look up Dr. Vera Rubin, her discovery of the rotational speed of stars orbiting their host Galaxy, do not follow Newtons law, and leaves us with a big question. is it variable Gravity or dark matter, then there is the polarization of the CMB that has been discovered and its unkown why it shows this alignment.

The Tired Light theorists have not gone away, look up Compton ray scattering or tired light on WIKI. Tired light - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

But I ask, Could something like dark matter or energy have an effect on the energy of the photon resulting in a incorrect measurement of the redshifts?

Zwicky suggested that photons might slowly lose energy as they travel vast distances through a static Universe by interaction with matter or other photons, or by some novel physical mechanism. Since a decrease in energy corresponds to an increase in light's wavelength, this effect would produce a redshift in spectral lines that increase proportionately with the distance of the source. The term "tired light" was coined by Richard Tolman in the early 1930s as a way to refer to this idea.

Mainstream Science has thrown out this idea, but I have to wonder since dark matter and dark energy can effect the orbital speeds of stars and matter, could it somehow effect the photon over vast intergalactic distances by the Process that Fred Zwicky proposed?


Dennis

Hi Dennis, so good to read your post, young man, lol.
But a prime example of the quality of contact this site offers.
Am also concerned by Tolmans idea, to my understanding, everything
degrades over time, entropy seems to be a fundamental future of all things inorganic, so why should light break the rule? In contrast, organic
lifeforms seem to resist entropy, indeed, contradict it, and grow in
complexity.
Dennis, am not, as yet, convinced of the dark matter/energy scenario.
Tell you why, spacetime is depicted in current thought, as a fabric.
Allow me to put this to you, the surface of a pond has a meniscus,
spacetime in my analogy, it is a surface on what lies beneath, and what
lies beneath contributes in some way to the energy of expansion and also
the mass of the universe. My concern Dennis. We have the intelligence
to pose the question, but do we have the intelligence to understand the
answer?
Best regards,
Peter

[dmill1220]

Hi Peter,

I like your analogy, if I understand you correctly the Surface tension of the water, (Space/Time), and all objects in our universe that lay on that meniscus are floating around but underlying currents are responsible for the expansion?

Isn't that somewhat similar to a stretching Brane theory? so far I think we only have bits and pieces of the complete riddle of the Universe, we just keep picking away at problems only to find new questions.

I'm almost sure that someday in the future we will have to re think some of our fundamentals, I'm also not too comfortable about having to invent Dark energy to explain the expansion, or your water surface analogy, but only because I suspect the energy levels of the photon are being effected at long distances by some unknown particle, as Zwicky proposed, and since we can't detect it, we dont know its throwing off our interpretations of the Doppler shift at very vast distances.

I still think the Doppler effect is usable and somewhat accurate, but only at relatively short intergalactic distances, as the photon hits these theoretical unkown particles through extremely vast distances its possible they may be losing energy.

If we are right and most of the matter in the universe is invisible and, it is responsible for changing orbital speeds of stars in a galaxies outer disk, as in Dr Vera Rubin's findings, and it can bend light (gravitational lensing) via a dark matter halos,
I have to wonder how else could it be effecting the photon energy? Compton ray scattering has been confirmed with normal particles, but in the almost complete emptiness of Space there is a too low a density of baryonic matter, that can cause sufficient Compton Ray scattering to skew the Doppler measurements, or so the counter argument goes, but since the universe is made up of much more than we can see or detect, what about this exotic stuff?

This to me is just too much of leap without understanding just what makes up most of the matter in the universe. Our calculations seem to show that there is more unknown non-,baryonic matter than normal baryonic matter.

I sometimes find myself wanting to believe in the steady state theory but only because this unexpected increased expansion rate in the past does not make sense to me, what caused it?

What in the world could be causing the polarization of the cosmic microwave background?

I hope that the Large Hadron collider that is nearing completion will shed some light on other exotic unkown particles.

This is where I have a problem;
How can we jump to conclusions that this form of non-baryonic matter does not effect the photon when we know nothing about its composition and effects? it can alter Newtons laws and seems to effect mass, Dr Rubin's Findings are to me an irrefutable wake up call.

Dennis

[Nokton]

Originally Posted by dmill1220

Hi Peter,

I like your analogy, if I understand you correctly the Surface tension of the water, (Space/Time), and all objects in our universe that lay on that meniscus are floating around but underlying currents are responsible for the expansion?

Isn't that somewhat similar to a stretching Brane theory? so far I think we only have bits and pieces of the complete riddle of the Universe, we just keep picking away at problems only to find new questions.

I'm almost sure that someday in the future we will have to re think some of our fundamentals, I'm also not too comfortable about having to invent Dark energy to explain the expansion, or your water surface analogy, but only because I suspect the energy levels of the photon are being effected at long distances by some unknown particle, as Zwicky proposed, and since we can't detect it, we dont know its throwing off our interpretations of the Doppler shift at very vast distances.

I still think the Doppler effect is usable and somewhat accurate, but only at relatively short intergalactic distances, as the photon hits these theoretical unkown particles through extremely vast distances its possible they may be losing energy.

If we are right and most of the matter in the universe is invisible and, it is responsible for changing orbital speeds of stars in a galaxies outer disk, as in Dr Vera Rubin's findings, and it can bend light (gravitational lensing) via a dark matter halos,
I have to wonder how else could it be effecting the photon energy? Compton ray scattering has been confirmed with normal particles, but in the almost complete emptiness of Space there is a too low a density of baryonic matter, that can cause sufficient Compton Ray scattering to skew the Doppler measurements, or so the counter argument goes, but since the universe is made up of much more than we can see or detect, what about this exotic stuff?

This to me is just too much of leap without understanding just what makes up most of the matter in the universe. Our calculations seem to show that there is more unknown non-,baryonic matter than normal baryonic matter.

I sometimes find myself wanting to believe in the steady state theory but only because this unexpected increased expansion rate in the past does not make sense to me, what caused it?

What in the world could be causing the polarization of the cosmic microwave background?

I hope that the Large Hadron collider that is nearing completion will shed some light on other exotic unkown particles.

This is where I have a problem;
How can we jump to conclusions that this form of non-baryonic matter does not effect the photon when we know nothing about its composition and effects? it can alter Newtons laws and seems to effect mass, Dr Rubin's Findings are to me an irrefutable wake up call.

Dennis

Hi Dennis,
Slow down my valued friend, evaluate, theorise, then sleep.
Your subconscious will do the rest.
Brane is a theory only, but has merit in that it creates a possibility.
In the quest for explanation Dennis, many false truths abound, why?
The desire of recognition, whatever.
Now to your questions, Dennis. In our time, the universe is expanding,
you living on a similar planet, dragged around a sun, with a density same as ours, but pulled around at twice the speed, would the expansion rate
seem different?
The cause of mw backround radiation and its source is simple to understand, an acceleration of space time, with uniformity.
Dennis, nil desperandum, find the truth within you mind.
Peter

[Nokton]

Hi Dennis, hope you well and happy and your living is easy.
You made a point about light being 'tired' over distance,
agree with you, so the Doppler shift could be way out at
extreme distances, as you propose. Now that leaves us with a
conundrum, have we the means to evaluate the age of light we
observe. If, as you and I agree, light ages with time, there must
be a change in its nature, begs the question, is there a difference
in the analysis of light from four light years away and the light we see
from 400,000 light years away? If any degradation is occuring, it should
show up on present instrumentation, if looked for, in particular, a colour
degradation, not in the shift, but in the strength and variation of the hue.
Enjoy your posts,
Peter

[Nokton]

Originally Posted by Nokton

Hi Dennis, hope you well and happy and your living is easy.
You made a point about light being 'tired' over distance,
agree with you, so the Doppler shift could be way out at
extreme distances, as you propose. Now that leaves us with a
conundrum, have we the means to evaluate the age of light we
observe. If, as you and I agree, light ages with time, there must
be a change in its nature, begs the question, is there a difference
in the analysis of light from four light years away and the light we see
from 400,000 light years away? If any degradation is occuring, it should
show up on present instrumentation, if looked for, in particular, a colour
degradation, not in the shift, but in the strength and variation of the hue.
Enjoy your posts,
Peter

Dennis, my friend, hope you not offended by my description of you as
a friend. Dennis, we are childlike in trying to understand what we cannot
comprehend, what is the point of enquiry, if the answer beyond understanding?. Give you this Dennis in a moment of levity.
Friend of mine has a time machine, wanted to make a buck, went back
to the Ming dynasty, got this fantastic vase, brought it back, took it to
a dealer who carbon dated it, and said , sorry, only 2 years old, its a fake...........
Peter

[dmill1220]

H Peter,
I'm doing just fine,
Sorry it took me a while to get back to you, let me rephrase myself, what I meant to say is that I wonder sometimes, if the Photon is effected by a Compton Ray type or similar mechanism, over such vast Intergalactic distances where these galaxies all appear to be red shifted.

Nothing to do with time altering the photon, just the interaction of the photon with dark matter or other particles such as molecular gas clouds that cannot be seen.
it would also have to take into account not only the objects dark matter but also our own galactic dark mater halo.

Even though we call it empty space, its not completely empty, but Just how much is out there that cannot be seen?

We would still see a Doppler type shift of a distant galaxy from its receding and trailing arms, but the whole spectrum might be red shifted solely due to the interaction of the photon with this unkown dark matter and the molecular micro density of interstellar space.

I just wonder if a static Universe, is being disguised as a expanding one since

Dennis