Re: Expansion and balloon analogy
- From: Joe Fischer <efischer@xxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Wed, 16 Nov 2005 18:19:57 -0500
On 16 Nov 2005 07:12:40 -0800, "TomGee" <lvlus@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>Joe Fischer wrote:
>> On 15 Nov 2005 08:14:01 -0800, "TomGee" <lvlus@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>> >Joe, I have never taken the phrase, "the universe is expanding" to mean
>> >anything more than that it's getting bigger.
>>
>> Ok, but that does not precisely describe what _MAY_ be happening,
>> the original term was "recession of the galaxies.
>>
>That's correct. I agree.
A few years ago I posted a couple of articles that described a
cyclic BB with a long period of coasting galaxies and then an expansion
of all the stars filling in all the space between them, with another BB,
then the whole process starting again.
Not that anybody should worry.
>> But it is all based on
>> emperical observations, there was no model before the spectroscopic
>> data became avaiilable in the late 1920s (unless DeSitter defined a model),
>> although Einstein definitely had ideas that suggested the possibility.
>>
>It is commonly thought that Einstein wanted so badly to prove a static
>universe that he fudged on his numbers to invent one.
No, I have read the papers, and he was using all the information
available at the time. The stars of the Milky Way (the local galaxy)
were the only stars thought to exist until about 1927 or so.
I am not sure if the Magellanic Clouds were thought to be of
the local galaxy, or just more nebulous clouds called nebulae.
>At that time, it
>was becoming more and more accepted that the U. is expanding so he must
>have known about the possibilities.
Not when he proposed the cosmological factor around 1916.
I did not find anything about anything expanding before an
address to the Prussion Academy in 1921, but even that did not
refer to galaxies.
>> > That has always explained
>> >the observations of galaxies moving away from each other. The balloon
>> >analogy was born to explain that process.
>>
>> Yes, to explain it to lay people mostly, astronomers and cosmologists
>> knew what "recession of galaxies" meant.
>>
>> >However, almost everyone argued that we live inside the universe and
>> >not on its surface. The rising raisin bread analogy was born to better
>> >explain the expansion process. It was better than the balloon business
>> >because it has an "inside" to it while the balloon only has a "surface"
>> >to it.
>>
>> Actually neither is very good, bread would be like a medium,
>> and that is not possible.
>
>But of course it is. Space is a medium for matter and if space is
>filled with DM, then it is DM that is what is expanding and not space,
>more likely.
You have accepted the wrong definition of Dark Matter,
which is only planets, dust and burned out or dim stars.
It is possible that black holes are considered to be dark
matter, I don't know.
Are you thinking of Dark Energy/
>> >But then it was noted that while galaxies are all moving away from each
>> >other, their coordinates remain the same. I.e., the distance between
>> >them grows but they remain in the same spacial relationship as before.
>>
>> That is a guess-timate, the size and distances are so large
>> compared to the time it has been observed, and the only data
>> available is probably spectroscopic with translation mapping and
>> interpolation.
>>
>No, it has been shown to be so through observation. Another of
>nature's grand paradoxes for our viewing pleasure....
All objects in free space move in inertial motion, so the spacial
relationhip would not change, and especially would not change in
a mere 80 years of long tube spectrographs.
I think it takes 250 million years for the Milky Way to rotate
once, and I don't think Pluto has completed one full orbit since
being discoveref.
>> >Now that cannot be explained by balloons or raising breads. It seems
>> >the only explanation possible is that the galaxies are not moving apart
>> >from each other due to their own motions, but due to the expansion of
>> >space!
>>
>> Not hardly, that would make space a medium capable of
>> carrying galaxies, I don't think anybody would realy think that.
>
>You seem to be giving a meaning to the term "medium" different than
>commonly accepted. Galaxies do exist in space so space is indeed
>capable of carrying galaxies.
Rocket flight exists in air, but the air isn't needed,
there is less drag in space and the engines work much better.
>> They could be moving apart to nothing but thier own
>> motion with a non-Euclidean component in the motion.
>That's what was thought af first, but if it was due to their own
>motion, their coordinates would change.
I don't think so, the idea that anything is capable of altering
the path of a single star is absurd, let alone a galaxy.
>> >So, to talk about the expansion of matter in regard to the expansion of
>> >the universe is passe, to say the least.
>>
>> Not really, there is much more that needs to be explained and
>> fitted to a pattern besides spectroscopic data.
>>
>> > It is not matter that is
>> >expanding, but the distance between it.
>>
>> That is not a certainty. The inportant thing is to consider
>> something that could have caused all the matter in the universe
>> to be thrown apart, and expanding matter is as good as any
>> cause of that.
>I disagree. The idea of expanding matter is probably the worst idea to
>date about the expansion process of the universe.
I didn't say there was any connection, if gravity is connected
with any expansion of matter, it would be much faster than the
observed recession of the galaxies.
>The BBT is a better
>idea because it provides the reason why everything is in motion and we
>cannot find a single stationary place in it.
An expansion of matter seems to me to be more compatible
with an expansion of the universe than static matter.
There are lots of things to consider, like the temperature
of the upper atmosphere being extremely hot, and an expansion
of matter might fit a pattern of observations better than static
matter.
>> Chances are all the different modern concepts of a
>> cosmological constant will be wrong, the spherical geometry
>> of expansion of any kind may not follow Newton or Euclid.
>Again, I disagree. Chances are that AE's constant will come to have
>some validity after all, even though it won't overthrow the expansion
>process observations.
Not from galaxies speeding up or slowing down, but there
could be an observational effect that might make something
other than inertial motion appear.
>> >For something to do something in our universe requires energy of some
>> >sort, but if space is empty, and unless we overthrow the Principle of
>> >the conservation of energy and E=mc^2, it is not possible for space to
>> >expand.
>>
>> I thought you said it is expanding?
>>
>I said that is the common idea.
There are a lot of ideas, many not very logical.
Nature is logical when all the facts are known.
>> Not hardly, there is no action at a distance without a mechanism.
>Below, I give the impetus of the BB as the mechanism for DM motions.
I don't know anything about Dark Matter moving.
>> >It's my guess that it is Dark Matter that is expanding due to the
>> >impetus of the BB, and that as the impetus wears off some of it becomes
>> >stationary in space.
>>
>> Dark Matter is nothing but matter that is too cool to glow,
>> and that is a lot different than Dark Energy.
>There is no reason to think that because matter too cool to glow should
>still reflect light for us to see it.
Then you don't realize how difficult it is to see even small bright
stars, may I suggest a search of google for "intrinsic brightness",
and "visual magnitude" etc.
> I agree more with Gamow that
>invisible matter exists in all the spaces of our universe. Such matter
>is invisible because it has no positive energy and mass and our eyes
>cannot discern objects having only negative mass/energy.
>> All this points out a clear fact, that no good model exists
>> that can bring all the bizarre observations together.
>Well, that's what mine does, and that's why I post here.
And now is it time to ask what yours is/does? :-)
>> >As visible matter collides with DM, interactions
>> >occur that could cause the faster-than-expected motions of galactic
>> >matter. If such interactions do occur, others may also occur, such as
>> >the creation of matter in the birthing of stars.
>>
>> Actually, a static universe with constant size objects in it
>> should be much more passive than what is observed.
>Pardon?
Even a spherical galaxy has to have every star moving
outward to prevent all of them coming together.
At least that is what Einstein said, and I think that
means the same thing gave them the original velocity
that gave the galaxies their original velocity of recession.
>> The many different explanations of all the different
>> observations has become so speculative and silly they
>> are now saying that a certain extremely bright and massive
>> object is a "Black Hole" __FEEDING__ on the matter
>> around it.
>Not exactly. It would be the matter surrounding the bh that is bright
>but not the bh itself, since light cannot escape it.
But I think there are only very few of these puzzling objects
close enough to get a good look at.
Chances are that more money is being spent on observation
of distant objects is more than spent on the space program
And it takes a lot of time, with a lot of speculating going on.
Joe Fischer
.
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: Expansion and balloon analogy
- From: TomGee
- Re: Expansion and balloon analogy
- References:
- Re: Expansion and balloon analogy
- From: Ben Rudiak-Gould
- Re: Expansion and balloon analogy
- From: Joe Fischer
- Re: Expansion and balloon analogy
- From: TomGee
- Re: Expansion and balloon analogy
- Prev by Date: Re: a new reward
- Next by Date: Re: a new reward
- Previous by thread: Re: Expansion and balloon analogy
- Next by thread: Re: Expansion and balloon analogy
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
