Dimensional Expansion

[bangstrom]

The biggest draw back is of course the mechanics behind this force. How does it work? How does it attract? We don't know. We know we don't know Gravity attracts, some how. And we just accept it as an open question.

Your scenario eliminates gravity as a force and replaces it with acceleration but acceleration doesn’t act at a distance. Our measurements for the value of Newton’s G demonstrate the force of attraction between two electrically neutral bodies separated by space so we know gravity acts at a distance otherwise Newton’s G would be zero.

I think the mechanics of gravity are best explained by general relativity as a curvature of spacetime. I personally don’t like the language of that explanation because it is hard to imagine how either space or time can curve so I prefer to think of gravity as slower time and shorter space. This describes gravity's relationship to matter rather than how it looks on a diagram. The variations of shorter space and slower time produce an energy gradient around massive bodies and objects free to move in an energy gradient tend to move from an area of high energy to low energy.

All the internal motions in a massive body, both macro and micro, are slowed when an object moves in an energy gradient from an area of fast time to slower time. The energy lost from the slowing of internal motions becomes apparent as an increase in linear motion of the object in the direction of slower time (gravity) and we say the object is falling. I find gravity easier to understand than acceleration unless you have a simple explanation for the origin of inertia.

[hyksos]

The kind of idea were "expansion of space" is replaced by something else , like "The mass of everything in the universe is increasing". He found rather quickly that you cannot just replace one for the other, without also heavily modifying a bunch of other parameters and constants.

If ALL the matter in the Universe is expanding at a constant rate of expansion, then these constants remain constant as do all other parameters. What needs modifying?

I have already answered this cleanly and finally. Not all the constants of physics are reducible (or "expressible") in terms of length. So you cannot just swap out the lengths.

If the universe were composed of nothing but perfect, massless circles then yes. A short chalkboard proof would demonstrate that the circles all contracting is equivalent in all ways to the circles remaining constant while the space between them expands. Sure. I understand precisely and exactly what the claim is.

And I am telling you (now a second time) that this is not plausible or even possible in this universe. This universe has other aspects to it, like mass and momentum and field strengths and relative strengths between forces that are not reducible to length.

(at grave risk of repeating myself...) This type of thinking was already seriously considered by a PH.d in Germany. Christof Wetterich attempted to remove all spatial expansion from cosmology models by replacing it with a uniform universal increase in mass. He found out very quickly that you cannot just "swap out the mass" and everything fits. You must tweak a bunch of other parameters to make the physics come out right. So the mere increase in mass is not enough.. you would also have to have the strength of the electric field changing just so perfectly to offset the mass increase, as well as a bunch of other constants also perfectly changing in synchrony with the changing mass.

Wetterich's theory is a terrible theory, requiring too many ad-hoc coincidences.

[hyksos]

Local laws of physics should remain the same as long as all changes remain proportional.

You are unaware of how many changes would actually be needed to restore those proportions. Swapping out the lengths in a simple inversion would not be enough. A laundry list of other fundamental constants would also have to be changing at just the perfect rate to synchronize with the shrinking.

We have no external god’s eye view of the universe to tell us if the universe is expanding or if the entire material world is growing smaller and it really makes no difference since the two possibilities are physically equivalent.

They are not physically equivalent. I have explained why they are not now three times in this thread.

Emissions from distant galaxies appear redshifted relative to local emissions which can mean that either space is expanding or matter is contracting on the atomic scale.

No. It cannot mean either of those. This is wrong and I have already explained why. The two scenarios you present here would produce completely different experimental results that would be easily measured as different.

If atoms were larger many eons ago and emitted light in wavelengths proportional to their size, then the light we observe now should appear redshifted relative to modern light even if the universe is not expanding.

Atoms being larger in the past entails a change in the local laws of physics. This change is not observed. This is a bad theory.

Being able to examine the same events from more than a single point of view gives us “perspective” in that we can compare conclusions drawn from one point of view with conclusions drawn from the other. Einstein did this quite successfully when compared the physics of gravity with the physics of acceleration as a test for the correctness of his views about gravity.

You are correct about Einstein. Engaging with physics from different perspectives was crucial to the development and history of physics.

If it is any consolation, a German physicist named Cristoff Wetterich has deeply investigated various No-Expansion Theories. He published an article on one of those theories. He replaced spatial expansion with a local change of all mass increasing at a tiny rate over cosmic timescales. Please do read the actual paper if you can find it online. It will verify almost everything I've said about this topic so far.

How do you know (1.000000000000174 * D ) is due to the expansion of space and not contraction of the spring?

We might have to start a new thread on this system alone. In physics, when it comes to questions like "HOw do we know X?" -- things get hairy. I will admit first that this calculation models the atoms of the spring system as perfect mathematical points. That's a convenient coincidence that actually holds even in quantum field theory. With no condescension intended , you obviously could not shrink a point. .


Anyone could be combative here and claim -- "well string theory says particles are actually strings and etc etc". Physics is very effective at modelling mechanical systems like pendulums by depicting them as perfect mathematical objects. There is no such thing in the real world, as everything here is made out of particles at a temperature. We expect a real pendulum will 'wind down' as it gives up mechanical energy to friction and sound.

In the case of cosmic expansion, this is not observed until you get to the size scales comparable to galaxy clusters. I suppose there is local expansion happening in the tiny space between molecules of a spring ; but back-napkin calcs would show it is effectively zero at such tiny distances. To make this more realistic, the spring would have to be so long that it would stretch across the distance between the sun and the orbit of Mars. In that scenario, we ignore intermolecular space expansion as being 'effectively zero' while we take into account the huge amounts of space expanding between the distant massive orbs on each ends of the spring.

I want to write more paragraphs in this direction but this might need to be forked into another thread.

{Long-story-short} we model forces as acting against the expansion. If forces are contradictory to the direction of expansion, then over time the cosmicExpansion and springForce will 'balance out'. The orbs/spring system will reach a state of stable equilibrium , but sitting motionless slightly farther away from each other.

[hyksos]

{...sighs...} I have removed some text here to be placed in a forked thread, whenever it is actually created.

[hyksos]

I have removed some more text here regarding topics that shoudl be forked.

[hyksos]

Okay... back on track.

There are two distinct branches of cosmology.

(1) Theoretical Cosmology

(2) Physical Cosmology

Physical Cosmology is what most pop science articles are about. This is about telescopes, redshift, parallax galaxies... the Hubble Space Telescope, et cetera et cetera. The CMBR and radio astronomy is all Physical Cosmology.

On the other hand, there is Theoretical Cosmology , a very different animal. It starts as its premise that the "universe" can be modeled as a single spacetime manifold, described by Einstein's Field Equations. There is a specific technical reason why EFEs must apply to the whole universe, and not just local portions of it. People engaging in Theoretical Cosmology are first and foremost, committed mentally, physiclaly, and emotionally to the idea that the universe is a spacetime manifold described by EFE.

What such people did next is they tried to find a "solution" to the EFEs. The EFE is a set of differential equations, and diff-E-Q's have "solutions". The first shot over the starboard bow was a solution discovered by a skinny russian man living in Saint Petersburg. He found a solution to EFE that described an expanding universe.

Later solutions were discovered by other physicists that appeared to harmonize with the skinny Russian solution. (cr. Walker, Lemaitre, Robertson) Do not misunderstand this subtle point. The expansion of spacetime is the space itself expanding. The manifold itself is changing.

This is where all this stuff started. Anyone with an ounce of common sense would ignore these silly chalkboard calculations as mathematical playtime. Fun stuff to talk about over coffee, but not applicable to the Real World , because the Real World defies our petty math. That's fine. It's sensible. I'm all for that type of thinking.

UNFORTUNATELY ---> Those solutions to the EFE began to make predictions....testable predictions. Then the impossible happened. Lookie-lookie the data coming back from fancy telescopes was in agreement with those predictions.

Hate the theory from the core of your stomach. Hate the theory from your head to your toes. Yell and break furniture because you hate the theory with all your might. Go ahead. But ignore the theory at your own peril.

Its predictions match the CMBR.

Its predictions match the Hubble redshift.

{add 17 more items here}

Ignore the theory but pay the price for ignoring it. In other words, take responsibility for your decision to deny General Relativity.

[Watson]

Sorry to have monopolized your thread. I have asked the mods to split it from your thread so you can get back on topic. Of course this expansion idea may be unlikely, but I find the discussions quite interesting and thought provoking. In due time I may take time to review the information you provided, but for now I will continue in the new thread, I hope.

[bangstrom]

You are unaware of how many changes would actually be needed to restore those proportions. Swapping out the lengths in a simple inversion would not be enough. A laundry list of other fundamental constants would also have to be changing at just the perfect rate to synchronize with the shrinking.

Swapping measurements based on the expansion of space with measurements based on the contraction of mater involve precisely the same number of changes since one is the simple mathematical inverse of the other. A change in the metrics we use has no effect on the physics of what is being measured.
The advantage in having more than a single model is that it gives us two equivalent cosmological models that we can compare to test the correctness of both. Both models should be identical except when considered at their extremes. As with the Flat Earth and Round Earth models, any differences are most likely to be found at the edges and not in the middle.

Atoms being larger in the past entails a change in the local laws of physics. This change is not observed. This is a bad theory.

Present day atoms can’t react with atoms from the remote past so how can this be an observed effect? Light from the distant past is different from light emitted by present day matter and that is what we observe.

If it is any consolation, a German physicist named Cristoff Wetterich has deeply investigated various No-Expansion Theories. He published an article on one of those theories. He replaced spatial expansion with a local change of all mass increasing at a tiny rate over cosmic timescales. Please do read the actual paper if you can find it online. It will verify almost everything I've said about this topic so far.

I am not familiar with the Wetterich paper you mentioned but I will try to look for it. Prior to 1987, it was universally accepted that the expansion of the universe should be slowing but two studies that year were interpreted to indicate that the universe was expanding at an accelerating pace. This was contrary to all expectations because expansion works against gravity and it should be losing energy- not gaining. Wetterich proposed “dark energy” as an ad-hoc patch to make the observation consistent with expansion theory.
However, if the universe is not expanding while all the matter within is growing smaller, contraction is exothermic so there is no need to speculate about a “dark” energy source and an accelerated contraction should look exactly like an accelerated expansion to us as shrinking observers.

This is one extreme where observation favors a contraction theory over expansion and Guth’s inflation period is an ad-hoc patch at the other extreme telling us that there is something wrong with the standard model.
This is not to rule out other possibilities such as one where space expands while mater contracts and the accelerating contraction appears to us as an accelerating expansion. So the energy of accelerated contraction drives accelerated expansion and the net efect is energy neutral.

I want to write more paragraphs in this direction but this might need to be forked into another thread.

Not to belabor the point, but I find your statements about the spring to be self contradictory.

On the other hand, there is Theoretical Cosmology , a very different animal. It starts as its premise that the "universe" can be modeled as a single spacetime manifold, described by Einstein's Field Equations.

This sounds like a dogmatism. Our commitment should be to observation and not wedded to any theory and EFE is not the only theory to make predictions that conform to observations.

[Watson]

I hope we can continue this discussion here, away from a thread that I inadvertently interrupted. So I brought this last comment forward from the other thread.

Postby bangstrom on Sat Mar 03, 2018 3:05 am

Watson » March 1st, 2018, 4:19 pm wrote:

The biggest draw back is of course the mechanics behind this force. How does it work? How does it attract? We don't know. We know we don't know Gravity attracts, some how. And we just accept it as an open question.

Your scenario eliminates gravity as a force and replaces it with acceleration but acceleration doesn’t act at a distance. Our measurements for the value of Newton’s G demonstrate the force of attraction between two electrically neutral bodies separated by space so we know gravity acts at a distance otherwise Newton’s G would be zero.

I think the mechanics of gravity are best explained by general relativity as a curvature of spacetime. I personally don’t like the language of that explanation because it is hard to imagine how either space or time can curve so I prefer to think of gravity as slower time and shorter space. This describes gravity's relationship to matter rather than how it looks on a diagram. The variations of shorter space and slower time produce an energy gradient around massive bodies and objects free to move in an energy gradient tend to move from an area of high energy to low energy.

All the internal motions in a massive body, both macro and micro, are slowed when an object moves in an energy gradient from an area of fast time to slower time. The energy lost from the slowing of internal motions becomes apparent as an increase in linear motion of the object in the direction of slower time (gravity) and we say the object is falling. I find gravity easier to understand than acceleration unless you have a simple explanation for the origin of inertia.

Newton’s G is just another reason to think gravity is a bit lacking? The gravitational constant has a value with an increasing degree of uncertainty, so looking at it with a fresh perspective is not totally out of line.
And, expansion of matter and space does offer the same apparent (as gravitational) attraction from a distance. As stated previously, expanding matter in static space would appear to grow together like moss on a rock. Expanding space keeps the expanding matter separated, to a point. Matter will still drift together but at a much slower rate. So there is still “attraction between two electrically neutral bodies separated by space” be by dimensional expansion of matter and space.


Dimensional expansion of matter and space can also be seen as consistent with a curvature of space-time. Or, as an uneven expansion of space, which may fall in line with your shorter space and slower time. Expanding space would be influenced by its approximation to masses, as in curved space-time. But as the mass expands, it weakly interacts with space creating a uniform sphere of slightly greater expansion of space that dissipates as it moves away from the mass. The weakly interacting expanding space could interact with smaller matter near the mass as both masses expand. The weak interaction of space and these two masses could keep them equa-distance, as they roll around each other in a type of orbital dance. So instead of a gravity well, it could be conversely thought of as a spatial hill that prevents a closer approximation, based on masses of the two objects.

simple explanation for the origin of inertia.

I'm not sure there is such a thing as simple explanations, and I'm sure a simple explanation would be inadequate.

This describes gravity's relationship to matter rather than how it looks on a diagram. The variations of shorter space and slower time produce an energy gradient around massive bodies and objects free to move in an energy gradient tend to move from an area of high energy to low energy.

An energy gradient for the apple falling from a tree, might be seen as falling away from the tree instead of straight down? So more of a sudden zero energy, rather than a gradient? At this point, I guess I thinking, how does curved space-time attract the apple straight down, so quickly at the earth?
What I'm wondering at this point is, how does a curved space-time attract an apple straight down, at the earth?

[bangstrom]

Newton’s G is just another reason to think gravity is a bit lacking? The gravitational constant has a value with an increasing degree of uncertainty, so looking at it with a fresh perspective is not totally out of line.

Milton Sheldrake quipped that Newton’s G should be reported like stock market values. ‘Today’s G is down three points from yesterday’s high of...’ He also thinks other 'constants’ may be drifting about. Thinking that our constants are not constant is not totally out of line.

Dimensional expansion of matter and space can also be seen as consistent with a curvature of space-time. Or, as an uneven expansion of space, which may fall in line with your shorter space and slower time. Expanding space would be influenced by its approximation to masses, as in curved space-time. But as the mass expands, it weakly interacts with space creating a uniform sphere of slightly greater expansion of space that dissipates as it moves away from the mass.

I would think a greater expansion of space in the vicinity of massive bodies would tend to cause massive bodies to drift apart if gravity does not exist. You also need to explain how mass interacts with space if there is no gravity.

An energy gradient for the apple falling from a tree, might be seen as falling away from the tree instead of straight down? So more of a sudden zero energy, rather than a gradient? At this point, I guess I thinking, how does curved space-time attract the apple straight down, so quickly at the earth?
What I'm wondering at this point is, how does a curved space-time attract an apple straight down, at the earth?

The center of the Earth is locally our lowest point in the gravity/energy gradient so objects of mass tend to migrate towards the center of the Earth. There is no point where the gradient goes all the way to zero. There is gravity even at the center of the Earth.
In the absence of the Earth, the apple would be weakly attracted to the tree since the point of lowest energy would be in the vicinity of the tree. Objects in a gravitational field tend to move an area of high energy to lower energy. That is, the area of shorter space and slower time.

[Watson]

I would think a greater expansion of space in the vicinity of massive bodies would tend to cause massive bodies to drift apart if gravity does not exist. You also need to explain how mass interacts with space if there is no gravity.

I was thinking more of a balance, where the push from the spacial expansion balances the attraction of the matter expansion.

The premise being, expansion of matter instead of gravity, so the question is, how does expanding matter interact weakly with expanding space? Mass expands into space, and both are expanding into ?something?, which I agree is not a thing, other than to say the matter/space expansions do share a degree of commonality. What that is, I do not know at this time. But that is my answer for the moment. It does seem consistent with the notion of a cloud of gravitons surrounding a mass, dissipating with distance.

The center of the Earth is locally our lowest point in the gravity/energy gradient so objects of mass tend to migrate towards the center of the Earth. There is no point where the gradient goes all the way to zero. There is gravity even at the center of the Earth.

OK for the apple. But is gravity at the center of the earth a mathematical requirement? I can only think, gravity, as weak as it is, would have a value for g so measurably small as to only exist in calculations. Depending on the day?

[Watson]

Not to get ahead of you, but I should also have to explain gravitational lensing? How would light behave in an expanding matter/space environment?

Just thinking out loud here, but perhaps there is more of an expanding matter/expanding space-time?

[someguy1]

Can't we leave the basic understanding of the Universe as is, and just explain gravity? That is what needs unifying, isn't it?

Gravity? Easy. Why do bowling balls fall down?

Aristotle: Everything returns to its natural place. The natural place of a bowling ball is on the ground.

Newton: The earth and the moon attract each other with a force proportional to the product of their mass and inversely proportional to the square of the distance between their centers. But we have no idea why.

Einstein: In the presence of the distortion of spacetime caused by the earth's gravitational field, the bowling ball's geodesic is in the direction of the earth.

Higgs: Bosons.

Multiverse theory: We just happen to live in a universe where bowling balls fall down. In some other universe, bowling balls fall up.

Yay Science!

[bangstrom]

If it is any consolation, a German physicist named Cristoff Wetterich has deeply investigated various No-Expansion Theories. He published an article on one of those theories. He replaced spatial expansion with a local change of all mass increasing at a tiny rate over cosmic timescales. Please do read the actual paper if you can find it online. It will verify almost everything I've said about this topic so far.

If you tweak one aspect of a cosmology you must adjust the whole of its parameters in order to keep everything proportional. This is true of any worthwhile cosmology.

I found an article about Wetterich’s cosmologies. This was my first encounter with his non-expansion theory but I am familiar with other models of the same going as far back as Arthur Eddington’s “Shrinking Atom Theory.” Wetterich’s theory is exactly the non-expansionist theory I have had in mind for many years and his description is the most complete description of the theory that I have read so far. I like it.

My favorite aspect of the theory is that it comes closer to depicting the cosmos as we observe it than any other theories I know of. It is a “what you see is what you get” theory. When we observe the universe we don’t see it expand or see distant galaxies growing smaller as they recede and there is no need in Wetterich’s theory to explain how 2.7 K is the “hot” origin of of the cosmos. The 2.7 K is the equilibrium temperature of a many billion year old universe with heat generated by its more than 200 billion galaxies. There is no need for Guth’s inflation period or dark energy to explain the counter intuitive accelerating expansion and there is no need to explain how light has redshifted while traveling through space. In this theory, the light we see now has the same wavelength as when it was first emitted.

The non-expansion theory Wetterich uses is also philosophically satisfying because it can easily be interpreted as a cyclical cosmology that is continuously renewing itself with a limitless amount of time to evolve a fine tuning among its physical parameters leading to an ever greater stability at the atomic level. A finely tuned stability is the key ingredient necessary for life. This isn’t a theory that self destructs after a onetime run.

Wetterich’s cosmologies can be found here:
http://www.thphys.uni-heidelberg.de/~we ... .Cosmology

The parts relevant to his non-expansion theory are in sections 6 and 7. Wetterich uses equivalent cosmologies based on the same observations and maths to examine different aspects of the cosmos. Each theory presents a slightly different perspective of the same phenomenon so we can put together a more complete picture of the whole elephant.

[hyksos]

However, if the universe is not expanding while all the matter within is growing smaller, contraction is exothermic so there is no need to speculate about a “dark” energy source and an accelerated contraction should look exactly like an accelerated expansion to us as shrinking observers.

This is one extreme where observation favors a contraction theory over expansion and Guth’s inflation period is an ad-hoc patch at the other extreme telling us that there is something wrong with the standard model.
This is not to rule out other possibilities such as one where space expands while mater contracts and the accelerating contraction appears to us as an accelerating expansion. So the energy of accelerated contraction drives accelerated expansion and the net efect is energy neutral.

If you are attempting to tell people on this forum that Wetterich's theory has "less moving parts" than does Cosmological Constant/Dark Energy theories do (... and that appears to be what you are doing) then you are lying to the people on this forum.

You are painting a false picture that somehow Christof Wetterich has found a more parsimonious theory that is more conducive to Ockham and furthermore does not require any "pesky Dark Energy stuff". This is misleading in the extreme. Wetterich's theory requires a host of various constants of nature all be changing slightly overtime, but in such perfect synchrony so that they all cancel out so that physicists in labs see no evidence of local changes in physics. This is ad-hoc, coincidental, all-too-convenient.

While I will admit that Alan Guth and company have engaged in a fair amount of self-fulfilling logic, Wetterich has taken this kind of patchwork thinking to an extreme. His theory is ad-hoc and has far more moving parts than any canonical theory of inflation.

[bangstrom]

If you are attempting to tell people on this forum that Wetterich's theory has "less moving parts" than does Cosmological Constant/Dark Energy theories do (... and that appears to be what you are doing) then you are lying to the people on this forum.

You are painting a false picture that somehow Christof Wetterich has found a more parsimonious theory that is more conducive to Ockham and furthermore does not require any "pesky Dark Energy stuff". This is misleading in the extreme.

I am saying that Wetterich’s theory is equivalent to to the Standard Model Big Bang which means that the two theories have precisely the same number of moving parts. His theory is the simple mathematical inverse of expansion theory. I am also saying that Wetterich has a more parsimonious theory than the Standard Model which does not require "pesky Dark Energy stuff". This is a dilemma which means that either Wetterich’s theory is missing an essential consideration or the Standard Model has one too many.

In expansion theory, expansion should be slowing because expansion works against gravity but recent observations are telling us, quite unexpectedly, that expansion is accelerating as if some mysterious force is is pushing the galaxies apart at an increasing rate.

This appears to be a return to the early concepts of expansion theory where the Big Bang was considered to be some kind of an enormous explosion throwing ejecta into preexisting space and a return to the pre-MMx thinking where empty space (the aether) was able to move matter around like leaves in the wind. Cosmologists have been trying to distance themselves from these concepts for many years but speculation about “dark energy” pushing the galaxies away from each other seems like a return to the old ways of thinking.

If space can accelerate matter, why can’t we detect space as a force and if the galaxies are being accelerated away from some common center, that would give the universe an identifiable center.
Attempts to explain “dark energy” and how it contributes to the mass of the universe seem to raise more questions than they answer. My speculation is that either the evidence for the acceleration of the universe has been misinterpreted or the expansion of space does not exert a force against the galaxies so our consideration about Dark Energy within the Standard Model gives the model one moving part that does not exist.

In Wetterich’s theory, the observed accelerated expansion of space is in reality an accelerated contraction so the expansion of space is an illusion and it takes no energy to accelerate an illusion. In expansion theory, dark energy may be a false conjecture and the "extra part" that we can discard..

Wetterich's theory requires a host of various constants of nature all be changing slightly overtime, but in such perfect synchrony so that they all cancel out so that physicists in labs see no evidence of local changes in physics. This is ad-hoc, coincidental, all-too-convenient.

If the value of c is our one unchanging absolute, then that makes the Standard Model no different from Wetterich's theory.

While I will admit that Alan Guth and company have engaged in a fair amount of self-fulfilling logic, Wetterich has taken this kind of patchwork thinking to an extreme. His theory is ad-hoc and has far more moving parts than any canonical theory of inflation.

This is an unsupported personal opinion and one that I do not share except for the Guth part. Inflation may be another "extra part" that we should discard.

[Watson]

If space can accelerate matter, why can’t we detect space as a force and if the galaxies are being accelerated away from some common center, that would give the universe an identifiable center.

Space doesn't need to interact with space to accelerate matter as a force. Either Hubble or Dimensional expansion are only seen as accelerating as a function of distance. Locally, neither would be seen as acceleration? And regardless of our non-specifically identifiable location everything would appear to be expanding away from us. Not because of a central position, but because all observers in all locations would have the same central view of the Universe regardless of their location. Everything would appear to be expanding away from them.

[bangstrom]

Space doesn't need to interact with space to accelerate matter as a force. Either Hubble or Dimensional expansion are only seen as accelerating as a function of distance. Locally, neither would be seen as acceleration? And regardless of our non-specifically identifiable location everything would appear to be expanding away from us. Not because of a central position, but because all observers in all locations would have the same central view of the Universe regardless of their location. Everything would appear to be expanding away from them.

I get what you are saying. We observe distances between galaxies to be increasing at an accelerated pace but be don’t observe our galaxy (or any other galaxy) to be undergoing any new form of acceleration in any direction so why introduce some novel form of acceleration “dark energy” to explain a force against the galaxies that we don’t observe?

[Watson]

I've not mentioned dark energy? And if I implied DE/DM, it was not intentional. And, I'm not sure what new form of acceleration you are referring to. I'm thinking of the same expansion/acceleration we have been discussing. Sorry if I'm puzzled by this last post.

[bangstrom]

I've not mentioned dark energy? And if I implied DE/DM, it was not intentional. And, I'm not sure what new form of acceleration you are referring to. I'm thinking of the same expansion/acceleration we have been discussing. Sorry if I'm puzzled by this last post.

I recognize your description of expansion as consistent with the modern consensus but the modern consensus also includes “dark energy” as the source of energy driving the the accelerated expansion. In theory, the expansion of the universe should be slowing but observations show expansion to be accelerating which suggests a mysterious new source of energy beyond the energy imparted to matter at the time of the Big Bang. Hence we have “dark energy” as the force driving acceleration.

You said,” Space doesn't need to interact with space to accelerate matter as a force. Either Hubble or Dimensional expansion are only seen as accelerating as a function of distance.”

So my question is. In your view, does the acceleration of space call for a boost of new energy (dark energy) or is it an energy free function of distance?

[hyksos]

I am saying that Wetterich’s theory is equivalent to to the Standard Model Big Bang which means that the two theories have precisely the same number of moving parts.

This is just false. A whole host of fundamental constants and ratios in physics have to all be changing in synchrony for Wetterich's theory to match observations. He even gave them a name! He calls them "slow roll constants". (I am not making this up.)

I invite you to go and literally sit with Dr. Wetterich in his office. Ask him about "slow roll constants". He will admit fully that he is using this idea. He's an honest dude.

If the value of c is our one unchanging absolute, then that makes the Standard Model no different from Wetterich's theory.

This is absolutely not true at all.

His theory is the simple mathematical inverse of expansion theory

This claim is factually false.

[hyksos]

If you tweak one aspect of a cosmology you must adjust the whole of its parameters in order to keep everything proportional. This is true of any worthwhile cosmology.

Your sophistry and dishonesty on this forum is so brazen that my jaw is on the floor in a state of shock.

I have very clearly explained shrinking matter, or matter becoming more massive, or {insert other non-expansion theory here} all share a common attribute. They suppose that the local laws of physics are changing.

This is not what is observed. The distant galaxies follow the same physics that is seen in nearby locations in the universe, with a single exception -- they are redshifted. If local laws of physics were changing, we would absolutely and easily observe this happening in labs here on earth.

If the above is true, it should strike no one as a coincidence, that any proposed theory that denies expansion of space will have to also "slow roll" a bunch of fundamental constants of our physical world... and "slow roll" them in such a way that they all happily synchronize to make it conveniently appear that local physics is not changing.

Despite bangstrom's sophistry , this is NOT a regular academic methodology -- at all. It definitely not something that is seen in , quote, "...any worthwhile cosmology...". It is not seen in any cosmology anywhere.

Alan Guth introduces an inflaton field, but then he can't explain what that thing is. I admit fully that I find it a kind of wonky reasoning most days. And I am ready and willing to have that conversation. But we aren't having it.

[Watson]

Hyksos as you stated in the your thread, you are repeating yourself, as you continue to do here. It was your thread so I asked to have the thread split, or forked as you put it, so we weren't interrupting each other. Unfortunately some of your later comments got included in this thread. Please be assured your opinion has been noted, but in the interest of this conversation, we choose to go around it. So, no need to repeat the same thoughts out of frustration, just put the jaw back in your pocket and concentrate on comment on the other thread.

[Watson]

So my question is. In your view, does the acceleration of space call for a boost of new energy (dark energy) or is it an energy free function of distance?

What I'm thinking of is, with a dimensional expansion of matter, on its own, the acceleration would be a clumping of matter with increasing internal pressures. With a dimensional expansion of space, on its own, the acceleration would be separating (non clumping) of shrinking matter. If the two accelerations are combined to offer some recognizable features, but otherwise hide discretely beyond our perception, then it could be a latent feature of the BB. After all, the BB created space and matter from a small ?, and it expanded into the Universe. Any dimensional expansion could be a natural feature of a Guth/Linde type of initial expansion, driven by the BB and one that continues to this day.

[hyksos]

Well actually, I wanted a thread fork due to the two orbs on a spring system. That system was starting to take up too many paragraphs on a thread that was supposed to be about Grand Unified Theories.

[bangstrom]

Your sophistry and dishonesty on this forum is so brazen that my jaw is on the floor in a state of shock.

Despite bangstrom's sophistry , this is NOT a regular academic methodology -- at all. It definitely not something that is seen in , quote, "...any worthwhile cosmology...". It is not seen in any cosmology anywhere.

Good grief! You make me sound like a spokesperson for Donald Trump.
Apparently you were not as impressed with Wetterich's cosmology as was I. I left my latest comments in the "Six Questions" thread so as not continue in this split thread that never split.

[Watson]

As you mentioned elsewhere:

the inflation period was added to make the Big Bang cosmology consistent with the observation that the universe is 15 billion years old when it appears to be older and more developed than possible in that length of time. The age of the universe was later marked down 13.7 billion years which makes the inflation period more important than ever.

them me, out of sequence

If the two accelerations are combined to offer some recognizable features, but otherwise hide discretely beyond our perception, then it could be a latent feature of the BB. After all, the BB created space and matter from a small ?, and it expanded into the Universe. Any dimensional expansion could be a natural feature of a Guth/Linde type of initial expansion, driven by the BB and one that continues to this day.

Was there a reason to expect the inflation period to stop, or was it just not needed passed a particular point in time so, ??, it must have stopped.

[bangstrom]

Was there a reason to expect the inflation period to stop, or was it just not needed passed a particular point in time so, ??, it must have stopped.

My suspicion is that the the Guth/Linde inflation period was never necessary in the first place and there are more prosaic explanations for the flatness problem. One explanation is that the universe is much older and larger than calculated from the interpretation of the distant galactic redshifts as straight forward recessional velocities from the big bang explosion. In other words, space may be expanding at its own peculiar rate rather than being driven by inertia resulting from an explosive event and there are many other possibilities.

Calculations for the size and age of the universe are based on the assumption that matter does not expand while the galaxies are moving apart like ejecta from an explosion and such calculations work for this scenario only.
More recent views have the galaxies moving apart because space itself is expanding and not because the galaxies are moving into greater volumes of preexisting space as do objects in an explosion. This makes the use of the older calculations for the size and age of the universe questionable because the older explanation for expansion no longer applies.
If the universe is older and larger than 13.7 billion years, then the only purpose for the inflation period is to explain how a miracle happened that advanced universal development so rapidly. I’m saying the Guth/Linde inflation looks to me like a fudge factor.

Your scenario looks like an inflation period that never stopped except for the expansion of matter. If matter is expanding as well, that would make inflation look more like normal expansion but, either way, I don’t see how your scenario can fit with observations because the expansion is so fast that it eliminates gravity.

[Watson]

From:https://www.smithsonianmag.com/smart-news/hubble-spotted-oldest-galaxy-it-has-ever-seen-180958288/

>The “new” galaxy is called GN-z11, and it’s located 13.4 billion light years away. To put that in context, that means that the galaxy existed just 400 million years after the Big Bang.
>“We are closing in on the first galaxies that formed in the Universe,” writes NASA in the release. It appears that the galaxy is about 25 times smaller than the Milky Way.
>GN-z11 is astonishingly old, but it’s exciting for another reason: its brightness. Scientists didn’t realize that such large, starry galaxies existed so far in the past.

For context I used the> sign to indicate 3 separate sentences from the article. Together here they may have a different context than the article intended. Which is also my point.

To say, "such large, starry galaxies existed so far in the past." seems to suggest they are normal in all/most respects. All but one. "It appears that the galaxy is about 25 times smaller than the Milky Way." It is consistent with our conversation to suggest this GN-z11 and our look-back time is seeing the galaxy in a smaller expansion state?

(Yes the degree of expansion over this time scale does seem to suggest this galaxy would be to small to observe.)

[Watson]

Your scenario looks like an inflation period that never stopped except for the expansion of matter. If matter is expanding as well, that would make inflation look more like normal expansion but, either way, I don’t see how your scenario can fit with observations because the expansion is so fast that it eliminates gravity.

That was the point, to eliminate gravity, at least as far as the apple falling on the head goes. Gravity is problematic for a number of reasons. And the expansion of matter serves some aspects, but it to has problems as well. Is gravity still considered a force or a stretching of space-time, or both depending on the situation?
I suppose the gravity as associated with the stretching of space-time, fits with a notion of expanding of space and of matter like a three legged stool. The gravitational lensing would be as observed, as in a well of bending space-time, not directly affected by the other expansions. The Hubble Expansion, the dimensional expansions of both space and matter might be linked from the initial conditions. But to answer one of your previous question space is tide to the expansions and driven by the initial event.


(Also see post at bottom of previous page.)