Thread: Duality: Explanation of the Hubble expansion, or not?
View Single Post
  #13 (permalink)  
Old 06-January-2007, 06:49 PM
Bjoern's Avatar
Bjoern Bjoern is offline
Established Member
  
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Germany
Posts: 608
Default
Hello again, Peter. I am still waiting for you to answer my questions in the thread "Dark energy Dark matter". I asked them on December 30rd - one week ago. Isn't there a policy here on BAUT that questions about ATM ideas should be answered within a week...?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Peter Wilson View Post
What is Duality?

Duality is the observation that the universe is neither expanding nor contracting, but doing both at the same time, i.e. is contracting locally while expanding cosmically.
Why do you think one needs to make up a fancy term for something which has been known for about 80 years, and which has been studied theoretically for at least 20 years now? Which is perfectly well explained by General Relativity? (studying density fluctuations on a Big Bang background)

Quote:
Originally Posted by Peter Wilson View Post
It is my contention that mainstream models do not incorporate duality,
I already corrected you on that. Why do you ignore that?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Peter Wilson View Post
and if they did, it will be seen that the cosmic (Hubble) expansion is merely the flip-side of local contraction.
They do, and it is clearly seen that your claim is totally wrong.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Peter Wilson View Post
local contraction shows up as points of light, i.e. sources of radiant energy.
What on earth does that have to do with contraction?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Peter Wilson View Post
In order to compare “apples to apples,” the rate-of-expansion must be converted to the rate-of-contraction. When you do this, you find that the rate-of-contraction is actually greater than the rate-of-expansion:

Rate of contraction (estimate post 33): = 2E-8 j/kg/s (2 x 10^(-8)).
Rate of expansion (estimate post 256): = 6E-9 j/kg/s
Why don't you convert both to a relative rate of change per second? Would make much more sense!

Quote:
Originally Posted by Peter Wilson View Post
The first number represents the rate at which gravitational potential energy (GPE) is being converted to radiant energy. The second number represents the rate at which radiant energy is converted back into gravitational potential energy (see here). The difference between the two numbers is the net rate at which GPE is being converted into radiant energy.
GPE? Oh, that again reminds me of the answers in the other posts I'm still waiting for... (see above)

Quote:
Originally Posted by Peter Wilson View Post
In a nutshell, the cosmos is contracting “faster” than it is expanding. That is, the energy released by contraction is more than enough to explain the expansion.
How does contraction release energy, and why does expansion require energy?
__________________
The universe is big. Really big. It may seem like a long way to the corner chemist, but compared to the universe, that's peanuts. (Douglas Adams, Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy)