Quote:
Originally Posted by Peter Wilson
The raison d'être for the BA part of BAUT is to shoot-down astronomical misconceptions. I have put a concept on the table— duality—that purports to explain the expansion of the universe, and it remains undebunked...at least in my estimation 
While mistakes were made in the original exposition, all but one were immediately caught by the readers, and all but one were immediately acknowledged and corrected by author…call the score even. Since all reported errors have been rectified, the conception/misconception sits in limbo. You can help decide the proposition.
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. It is my contention that mainstream models do not incorporate duality, and if they did, it will be seen that the cosmic (Hubble) expansion is merely the flip-side of local contraction.
Perhaps part of the difficulty is the fact that contraction and expansion manifest in different ways, and it is not at all immediately obvious that they are related.
--The universe is expanding at the rate of 2.3E-18/s (72 km/s/Mpc) at distances of greater than 5 Mpc,
--The universe is contracting at the rate of 1.0E-8 j/kg/s at distances of less than 5 Mpc.
Cosmic expansion is manifested as an increasing recession velocity with distance; local contraction shows up as points of light, i.e. sources of radiant energy. 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
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.
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.
Unless you can show where the numbers are wrong |
I must admit that I cannot understand ‘duality’ as here hypothesized, where something can be and not be at the same time. Either the universe is ‘homogenous and isotropic’ and it is expanding, or it is not. However, this hypothesized expansion of space is a function of our astronomical observations, that it ‘appears’ to be expanding at progressively larger distances, even appearing to be accelerating, if I understand it correctly, that at very great distances expansion is slower than for shorter distances. At the local level, no such expansion can be verified, now understood as a function of gravitational forces holding intra-galaxy matter together, so it may be contracting, but something that is not evident for inter-galaxies space, where they appear to be expanding. I wrote on the
preceding thread (pre-split) something I think applies here as well:
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by nutant gene 71
I think this is the conundrum we encounter in Astronomy, versus all other science, in that our ‘tests’ for astronomical scientific theories are always at a distance, sometimes very great distances, so we do not have the benefit of falsifiable tests up close. How do we measure the speed of light, for example, in vicinity of our nearest stellar neighbors, such as Alpha Centaury? Or how do we know that implied Dark Energy, that which explains space expansion, exists at all? If we assume Doppler space expansion, something we cannot test for here on Earth, then the whole web of knowledge, even mathematically quantifiable knowledge, is only within the parameters of the logic constructed around this assumption. (Einstein assumed a homogenous and isotropic universe, but this is merely an assumption and not testable at present; in fact, we hope this is right to make it all fit mathematically!) But have we found other evidence to collaborate this logic? Is there evidence, for example, of space expansion tangentially? We only know of space expansion via ‘line of sight’, what we see in our instruments delving progressively deeper into space, and there the logic holds. But we cannot falsifiably test for it in any other way, except within the parameters of the web of mathematics we created to explain (assumed) Doppler space expansion. Is there any evidence of space expanding on Earth? No. So without such a collateral test, we are forced to fall back upon the logical explanations based upon our assumptions. But what if cosmic light redshifts for some other reason, perhaps something not yet considered (not counting tired light here), which would explain this redshift from another cause so that our observations of redshifts, consistent that they are for all distance as calculated, are actually no more than an optical illusion? Good science demands that we know the answer to this with some degree of falsifiable tests, and not merely accept that the logical calculations all work, so it must be right.
|
If the universe is indeed homogenous and isotropic, there should be some evidence of expansion locally, but there seems to be none, only gravitational effects holding our immediate vicinity of space as static. This is also not evident at the Quantum level, where no such expansion of space is evident. And since we cannot test for this expansion hypothesis tangentially, we are left with only the ‘line of sight’ evidence, due to redshifted light, that there is expansion at very great distances from our galaxy. Since we are unable to go
in situ beyond our galaxy (we are barely able to send probes beyond our solar system), then we have no way to verify that such expansion is in fact real, and not merely an observational illusion. But if illusionary as an artifact of what our instruments register, then what happens to the Hubble constant? Is it illusory too? No math here, just some common sense reason. The alternative hypothesis, therefore and by default, is that our observed light redshift from great distances, as opposed to near our solar system, is that it may be due to other causes, as yet unknown (perhaps gravitationally driven), which means that in deep inter-galactic space something is different from what we know here. If so, then it necessitates entertaining at least the possibility that the universe is not ‘homogenous and isotropic’ as now postulated, or at least not the same matter, sans ‘dark matter/dark energy’, whereby the universe is homogenous and isotropic differently for out there versus in here. (I can produce the math to show how this is so, but it would be OT for this thread, not to mention highly speculative at this point.) Until we can find evidence that gravity acts differently for beyond the galaxy, viz. MOND like, than for within the solar system, we have no empirical evidence with which to support the math. So, thus it rests: a duality in our thinking, though not necessarily a duality in the way the universe works. In fact, it may all be very well unified with a better cosmological theory than GR/BBT type hypothesis, for example, where the variability of G for inner regions of space versus those very distant are explained by a new theory of the physics of gravity. Just a thought.
That said, I do find Peter Wilson’s hypothesis, that
” 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. It is my contention that mainstream models do not incorporate duality, and if they did, it will be seen that the cosmic (Hubble) expansion is merely the flip-side of local contraction,” intriguing. However, this necessitates some physics mechanism to explain how
” 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). I am unfamiliar with such a thesis, where
‘gravitational potential’ and
’radiant energy’ are interactive as described. Indeed, the cosmological redshift is a ‘can of worms’ as said
here.
What happens to the Hubble constant if there is no Doppler expansion, but merely illusional, for example? Nixed?