How good is the expanding universe cosmology, in its own terms?

We have seen that alternative ATM theories can both predict a redshift and also calculate the expected value of the Hubble constant with ease. Ari Brinjolfsson (arXiv:astro-ph/0401420v2) and some guy called Ashmore do it with ease.
The topic of this thread is to ask how well mainstream cosmology ie BB and the expanding universe can do it.
i.e. how does the BB predict the value of H and how does this predicted value agree with the observed one?
Cheers
Lyndon

I'd have to say that the Big Bang theories don't predict 'h' so much as observe it as an input parameter. Similarly, I doubt that either you or Ari predict the value of 'h' so much as at best observe it.

The fact is that there is a relationship between redshift and distance, and the current big bang cosmologies all map very well to the observed relationship.

__________________
Forming opinions as we speak

No way Antoniseb! Whilst this is off topic let it be known that ashmore's theory predicts H = 2nhr/m and gets it right.
So, lets stay OT - how does the BB fair?
Cheers,
lyndon

Look Lyndon, I read your theory and there is a very random choice of units that makes for a happy coincidence for your numbers. You yourself say that there is no physical reason but guessing that there should be such a match up. I don't think your theory "predicts" the Hubble constant anymore than me saying I graduated in '73, so it must be 73 kilometers/sec per megaparsec predicts it.

__________________
Forming opinions as we speak

So, would you lyndonashmore, prefer to address the specific, pertinent questions on precisely this claim, in the thread where they were posed (after you had posted them)?

Or that there be a new thread, devoted precisely to a detailed examination of this lyndonashmore claim re H?

Once again, this is off topic, the thrust of this thread is how the BB predicts a value of the Hubble constant and how well this predicted value compares with the observed value. Surely that is not asking too much.
However, on a point of information my theory predicts H = 2nhr/m (h planck constant, m and r mass and classical radius of the electron. 'n' is the average electron density of IG space and published values of this lie between 0.1 and 10 electrons per cubic metre of space.
H = 72km/s per Mpc is when n = 0.5! Theory is consistent with observation, no coincidences, referenced material, accepted physics.
Now, can we get baock to the OT - what is the BB prediction?
Cheers,
Lyndon.
P.S. I think you are confusing Ashmore's paradox (H = hr/m per cubic metre of space) with Ashmore's theory - a very different thing altogether.

Once again this is off topic. The OT is how the BB derives a relationship for the Hubble constant and how this predicted value compares to the observed value. Surely that is not asking too much? The Hubble constant is probably THE most important constant in cosmology and so any cosmological theory must be able to predict it. So how does the BB fare?
On a point of information
This post by Nereid does not ask any questions at all it merely ruminates about my website. (evidence of this can be seen by the absence of any question marks!)
Cheers,
Lyndon

Then why was it introduced, in the OP?Don't you mean "OP"?Perhaps that's because it was edited rather too heavily, so the "?" was left off?

to set the scene.
cheers,
lyndon

I thought I made this pretty clear in my first post. We observe the Hubble "constant" as an input parameter.

However, big bang models explain the observed distance red-shift relation pretty well, and can interpolate a distance from a red-shift or vice versa reliably. This includes the region where z=6, which is definitely non-linear compared to the local environment. So to that end:
It agrees perfectly, because it IS the observed one. The expanding universe cosmologies have their parameters tuned to match this observation.

__________________
Forming opinions as we speak

Actualy, if you use the entire quote:

You can see that there are questions, two of them, in fact. It appears that you did some creative editing to reach the conclusion that there are no questions.

edit: it appears that antoniseb has already mentioned this.

__________________
Some try to tell me, thoughts they cannot defend,... - Moody Blues.

Neptune- The original Dark Matter.

The author feels that this technique of deliberately lying will actually make it easier for you to learn the ideas. - Donald Knuth

With respect, antoniseb, I don't think it does.
Isn't this why acceleraton has to be introduced?
That is, distant supernova are dimmer than they should be as per the BB redshift relatonship. i.e it gets it wrong so it has to be patched with acceleraton.
However, since you say that the BB cannot derive or predict a value for "H" that can be compared to observation, then it surely can't be much of a theory - can it?
Cheers,
Lyndon

Ths is Off topic (OT or OP?) Tensor and does not refer to how the BB predicts a value for the Hubble constant and how that predicted value compares to the observed one.
On a point of information, there was no 'creative editing', my post referred to the linked post of Nereid's
There were no specific, pertinent questions at all.
So how about the Bb and its predicted value for H?
Cheers,
Lyndon

(reference):1) To what extent is the "Ashmore idea" in -b> consistent with the many high-z supernovae observations?

2) What are the sources for the value(s) of n (the 'average' density of electrons in 'intergalactic space') in -a>?

3) What kind of 'average' does the method -a> use (or require)?

4) Which regions of 'intergalactic space' do the hundreds of thousands (millions?) of observations of (galaxy) redshifts include?

5) Which regions of 'intergalactic space' are excluded?

6) Which galaxies have been observed to have an H₀ in the region [12, 50] km/s per Mpc?

7) Which galaxies have been observed to have an H₀ in the region [120, 1200] km/s per Mpc?

Are you trying to hijack my thread Nereid?

This is totally OT. If you would like to discuss these matters then please start your own thread. You see, you might find this hard to believe but some posters pose questions asking how this , that or other ATM theory explains observations but when we point out that the BB can't do it we are told that it is OT.
So this thread is asking how the BB predicts a value for H and how close that predicted value is to the observed one.
So far it appears that the BB fails miserably.
Cheers,
Lyndon.
P.S. is you care to start a thread somewhere else I will happily join you for ten days - as after that I am going on my hols, Amsterdam, London, Paris,.... Ah!!!!

No, she's probably responding to the claim that some guy named Ashmore can do it with ease. After all, that claim is in the OP. And those questions are pertinent to the claim.

__________________
Some try to tell me, thoughts they cannot defend,... - Moody Blues.

Neptune- The original Dark Matter.

The author feels that this technique of deliberately lying will actually make it easier for you to learn the ideas. - Donald Knuth

Are you opening up this debate to include what the qualities are for theories that are "much of a theory"?

I was trying to stay on topic, but you seem to be both bashing others for going slightly off-topic to touch on your tangential claims, AND making lots of off-topic comments of your own. Please set a good example, or stop bashing others for following your example.

Concerning "The Expanding Universe Cosmology", you know pretty well that there is not only a single unified view that explains it. The context is that it is observed, and that there are models that look at the consequences of the onset of expansion that now are mostly in agreement with each other, and with observation.

You bring up the added acceleration, which is in some of these models attributed to Dark Energy. No one knows for certain what Dark Energy is, but I expect that in ten to twenty years we'll have enough observations to have some fairly precise models for the changing rate of expansion to strongly narrow the field of choices. It might be that some ATM theories make some claims as to what will be discovered on this front. There is no unified group that swears they are right about this in the mainstream.

The Expanding Universe Cosmologies do have something to say about the history of the universe, and things that we see. If you take it as given that the universe started expanding 13.7 billion years ago, we should see that there is a not a uniform continuum of star ages, but rather specific eras when more stars were formed than others. Likewise with globular clusters. We do see this. We see that there was a period of peak star forming in the local universe between 5 and 8 billion years ago. We also see that most of the globular clusters formed in an epoch earlier than that. We see that there was an era when quasars were plentiful, and we live in an era when they are very rare. We see other ways that the universe is changing with age as well, and all of these are in good agreement with the various Expanding Universe Models.

The details of the CMB, including its subtle variations are also in good agreement with most of the curent Expanding Universe Cosmologies. The Isotope ratios of the interstellar medium are well predicted by the Expanding Universe Cosmologies. The list goes on. Is it much of a theory? In my judgment, yes it is. I expect all new cosmological and astronomical observations from now on to be consistant with the Expanding Universe. I also expect that in the future we will refine our knowledge of some of the details, and reject some hypotheses that currently form the edge of our knowledge.

__________________
Forming opinions as we speak

no I am into real science were predictions match observations.
sorry this is incorrect - what is observed is redshift. Expansion is an interpretation put onto the redshift. Other theories explain it differently. What is observed is redshift not velocity or expansion.
Exactly. It is a crystal sphere to make the theory work.
13.7 billon years ago?
Didn't I show that the hubble age of the universe was m/hr for the electron in each cubic metre of space?
Cheers.
Lyndon.
P.S. Watch your spelling otherwise you will have Tim Thompson after you like he is after me!

1. How can you say that the Expanding Universe Cosmology is "not much of a theory" unless you are inviting comparisons to other theories or opening this discussion as to what would constitute "much of a theory".
2. Watch your spelling.
The Redshift-distance relationship is observed. This is what H is a measure of. H is described in terms of velocity per distance, because redshift is nornally thought of as equivelant to velocity.
That sounds a little dismissive. Better I think to say that it is an interesting way to make two missing parts work, that coincidentally have the same total mass.

__________________
Forming opinions as we speak

enough said
Cheers,
Lyndon

Well it would be, if you also stuck to it.

__________________
Some try to tell me, thoughts they cannot defend,... - Moody Blues.

Neptune- The original Dark Matter.

The author feels that this technique of deliberately lying will actually make it easier for you to learn the ideas. - Donald Knuth

or since the expansion of the Universe is in fact three dimensional,physical reality, does this not cancel out any expansion at all, by space its self?

since space would pull apart any position, matter, in space equally!!

I say that the BB is not much of a theory because it cannot predict the most important bit of the jigsaw i.e. The Hubble constant.
No way Hosay! H is not described in terms of velocity per distance unless yo are a follower of the Bb. What is observed is a shift in wavelength. The rest is in the interpretation of that result. Since when did scientists believe things to be true because
get real. In Hubble's own words
"What we measure is redshift and that is what we will call them.
NOT VELOCITY
Cheers,
Lyndon

Please don't call me Hosay.

__________________
Forming opinions as we speak

Sorry,
It is an expresson of affection where my home is. Near Chelmsford in Essex -the real one.
Cheers,
Lyndon

So where is the closing quote here, and do you have a link to the paper in which he said this? (not that it matters much as Hubble was not a noted supporter of the Expanding Universe). My point is that redshift is described in terms of km/sec, and that the Hubble constant is normally given in kilometers per second per megaparsec. Even people in Arp's camp describe red-shift as kilometers per second. People who describe redshift as a z= number have an implied relativistic velocity. Given that most mainstream cosmologists don't think of cosmological recession as quite the same thing as spatial velocity, but rather as an artifact of expansion, I think you are playing fast and loose with the language, when you say that I am wrong when I say H is the relationship between red-shift and distance.

__________________
Forming opinions as we speak

Since you live in Chelmsford, albeit a strange one not in essex, i will gladly explain.
The quote is in the biiography "Hubble, Mariner of the universe"
Hubble used to hold these fireside chats every Friday afternoon, when folk came along and used a chalk board to see how things were going.
It was when Zwicky first put forward the idea of tired light that Hubble said.
"redshifts is what we measure and redshifts is what I will call them"
And he did , from then on - because he was a good scientist. Unfortunately, no one knows where he is buried because hs wife scattered the ashes and didn't bother to tell anyone where she scattered them!
Now onto your next point.
Did you ever think it strange that the units of H are "km/s per Mpc?
you see we have two units of distance there.
KM and Mpc.
Why not km/s per km?
Why not Mpc/sec per Mpc?
This is not scientific.
If I were doing this I would have m/s per m,
But hang on Chelmsford, the metres cancel.
The Hubble constant has units of "per sec'. It aint a velocity at all.
It is a conspiracy theory to claim H is a km/sec per Mpc.
H is Around 70 km/sec per Mpc. In real units this is about 2.1x10x^-18 per sec. Which I show to be in SI units hr/m for the electron in each cubc metre of space.

Take care antoniseb.
I think you are comng over to the darkside!
Cheers,
lyndon
and so to bed!

This number conversion to 1/time is not a new idea. It gives one over the age of the universe (given constant expansion rate, so some alteration is required).

__________________
Forming opinions as we speak

It "ain't" a constant either. It is defined as the logarithmic derivative of the expansion factor a(t). In other words, H(t) = d(ln a(t))/dt = (da(t)/dt)/a(t).

__________________
Microsoft is over if you want it.

The bar has been lowered for the promotion of ATM ideas; the bar for the acceptance of ATM ideas must remain high.