If I understood you correctly, your "duality" does not only include these observations, but also the claim that the energy released by local collapses (which you don't mention above - stable orbits don't release energy!) somehow powers this moving apart "far away".

And I simply point out that so far, you have not provided any evidence that this "far away moving apart" actually requires energy. You ignored that part of my argument.


I don't know if you meant the following stuff seriously or as heavy sarcasm (it is sometimes hard to make out if an ATM proponents means something seriously or not...) - I suspect the second, based on your remarks at the end. Hence I'll only address this one part:

No one says that the Hubble expansion was caused by inflation in the past, or is caused by dark energy in the present. Why do you need to make up such straw men?

__________________
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)

The only thing clear to me is I'm not making myself understood to mainstream proponents. Its not clear to me where communication the problem is. So it is a little bit sarcasm, a little bit frustration.

For example:
I can't believe you believe that. If that is how you believe gravity works, no wonder my explanation makes no sense!

That is not the way gravity works at all. Conservation of angular and linear momentum dictate that one part of a system expands as the other part contracts. Conservation laws are the most fundamental in physics. If you ignore conservation of momentum, your picture of physics is incorrect.

I'll give you two.

Pick a solar system formation model, any model.

The modelers start with a large collection of small bodies in orbit around the sun. With time, smaller bodies either run into the larger ones, or they get flung out of the solar system. So the more-dense regions—the larger bodies—grow even larger, i.e. more dense; and the regions surrounding the larger bodies—which are less dense to begin with—become even less dense as result of the smaller bodies being scattered into interstellar space in an expanding sphere.

The sun, as well: Its core—where nuclear fusion takes place—is densest and growing denser, while its out part is expanding. Eventually the outer part will be puffed off entirely as the sun goes red giant. What will be left behind is very dense white dwarf and expanding shell of gas.

Again, this pattern repeats with virtually all gravitational systems: the dense part grows denser, the less dense part becomes even more dense. And this is due to conservation of energy and momentum.

Again, I am baffled by this assertion.

What, then, is the mainstream position? What caused the expansion in the past? What is causing the acceleration in the present?

I have made it clear—at least I think I have!—that in my model, on-going contraction causes on-going expansion. My threads have been "against" Inflation and DE as explanations of the expansion. If my theory is wrong, and Inflation and Dark Energy are not right, then what is the mainstream explanation?

What is the mainstream explanation for the expansion, which my ATM thread is against, if not Inflation & DE?

__________________
PW -- Plant Whisperer

But this is the way that gravity works. Look at all the computer simulations of structure formation. Exactly this is seen there.


I don't think that this follows from these conservations laws. Show your math, please.


Well, good then that I don't ignore them... why do you think I do?


All of this is right. But look again at what I asked you:
I emphasized the crucial part here. You claim that the contraction of a central region leads to the expansion of an outer region, i. e. that the contraction is the cause for the expansion. But your example of the solar system formation above does in no way support that claim. True, both contraction and expansiob happen - but you did not provide any evidence that one causes the other!

Additionally, both examples are about gravitationally bound systems. Hence even if you could somehow show that in these two cases the contraction causes the expansion, before you could apply this to the universe as a whole, you first had to show that it is gravitationally bound! (i. e. has a total energy less than zero, not zero or even positive) For systems which are not
gravitationally bound (e. g. comets on parabolic or hyperbolic orbits around the sun), obviously no energy is needed to expand the system...


Simple answer: no one knows. The "cause" for the expansion obviously has to precede the beginning of the expansion. But we don't have a physical theory (yet) which could describe what happened before the beginning of the expansion - i. e. before the Big Bang!


Dark energy is causing the acceleration. But you said that it is causing the expansion. You surely know that "acceleration" and "expansion" are not the same?

But so far, you have not provided the slightest shred of evidence that indeed one causes the other. You have merely listed several examples where both contraction and expansion occur (and ignored examples where only one occurs, or where it is clear that the expansion does not require energy). That does in no way prove that one causes the other!


And here you go again, claiming that the mainstream says that DE is an explanation for the expansion. Just above you got it right: it is an explanation for the acceleration of the expansion, not for the expansion itself. Do you really not understand the difference?

__________________
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)

There is no math for me to show; only existing principles.

You are in effect demanding that I prove the most basic principles of physics. Conservation of angular momentum is not something that can be shown mathematically. It is observed. The physicist defines angular momentum, then observes that it is always conserved. As soon as someone finds an example in which momentum is not conserved, then the momentum-conservation-law will be repealed. You cannot prove conservation-of-momentum, you can only observe it. And so far, all observations have shown that momentum is conserved.

What I’m saying is, there is an observable consequence of the laws of conservation of momentum and energy: the dense parts of a gravitational system tend to grow denser, and the less dense tend to grow even less so.

If a small body approaches a large body—such as Jupiter—and gets flung out of the solar-system, the small body gains angular momentum and Jupiter loses angular momentum, in exactly equal measure. Thus, while the orbit of the small body expands, and that of Jupiter contracts. And the journey out of the solar system for the small body is a one-way trip. So if you start with “billions and billions” of small bodies orbiting the sun, what you observe happening is the large bodies grow larger and their orbits contract; at the same time, an expanding cloud of smaller bodies get slung-shot into interstellar space. The dense part of the system contracts; the less-dense part expands. Duality is always there if you look for it.

I cannot “prove” it. I can only point to it. And I cannot make you see it. You will not see it until you want to see it. I wish I could make you want to see it, because when you see it for yourself…

Again, you are using duality to argue against duality.

Hyperbolic comets may not be bound to the sun, but they are bound to the galaxy. In fact, (almost) every observed body out to several Mpc is “bound” to something else. Then, of course, beyond 5 Mpc, everything is moving away, or is un-bound. Duality...again. That’s the way gravity is.

Yes, I am aware of the difference…which points to a big philosophical beef I have with the mainstream regarding the Hubble expansion.

In order to extrapolate an observation forward or backwards in time, you have to understand it, first. For example, the earth-moon system is expanding at 1 part in 10 billion per year. If you just extrapolate this observation back in time, without understanding it, you would conclude the system began expanding 10 billion years ago. Of course, you would be incorrect.

On the other hand, if you understand the cause of the expansion (tidal interaction), you would know that it must be slowing down, and must have been greater in the past. And precisely because the expansion of the earth-moon system is well understood, its “origin” has been calculated at 4 billion years ago, not 10, which is consistent with other observations, and so is probably correct.

Regarding the Hubble expansion, however, the “cart is before the horse.” Without understanding what is causing the expansion, cosmologists have simply extrapolated the 1 part in 14 billion per year expansion-rate backwards in time 14 billion years and concluded it “all began” 14 billion years ago

This is intellectual dishonesty in the extreme You cannot extrapolate an observed phenomenon 14 billion years back into the past without understanding it first. Understand the cause of the phenomenon first; then make your prediction/extrapolation.

So to answer your question, consider my belief, which is that contraction is causing expansion. It follows mathematically that if local contraction is driving non-local expansion, then the expansion will be exponential, and as a consequence, the expansion will accelerate.

I apologize for the confusion, but in the dualistic picture, expansion and acceleration are hardly distinguishable, because the expansion must be accelerating.

You’re right…it’s just coincidence

__________________
PW -- Plant Whisperer

Apparently you misunderatood me. I am not you to prove that momentum etc. is conserved. I am asking you to show mathematically that
is "dictated", as you claimed, by these conservation laws.


Actually, this is wrong. Both the conservation of angular and linear momentum can be shown to follow mathematically from Newton's laws. But again, that's not what I actually asked for.


And I am asking you to show mathematically that this process (dense parts growing denser, less dense parts growing less denser) is indeed a consequency of these conservation laws. Did you understand this time what I am asking?


I do not dispute that this process of expansion and contraction happens in some cases. I am asking you to prove your assertion that contraction (of the "dense part") always leads to expansion (of the "less-dense part"). Your usage of the word always is the big issue here. Especially in light of the fact that I already provided examples where (IMO) this does not happen!


Again: the point of your "duality" I'm disputing is not that one some scales, expansion happens, while on others, contraction happens. The point of your duality I'm disputing is that the contraction is causing the expansion. How often do I have to repeat that?


Actually, AFAIK, one would get a much shorter time - that's a major talking point of many creationists! But that's irrelevant here, so I'll grant you that.


That's a bad analogy. In the case of the moon, there is a force acting all the time which causes the expansion. But in the case of the universe, there is no such force - the expansion simply happens. Probably due to an event which happened in the distant past, about which we know little to nothing. But that we don't know much about the event in the past which caused the expansion does not in the least mean that we can't understand how the expansion went since then!

If you want to claim that in the case of the universe, there is also a force which is acting all the time causing the expansion, please provide evidence for your assertion.

Hint: that's the crucial difference between your "duality" and the standard BBT: you claim that there is such a force, while in the BBT, there is no such force. So if you want to show that duality is right, you have to provide evidence that such a force exists. I'm waiting.


And yet again, you are claiming that local contraction is "driving", i. e. causing non-local expansion. Where is the proof / evidence that contraction is always the cause of expansion?


Then it should be no problem for you to address the actual data, i. e. the SN observations, based on "duality". I'm waiting...

__________________
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)

You might guess by now I have no idea how to “prove” this assertion, anymore than I know how to prove the famous 4-color map conjecture.

While you can name exceptions, most gravitational systems are in quasi-equilibrium, that is, they are stable, but change slowly with time. When you look at how they change, or evolve, what you see the pattern I am referring to. Nuclear fusion occurs in the cores of all main-sequence stars. This means their cores grow denser with time. All main-sequence stars also put off a “stellar-wind” of some-sort, and grow larger as they age, eventually swelling to become red giants. So there is some surface, in every main-sequence star, below which the density is increasing, and above which the density is decreasing.

I cannot “prove” that the dense region of a gravitational system always grows denser…but every single one of the infinity of main-sequence stars that make up the universe behave this way!!!

If we look at a larger system, say a globular cluster, same behavior is observed, this time in the guise of “cluster evaporation.” In close encounters, massive stars tend to be sluggish, while low-mass stars have a tendency to get whipped up to high velocity. The average result over time of this disparity is low-mass stars sometimes get accelerated enough to reach escape velocity of the cluster, and off they go. The left-behind massive stars sink a little closer to the core. So again, the dense region grows denser and the…blah blah blah.

The description makes sense, and is compatible with how I understand the law of conservation of momentum. This observation is not mine at all, by the way, but is pure mainstream.

But you demand mathematical proof…not more examples. I cannot prove this, any more than I can prove nuclear energy powers the stars. The mainstream tells me this. The consensus among mainstream scientists is that nuclear energy powers main-sequence stars, their rationale makes sense, and so I believe it…but I cannot prove it.

Same way with the behavior of gravitational systems: I am only repeating what the mainstream tells me. I cannot prove that the cores of stars grow denser as they burn their fuel; I can only repeat what the mainstream says. Same with globular cluster dynamics: I cannot prove they evaporate, I can only repeat what the mainstream says. Ditto for the general N-body simulations: I cannot prove that the large bodies grow larger while small ones get flung off to infinity, I can only repeat what the mainstream modelers report.

The answer is blowing in the wind.

The bottom line is, what we are observing appears to be opposite sides of the same coin. The visible universe is composed of local centers-of-contraction, wherefrom potential energy is being turned into radiant energy. As this radiant energy crosses the universe, it loses energy (red-shifts), and that energy has to go somewhere. Apparently, in the cosmos at large, that lost radiant energy is being turned back into potential energy.

To you, this latter claim is outrageous. "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proofs." To me, however, it is perfectly reasonable. A positron and an electron can annihilate each other, leaving behind two photons. The reverse can also happen: two photons can annihilate each other, leaving behind an electron-positron pair. Both processes are pretty mysterious, but the forward and reverse process both do happen. Nature is full of symmetric, reversible processes. It's not unusual.

We know stars transform potential energy into radiant energy; if they did not do this, we would not see them. I do not know why the idea of the reverse happening—radiant energy transforming back into potential energy—is so unbelievable.

__________________
PW -- Plant Whisperer

Sorry for the late reply. I moved in the last week, and still have problems with the internet access...

If you can't prove this, why do you keep making this assertion?


I don't see what any of this stuff has to do with the conservation laws you mentioned repeatedly (and do here again). Please explain.



In a Newtonian picture, the energy of the photons simply gets converted into gravitational potential energy. In GR, energy is in general not conserved (and the redshift is a prime example of GR for a case where energy is not conserved!). Case closed.



Why do you think these processes are "mysterious"? They are explained very nicely by QED.



I do not say that it is unbelievable. I merely ask you to show that this really happens. Is this really asking too much of you?

__________________
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)

I don’t see that you want to see it.

At this point, you are just arguing.

I have described the model; provided diagrams; done the math, and shown that in this quasi-Newtonian model of infinity, local contraction provides more than enough energy to explain cosmic expansion. I have explained that this model predicts a “nearly-constant” value for the Hubble-constant (i.e. accelerated expansion), and that this value should decrease with time as the rate of local contraction (star formation) decreases. Sylas claims that in order for this model to fit the observations, H must decrease at about 6% per billion years. This may not precisely match the observed decline in star formation rate, but is in the right ball park.

No one on the BAUT board has shown any fundamental flaw in this model. You have made plain your reasons to argue, but you have not shown any real error. In any case, according to new BAUT Policies and Procedures, all discussion is to cease soon anyhow.

But if ever a “real” physicist publishes a dualistic model in a “real” scientific journal, and if I’m still alive, and the BUAT archive is still intact…

__________________
PW -- Plant Whisperer