I found on this forum a proposition by Scaramouche (Big Bang ...Big Schmang: Redshift is an Artifact of Distance) which according to my calculations (presented in http://geocities.com/jim_jastrzebski/sci/3270.htm ) is a right proposition for our universe.

I couldn't join the thread since it was closed and so I'm opening a new one under the more appropriate name of "Einstein's universe". According to my calculations existence of such a universe that might look exactly as ours is the result of inability of nature to create energy from nothing. Which unfortunately is against the mainstream but fortunately might be discussed here and hopefully bringing into the discussion people who are supporting the mainstream view (others don't need to apply).

Presently I'm doing my PhD work in Warsaw University, Poland, proposing in it that we live in Einstein's universe, and consequently I need a lot of criticism regarding my work preferably from smart pople. Unfortunately all the cosmologists in my university, despite being extremely smart, maintain that since energy is not conserved they aren't going to discuss the subject with me unless I switch to something more reasonable as e.g. a supprt for the Big Bang.

However I don't believe in creation of energy from nothing and so I can't agree to switching without any good proof that energy can be created. I made a bet with one of the cosmology students who mainains that it can be easily created and he promissed to deliver a proof. So far he didn't. So I count on someone from this forum to deliver such a proof.

-- Jim

Isn't the Casimir Effect an example of something (energy) from nothing (space)?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Casimir_effect

In physics, the Casimir effect or Casimir-Polder force is a physical force arising from a quantized field. The typical example is of two uncharged metallic plates in a vacuum, placed a few micrometers apart, without any external electromagnetic field. In a classical description, the lack of an external field also means that there is no field between the plates, and no force would be measured between them. Because the strength of the force falls off rapidly with distance, it is only measurable when the distance between the objects is extremely small.

Someone needs to define "nothing" before this thread continues....I personally do not consider space to be nothing.

"Nothing" is defined as a part of space that contains no real energy (e.g. niether photons nor real particles).

So, since the real universe contains no examples of 'nothing', per this definition*, does this take this ATM idea from physics into philosophy?

* all those photons and neutrinos, for starters ....

No, since in physics "nothing" is an empty idea we don't need to be concerned with it while talking physics only.

Another parameter that needs to be discussed, are the spatial coordinates for the Planck Length (which is in our dimension), or beneath the Planck Length (outside our dimension) where nothingness (no space and no time) could reside.

This way we might discuss for a month all our illusions instead of physics. And then after a month the thread gets closed by moderators and we don't even get to the main problem, which is whether it is right to give up the principle of conservation of energy that prevents the expansion of the universe. Then we might stay with the illusion of expansion not even knowing whether it is only an illusion or real physics, since we had no time to discuss it.

So my advice is to cut the c... and start discussing the main problem first. The main problem being why do we think that the universe is expanding while it requires only 2.3 times bigger density than (apparently) observed now, to see the expansion as illusion.

As I've already explained in my paper, the explanation of phenomenon of expansion might be the old principle of conservation of energy. And the conservation of energy is built into the Einsteinian gravitation (through the vanishing divergence of stress-energy tensor). So the physics and math might be already there.

When did the astronomers gave up the conservation of energy and was it even discussed by them? I know one mathematical physicists and not even an astronomer, John Baez, who maintains that mathematical physicists discussed it between themselves, and they are sure that energy is not concerved in gravitation but can't discuss it again since it is against the rules to discuss the same subject twice. Well, I didn't see this discussion and I have a suspicion that not only math has to be right but also the physics, and I can't imagine how physics in this case is going to be right.

That's why I'm asking about the physics and if astronomers discussed the issue between themselves as well, please tell me how they came to the conclusion that the energy is not conserved.

Sending me to the literature won't do since I've already know the theory behind the expansion and I don't believe it I'v seen much more c... in it than I care to talk about without being asked about it. So please just ask me about things that indicate the non conservation of energy in gravitation or expansion of the universe (which one comes form another) so I can respond to the questions and I can ask questions as well. In short, I propose to discuss the non conservation of energyagain even if it was alrady discussed and astronomers are convinced that there is no such thing.

I don't se any place except cosmology done by mathematicians (and therefore based on assumptions not on the observations) where the energy is not conserved (e.g. the assumption of globally curved spacetime which has yet to be proved since it is not even observed, but according to Noether theorem prevents energy from being conserved). Despite that conservation of energy is built into gavitation automatically and so the spacetime must be globally flat. Despite that J. A. Wheeler imagines it as "curved" (while only the space is curved) to fit his assumption of exactly zero cosmological constant (which I hope even the astronomers don't take seriously any more).

In my private opinion finding the missing 60% od the universe might be much simpler project than proving the global non conservation of energy so why don't we try the simple things first. We are obliged to do it also by the Occam's principle. Until we can prove that Occam's principle doesn't work in this case.

__________________
Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not his own facts.

The sufficient connection is the symmetry of metric tensor of spacetime. If this metric is symmetric then in a stationary universe the photons have exactly zero redshift. It allows the cosmologists to assume that Hubble redshift is a result of the expansion of the universe (Doppler redshift). It contradicts though the conservation of energy that necessarily causes the dynamical friction of photons and a non vanishing value of redshift also in a stationary universe.

The mainstream cosmologists justify their assumption of non conservation of energy by assuming that it would have a "negligible" effect on redshift of photons in stationary universe. My calculations show that it would produce Hubble constant equal sqrt(4*pi*G*rho), where (G) is Newtonian gravitational constant and (rho) is density of the universe, which for the presently estimated density of the universe 2.6x10^-27kg/m^3 it would produce an illusion of accelerating expansion with Hubble constant H_o=46km/s/Mpc and dH/dt=-H_o^2/2. Surely neither a negligible value.

Furthermore, if the universe happened to be Einstein's (stationary) uiverse its illusion of expansion would have to be with Hubble constant H_o=c/R_E, where c is speed of light and R_E is "Einstein's radius of the universe" which migh have also some aesthetic value which cosmologists value so much in Einstein's gravitation despite that Einstein himself advised to leave the elegance to a tailor.

While I agree the universe may be “stationary”, I’m not of the opinion redshift at the Hubble constant is due to “time dilation”, which may be another way of saying that light redshifts over great distances when adjusted for time. In your referenced Observational evidence for general time dilation and stationary universe, you wrote: However, according to Wikipedia, the Cosmological Constant is not same. Einstein’s Cosmological constant is: Λ = 8π G ρ / 3c2

Labeling light "dilation" as "time dilation" is one way to look at it, but it may not explain it other than recasting the same problem with a new problem. Viz: Why "time dilation" over great distances? Why not "gravitational light dilation" over cosmic distances, for example?

I will read your paper in more detail, since you may have already answered this, but thought to ask it here. Thanks.

__________________
Credibility is simply incredible... sometimes even to me.
disclaimer

It might be better to ask since I know my paper and may show you the answer if it is there.

Einstein's cosmological constant is a constant in Einstein's equation that might have various values that then determine a particular Friedmann's solution of Einstein's equation. Assuming Λ = 0 produces as a solution a "cycloidal" universe that is expanding from the Big Bang singularity, decelerating all the time, and after reaching maximal radius, it is shrinking back to a singularity. It was a "standard model" before 1998. Between 1998 and 2000 the observations meant to measure the rate of deceleration to prove that cosmology is science and so it is able to predict something, revealed that the observations instead of decelerating expansion as predicted showed accelerating expansion. So Λ got adjusted to (8/3)π G ρ / c^2 according to the new hypothesis about the expansion of the uiverse. The value Λ = 4π G ρ / c^2 (which I'm using) produces a Friedmann solution that is stationary (a universe that is neither expanding nor contracting), so called "Einstein's universe", and this value of Λ is called "Einstein's value of Einstein's cosmological constant". Any ohter value i not "Einstein's value" however the cosmological constant is always "Einstain's cosmological constant".

I don't know what "light dilation" might mean. The "time dilation" has a meaning that the time slows down along the distance without specifying how. If it is "gravitational time dilation" it would be time dilation that is inversly proportional to square of distance and for this reason it can't simulate the Hubble redshift which is exponential with the distance. I didn't have any choice in specifying the character of the time dilation since I take it from conservation of energy and it produces automatically an exponential relation between the "time dilation" and the distance to the object that emits the light. Just as it is observed in the Hubble redshift and I named it "general time dilation" since it applies to any space that contains matter that curves that space. The effect produces an illusion of accelerating space expansion with Hubble constant H_o=c/R wher R is the radius of curvature of space (and dH/dt=-H_o^2/2, about as it is observed).

Well, creative illusions, are not as boring as your mathematical equations.
Here's a good example of c... "through the vanishing divergence of stress energy tensor".

You're talking about Dark Matter, here?
You're going to find the answer to the expansion, in a mathematical equation? Good luck.

I believe that energy was conserved at the BB. The universe is not an isolated system. It's a quantum system, and it's a global astronomical system. The conservation of energy is conserved, because the energy did change from a virtual (vacuum) energy to a real energy at the moment of the BB.

[Quote]
In my private opinion finding the missing 60% od the universe [Quote]

Really? I thought it was 73-74% missing.
I can tell you for a fact, that Occam's principle won't work for the universe at large, because as I stated before, the universe is not isolated.

This is a shortcut for those who like to use shortcuts (specifically the mathematicians). It means in a more precise language that what gets in has to get out and nothing can stay inside since then it would have to burst eventually. If the energy is the thing that got in, and it also must get out, then it expresses the "law of conservation of energy" that mathematicians understand without long explanation. That's why some c... is useful at least for mathematicians.

Mathematical equations are sometimes usefull since 2+2=4. So when you look for something and (something)+2=4, then with no more trouble you may say that your something is 2. Of course you can't do the same thing when your "theory" say that c... + another c... = even more c... (as e.g. the Big Bang "theory" says, and so the pure mathmaticians and physicists don't call it a "theory" but a "hypothesis". Yet cosmologists who call themselves "mathematical physicists" call even the Big Bang a "theory" and we repeat after them since we have to use the same language to keep the communication lines opened).

Now look who is using second of those 2 theories described above :-).

Of course what is missing depends on your theory. Einstein's theory (Einsteins stationary universe) requires the density 6.0 (in uits of 10^-27kg/m^3), what is seen is 2.6, so it is only about 57% according to Einstein's and it might be more according to others.

In Einstein's theory it is isolated and was always like this (Einstein's universe happen to be eternal).

Fair enough. Getting back to the question at hand: "Is it correct to give up the principle of the conservation of energy, when considering the expansion of the universe"?

You say Yes (I think).

I say No. In the real world (as opposed to mathematical world) the energy is conserved from the BB, as I stated previously. Energy is going to be diluted in an infinite universe, forever. No possibility of escape, UNLESS another dimension (low density, low energy, Brane) collides with our dimension in some far off future. This is the Orthodox view.

However, I am open to other views: The Static Einstein Universe, redshift illusion to accelerated expansion, etc. But you'll have to address many variables (not just the conservation of energy), and sell your idea, along with your equations. This will be extremely difficult, if not impossible to achieve. Good luck-you'll need it.

The same as you, I say "No" to the lack of conservation of energy but for a slightly differnt reason. I'm also opposing the math but only the part that is based on an assumptions that the mass we see is all that is there.

I also know (which you might have missed) that it may lead to a result that the universe is expanding and to another, that because of this the energy is contstantly created. The latter result isn't so widely advertised so it isn't generally known unless to mathematical physicists, who exchange the information only among themselves. Which I consider wrong since I think that knowledge of no aspect of Big Bang should be kept only to specialists and so neither the fact that the Big Bang requires constant creation of energy.

If the density of the universe were really (6.0+/-0.5)x10^-27kg/m^3 (as indicated by present value of Hubble constant (70+/-3)km/s/Mpc) then the accelerating expansion of the uiverse could be explained as an illusion just with Einstein's gravitation and the principle of conservation of energy. It would then contradict the hypothesis that the cosmological redshift is due to the Doppler shift.

Furthermore the illusion of expansion includes also the acceleration of this expansion in the amount that is observed within accuracy of observation, and the Big Bang hypothesis so far can't explain it without introduction of unobserved phenomena ("dark energy"). Which would mean that Einstein's intuition about the universe migh have been right.

Of course, lack of real expansion of the universe, besides showing that there was no event like the Big Bang in the history of the universe, requires explaining a lot of things that till now were explained with the Big Bang hypothesis. But it maybe even more fun than looking for the "dark energy".

JimJast, how does your work deal with the measured increase in the apparent angular diameter of galaxies with redshifts of z>1.6?

I imagine that the angular size of galaxies have to be bigger than it would be in Euclidean space because of the curvature of space and it is rather easily predicted effect for a given radius of curvature of space (which Einstein's physics predicts it to be 4.3 Gpc for "Einstein's universe") but I didn't do any work on it yet. Do you know what curvature this increased diameter predicts?

This wiki link combined with this section of Neds Cosmology Tutorial explains it a lot better than I ever could.

JimJast. By your definition, that eliminates all parts of the observable universe. If the universe began with a Big Bang, then there ought to be a relic neutrino background from the expansion of the original high temperature fireball, since all of our nuclear test algorithms, and particularly our hydrogen bomb algorithms (similar to supernovae algorithms) show energy losses due to neutrinos carrying it away.
On the other hand, if Hoyle & Co. turn out to be correct, then the ageless formation of stars ought to leak sufficient energy as stellar neutrinos to also populate every cubic meter of space. So there is no region of space that can be considered..."energy free". Neutrinos are real particles, have real properties, and carry both energy and momenta....similar to photons, but due to their relatively low cross-sections, cannot be excluded from any region of space. Every time you walk down the street...trillions pass through you. Space is not empty. pete.

__________________
A third rate theory forbids.
A second rate theory explains after the fact.
A first rate theory predicts.
A. Lomonosov

I was banned from this forum for last few days for stating in a mainstream section that energy does not have to be conserved in an expanding universe (which is true according to the Noether theorem, but apparently not known to moderators). I just came back today and so I didn't see the two last posts, and to respond to them I need to do some calculations and so I need time to respond. Just be patient.

You weren't just stating that energy does not have to be conserved in an expanding universe. You said that it was required in an expanding universe. If you're unclear on what you were banned for, I suggest contacting the moderators.

__________________
"It's over you head now. Time to get some professional help." - My fortune cookie from lunch

Ned Wright's Cosmology Tutorial

Usenet Physics FAQ

an interesting note here perhaps irrelevant to this thread but here goes

" It is currently necessary to use quantum mechanics to understand the behavior of systems at atomic length scales and smaller. For example, if Newtonian mechanics governed the workings of an atom, electrons would rapidly travel towards and collide with the nucleus. However, in the natural world the electrons normally remain in an unknown orbital path around the nucleus, defying classical electromagnetism."

yes normally

but when I took a course on " non-destrutive testing " an instructor told me that they had a small particle accelarator ( many years ago ) and that once in a while an electron would for some unknown reason just dive down to the nucleous. ( Dofasco steel plant in Hamilton Ontario Canada ) .

is it possible that the electromagnetic lines sometimes create a gap , however small , that allows the pull of the proton to suck in the electron ?

just asking

I wrote to them twice and they didn't respond so I'm "unclear on what I were banned for" except that it was for pushing ATM in a mainstream section since it was given as a reason by the modrstors.

I assumed it was because the moderators thought that energy has to be conserved in an expanding universe what many physicists believe is the case not being too familiar with the consequences of the Big Bang hypotesis. One of which is that energy can't be conserved in the expanding universe. But since it is a mthematical result, easy to show, then I didn't think I was banned for this but only because of the lack of knowledge of moderatos who might have thought, as most "pre-Big-Bang-school" physicists do, that energy can't be created.

I assumed somethng looking morally better for moderators since not knowing something is not a crime. Banning someone for telling the truth looks much worse, so why should I assume this possibility first while I'm "unclear on what I were banned for"?

That the energy has to be created in the expanding universe I've shown in my paper and I provided a reference to it. Of course I don't require anyone to read it unless someone accuses me of bending the facts, then he/she should rather read all the evidence in the matter.

Nobody ever accused me of bending the factes. Some, e.g. prof. John Baez and others, also from my university, just stated that since my results are based on strict conservation of energy they aren't valid since there can't be strict conservation of energy in the expanding universe.

There can't be any doubt that conservation of energy necessarily implies a stationary universe, however the density of such a universe has to be over twice as big as it is presently observed. So the only debatable thing is what is the real average density of the universe and not whether the energy can be created. If the density of the universe is smaller than what the principle of conservation of energy and Einstein's gravitation requires, then the energy has to be created for sure, since there are no adjustable parameters in Einstein's gravitation to play with.

What physicists need from astronomers is to prove that the density of the universe is much less than 6x10^{-27]kg/m^3. This way the astronomers will prove that the universe is expanding (as the theory of it is already there but many physicists happen to doubt it because of the consevation of energy). This way those physicists who don't believe are proved wrong and it be proved that energy can be created. The astronomers don't need to get involved in the theory of gravitation since gravitation is something the physicists can handle themselves.

And of course the astronomers can ban any physicists who doesn't believe that the universe is expanding because it doesn't change the physics a bit. Just might change for a while what people will think about the universe.

In the section "About BAUT" there is a thread called "BAUT BANNED posters log" where the moderators (have to) write their reason for banning a person for a specific (or indefinite) time. Here you can read about yourself. Basically, the comment is that you promote your ATM idea in several non-ATM threads.

__________________

Any comments in glorious red are to be considered in ModeratorMode.


善數, 不用籌策 (shàn shù, bù yòng chóu cè)
He who is good at counting, uses no counting tools
“A good scientist has freed himself of concepts and keeps his mind open to what is”
道德經, 二十七 (dào dé jīng, 27)

Show us, then.

Oh? I have my doubts about this. Show us why conservation of energy necessarily implies a stationary universe.

Which physicists doubt that the universe is expanding? Which ones do so because of conservation of energy? Citations please.

__________________
"It's over you head now. Time to get some professional help." - My fortune cookie from lunch

Ned Wright's Cosmology Tutorial

Usenet Physics FAQ

North. That's called K-capture. The electron energy levels pictured in quantum mechanical interpretations start with K near the nucleus...and L,M,N,O,P,Q...near ionization. The "orbiting" model of the electron circling the nucleus is less useful than the wave mechanical interpretation, and the electron can wave it's way around many levels. As far as K-capture is concerned, it's generally energetically not favored for a proton to turn into a neutron, as it's more massive, and the particle physics of it is a little tricky. Suffice to say that it has been observed as one of the 13 modes of radioactive decay. There are rarer...neutrinoless double beta decay. pete


see:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electron_capture

see:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Double_...ay_experiments

see: perhaps 14...http://www.cnrs.fr/cw/en/pres/compre...ioactDecay.htm

__________________
A third rate theory forbids.
A second rate theory explains after the fact.
A first rate theory predicts.
A. Lomonosov

Thanks for telling me where to learn the reason why I was suspended. Till now it was like in "The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy" where the message about the pending demolition of Earth was placed on the message board on second moon of Uranus (or in some other equally obvious place). Also the message is not reflecting what has happend since it says: "JimJast has been suspended for two days for repeatedly promoting his ATM idea and website in mainstream sections of the forum. There seems to be no way to get him to understand our concerns, or to respond to private messages. So we suspended him to get his attention.

(i) The only message I got before I was suspended and then had no way to read messages except the message about being banned, was that I allegedly highjacked someone else's ATM thread (so I was in ATM thread) while I was not highjacking his thread (which I don't even know what it means) but only explaining to him what is the Einsteinian solution to his (and Arp's) problem with quasars. So I needed to wait for two days before being able to find out why I was suspended since my feedback was not responded to.

(ii) The alleged ATM idea of mine is not mine but Einstein's. It is known under the name of "Einstein's universe" (also the name o this thead). I'm not an astronomer, not even a cosmologists, and I just know enough physics (having MS in electronics) and Einstein's theory of gravitation to be able to calculate things using the principle of conservation of energy. I'm just explaining Einstein's gravitation to those who are interested, which BTW ain't that many. The "mainstream" for some reson is not interested neither in Einstein's ideas nor in the principle of conservation of energy, since it is too much (in my opiion) preoccupied with the idea that the universe is expanding, without even bothering to justify it sufficiently.

(iii) I'm explaining Einsteinian gravitation for over 22 years (since I found out that conservation of energy explains Hubble redshift in stationary universe) and all what I hear is "we're going to read it when it is published in a scientific journal" from physics professors, "it shouldn't be published since there is no new physics in it and so it is not interesting to our readers" from editors of scientific journals, e.g. Phys. Rev. Lett., and "that Einstein didn't explain gravitational force" from idiots. ATM people don't think that Einstein's gravitation works so they don't even know it well enough to be interested. While Einstein's theory is the only serious theory that is consistent with most observed phenomena like Hubble redshift, (apparent) accelerating expansion, quasars, CMBR, and possibly some other I've never even known about not being interested in them a bit (since I'm a sculptor doing electronics for money since there is no way to survive with doing sculpture only, and so I never had time for it). I just don't want Einstein's discovery of how gravitation works and that it is consisent with a stationary universe (on the Noether theorem, and by the same, with the conservation of energy) be lost only because cosmologists, being applied mathematicians and not physicists don't understand physics of gravitation.

Elementary dear Watson: Conservation of energy doesn't even have sense in a curved spacetime (it's not even wrong) since e.g. you may take the Poynting vector and transport it into into the future by any path you like. In general, after being transported, it comes out at a different direction (a known property of curved manifolds). Which means it is not defined uniquely in the future. To be uniquely defined (in the future) the spacetime has to be "flat" (in sense of such parallel transport only, not necessarily as flat as in the Euclidean geometry, where all hypersurfaces have to be flat). So Noether's theorem says that since the energy in curved spacetime isn't invariant under translation through time, its conservation makes no sense in the expanding universe (with the curved spacetime). Einstein's spacetime is "flat" in this sense so energy conservation has sense there, it's true there, and consequently the energy can't be crated in Einstein's universe. And it might be why the creationists insist that the universe is expanding and the Templeton Foundation gave $1,600,000 to a priest for supporting this idea with his work.

Noether's theorem

Halton Arp. Narlikar, Truly Yours (how many names do you need?)

Any non cosmologist in my university who knows that the expansion requires to give up the conservation of energy (which aren't that many anyway, among the about 100 who work there) and they don't write about it as far as I know, since as one of them said "physicists don't understand gravitation". So you may either believe me or you may consider it an unsupported allegation (which I hope is allowed in ATM section, so I'm not going to be banned again for unsupported allegaitions like that).

Impressive word salad, but like all word salads, it falls apart under scrutiny.

Poynting's Theorem, which is where the Poynting vector appears, says nothing of the sort. The theorem establishes conservation of energy for EM fields. It has nothing to do with curved spacetime.

First, that's not what Noether's Theorem says. What it actually says, w.r.t. conservation of energy, is that the invariance of laws of physics over time yields conservation of energy.

Second, your statement there breaks down to "energy is not conserved in curved spacetime, so energy is not conserved in curved spacetime". Which is a circular argument, with or without your incorrect citation of Noether's.

Irrelevant red herring. To put it mildly, what creationists insist has very little to do with real physics.

Arp opposes Big Bang because he believes redshift for many QSO's are intrinsic rather than cosmological (an idea debunked by observational evidence), not because of conservation of energy. Narlikar may or may not oppose Big Bang on the basis of conservation of energy, but his QSSC model, despite many revisions, still cannot fit CMB data as well as Big Bang cosmology. You are, by your own admission, a sculptor whose physics education consists of an MS in electronics. Your original statement was "many physicists happen to doubt [Big Bang] because of the consevation of energy". What you actually have is one physicist who may or may not actually fit your statement, but whose own ATM model still cannot fit observational evidence as well as Big Bang does.

Yep, unsupported allegation is exactly what you have there. I don't know if that's a bannable offense or not. But you might as well not use them, since they hold no weight here.

Since you have failed to answer my questions, here they are again, in clarified form:

1. Please show us, mathematically, why energy cannot be conserved in an expanding universe.

2. Please show us, mathematically, why conservation of energy necessarily implies a stationary universe.

3. Which physicists oppose Big Bang because of conservation of energy? So far you have only one who may or may not fit that description. Needless to say, "one" != "many".

__________________
"It's over you head now. Time to get some professional help." - My fortune cookie from lunch

Ned Wright's Cosmology Tutorial

Usenet Physics FAQ