Mistakes in Astronomy

www.uniformexpansion.com (Link added a couple of months after first posting, nothing else changed. )

Mistake #1.

Supposedly the expansion of space is slowed by the effect of gravity. Einstein thought so, so it must be true. Or is it?

Given that the distribution of galaxies are more or less uniformly distributed means that any specific galaxy will generally have an even distribution of galaxies all around them. This means that there will be an equal pull due to gravitational effects in every direction on the observed galaxy. This galaxy will not be pulled up, down left right or up or down since the gravitational pull is even all the way around.

Since any and every galaxy can be selected as the central galaxy that experiences an equal pull up, down left right and up and down, the resulting conclusion is that there will be no change in relative position between the surrounding galaxies.

In order for General Relativity to work, space has to be expanding and gravity has to slow down the expansion. But is general relativity, which is dependant on gravitational relationships, the proper model to describe the expansion of space and the effect of gravity?

No.

Snowflake

This conclusion does not fit observations though.

We have evidence that suggests our universe is accelerating in its expansion. Enter dark matter and all that stuff I don't understand. Galaxies crash into each other - we are observing this now.

Does this change your opinion on GR? :-k

BTW... Welcome to the Board! =D>

__________________
bunk: Empty talk; nonsense.
de·bunk: To expose or ridicule the falseness, sham, or exaggerated claims of.
http://home.iprimus.com.au/eddo/images/fredheadtsp.gif

General Relativity does not predict "acceleeration".

Snowflake

Hi Freddo
Thanks for reply and welcome.

I was so eager for a response that I forgot courtesy and even misspelled acceleration. Opps.

But your response leads me to astronomers mistake #2 which is about the "acceleration" of space.

Mistake #2

The expansion of space is accelerating. False

If I walk into a room at 3 miles an hour, and slow to 1 mile an hour I would describe myself as decelerating.

If you observed me walk into the room, you also would describe my motion as decelerating.

Conclusion, An object that moves faster in the past than the present is decelerating.


The further away a galaxy, the faster it is moving away, due to the expansion of space.

The further away the galaxy, the more in the past it is being observed.

A galaxy observed in the past is moving faster than a galaxy observed closer to the present.

An object that is moving faster in the past than the present is decelerating.

Conclusion, The expansion of space is decelerating


Note that distant galaxies observing our galaxies “motion” would also find that we are “moving” faster in the past than the present in that the further away the observer galaxy the “faster” we would appear to be moving. We are decelerating, not accelerating.

snowflake

Hello, SnowFlakeUniverse! Welcome to the board!

The attraction does exert a force something like tension in the rubber of a balloon.

Think of it this way:

Pretend the universe is one dimensional (a line) and curved into a circle, and that there are galaxies in this one dimensional universe. Each galaxy is trying to shorten the distance between it and the next universe on the circle, and the only way to do that is to make the universe smaller (or, if it is expanding, slow it's expansion), so GR predicts that gravity should be slowing the rate of acceleration, but that's not what we observe. Actual measurements show that the universe's expansion is speeding up. It's actaually accelerating outward. We don't know what is doing that.

GR says. Anything else is a possibility. Sorry Snowflakeuniverse: any cause and affect demands a chronological template

__________________
I have grasped the bull by the tail and am lookin' 'im right in the eye.

Mistake # 3

The universe has no center.

This is misleading since every galaxy in the universe perceives itself as the center of an EXPANDING universe.

While it could be argued that a point in every direction is no point at all, the point is for some reason science is so antagonistic against any kind of return to centralization as a fundamental property of the universe that a true description of the universe is being ignored. (The latest teaser adds for the TV show NOVA state that the “universe has no center”. Why not also state that every galaxy in the universe is at the center of an expanding universe?)

snowflake

Several things:

First, acceleration in one frame of reference (from one point of view, or state of motion) is deceleration in another.

Second, the universe is accelerating outward. It actually is gaining speed in it's expansion.

http://www.space.com/scienceastronom...on_020320.html

There is a reference for you.

There is a center, it's just that nothing within the universe can get to it. It's as if we are plastered to the outside of a balloon. There is a center (somewhere within the balloon) but we can't get to it because we are on the surface of the balloon. The only difference is that there are more dimensions in the real universe.

Hi Piman

Thanks for the welcome.

Curving a line into a circle would be valid if space on the large scale proved to be actually curved.

Latest observed measures of space indicate that it is flat at least out to the most distant galaxies.

General Relativity curves space which is ok, but theory has to match observation. Each galaxy can curve space but a curve in each direction from every galaxy results in a straight line.

snowflake
Hi Piman

Hi Snowcelt

Wow, thanks for the welcome, I hope I can keep up.

One of the missed opportunities of Einstein was the prediction of the “acceleration” of space. It would have been one of the greatest achievements of his theory. While you are right that General Relativity allows any result simply by adding a “Cosmological Constant” this added complexity did not appeal to Einstein’s sense of order.

snowflake

Cite your source. There are many people claiming to have conclusive proof that the universe is shperical (actually hyperspherical) and many others claiming to have conclusive proof that it is flat, and still others that claim to have conclusive proof that it is saddle shaped (negative curvature). The truth is that we have no idea yet.

That's a different type of curvature (perhapse even into a seperate dimension than the curvature I'm refering to.) Gravitational wells (areas around heavy bodies) cause local curvature, into a cone or something. What I'm refering to is the cumulative effect of all of the gravity in the universe. If it is sufficient to draw the universe back into a big crunch (excluding whatever is making it accelerate now), then the universe is shperical, otherwise it is saddle shaped, ore flat.

Actually, it was Einstein who first proposed the Cosmological Constant. He added it to his theories to make the universe static (unchanging). He only later realized that that wouldn't work, and called it his "greatest blunder."

Hi Pi man

You are right in a way that acceleration is dependant on the frame of reference, my point is that what the astronomers use is misleading and therefore incorrect.

Note that in my example the conclusion about an object moving faster in the past than the present is universal, so in any frame of reference it is valid.

The mistake that is allowed to persist is the frame of reference in relationship to time.

Astronomers use NOW as the point of reference and this is their mistake. Any description of reality must include some kind of temporal measure of WHEN events occur. If one demarcates time by starting the clock at the moment of creation, then there is no confusion or misleading description as to whether or not space is accelerating or decelerating.

This same problem compounds itself about the description of a universe that is accelerating. This discovery is based upon the intensity of Type 1a novas observed at the greatest red shifts. They are dimmer than a straight linear rate of expansion would have predicteded. But the observation of these distant novas are in the distant past. So in the very distant past the rate of expansion was even greater.

An object that is moving faster in the past than the present is decelerating.

snowflake

Pi man

You are right, It was Einstein's desire to keep the universe "static" or perpetual that created the need for the cosmological constant. If he did not "blunder", his theory would have predicted the expansion of space. I was giving Einstein the benefit of recognizing his "blunder".

snowflake

There is no such thing as "universal" when measuring velocity (and acceleration). If I was accelerating past you at more than the rate at which you were decelerating, you would appear to be accelerating. Also, you say "I would describe myself as decelerating." Actaully, you would describe yourself as at rest. You would see yourself as not accelerating or decelerating.

Hmmm... I would think that the scientists would be just a little bit too smart to miss that. I really doubt that the whole scientific community would not notice something that big and obvious.

Pi Man

Regarding the curvature of space, you are also right that there are a lot of references going every way, the latest confirmation was from looking at the thermal background radiation. This is a bit fuzzy to recall, think it was in my Science News about 3 months ago that asserted that space is flat. Space is presently flat. But if the expansion is decelerating there is a curvature but since it is uniform, straight lines stay straight. It is only in another dimension (something you alluded to earlier which means we may have a common ground) that this change can be properly described. x,y,z and t are not enough. (I use two dimensions of time.)

snowflake

Ah, but that's the point!!! Our observations suggest that the universe is expanding faster NOW than it did in the past....

This is one of the cruxes of GR - it does allow for the funny effects you get with reconciling distance, speed and time. Galaxies are not moving at the speed of light - but the light they emit is... Ergo we can make observations adequate to give us an accurate picture of how it is behaving in the past, and the present. Sure we have to take into account the distance a galaxy is (how far into the past we're looking) and that the act of it moving further away means light takes longer to reach us, but GR gives us the math to do just that.

Well no, and I think this is the problem you're having coming to terms. We observe now the observation of these novas in the past. We are looking back in time. The trends we garner from our observation show that if we could see the light from those novae at the same time it was emitted (of course long gone by now but i think my point is clear) - acceleration is apparent.

Good discussion you have generated though - it's got me thinking!

__________________
bunk: Empty talk; nonsense.
de·bunk: To expose or ridicule the falseness, sham, or exaggerated claims of.
http://home.iprimus.com.au/eddo/images/fredheadtsp.gif

Ok, I get it. I read part of the article I posted a link to above and figured it out. They are comparing the brightness of distant (and therefore far in the past) novas (type 1a) to the brightness of closer (and therefore more recent) novas. That's how they got their answer. And they did compensate for the effects like distant galaxies receeding faster than closer ones.

Pi Man
When you say that there is no such thing a universal reference and you cite the apparently relative measures of acceleration and velocity you are partially right.

You are familiar with the twin problem that has one travel at the speed of light and the other stays on earth. If the two twins observed each other as one passed by the other in a space ship, each could describe their motions relative to each other, but it is by knowing the acceleration history which establishes a universal perspective and which would indicate which twin has the slower clock.

Also I guess by your disbelief that astronomers would not make that kind of mistake in perspective, I guess you are indirectly agreeing with me but just can’t believe that some guy on the internet has a better grasp of what is happening than what is published by the experts.

snowflake