BBC Focus Magazine

[M Paul Lloyd]

Nope sorry, the expansion of space and general relativty is the basis for modern cosmology.

I know that, what I was saying was the appearance of galaxies receding away from each other at or beyond light speed is an illusion.

If not indeed impossible?

[PetTastic]

In order for matter to shrink then the permittivity and permeability of free space must change; if they change then so does the speed of light in free space. These quantities are inseparable from one another as they are flip-sides of the same coin.

The whole point of the argument is that no constants change, only the experienced speed of light.
The problem is the "permittivity and permeability of free space" is defined in terms of one over "Vacuum permeability" times the "speed of light" squared.

The real fun come when playing with this model is getting all the c to cancel out, that is not assume it is a constant.

[The Beige Avenger]

The whole point of the argument is that no constants change, only the experienced speed of light.

Why would constants not change if the speed of light does? I don't get the "experienced speed of light" angle you're selling.

The problem is the "permittivity and permeability of free space" is defined in terms of one over "Vacuum permeability" times the "speed of light" squared.

No problem here... it's what I said.


Don't think we're getting each other...

[M Paul Lloyd]

Sorry, but from where I'm standing this all falls apart on the basic principle of conservation of energy and mass.
If only because a condensing universe ends up with an energy imbalance and that simply does not fit with the observed evidence.

[PetTastic]

The whole point of the argument is that no constants change, only the experienced speed of light.

Why would constants not change if the speed of light does? I don't get the "experienced speed of light" angle you're selling.

The problem is the "permittivity and permeability of free space" is defined in terms of one over "Vacuum permeability" times the "speed of light" squared.

No problem here... it's what I said.


Don't think we're getting each other...

Ok, yes I am sticking to a fine distinction, that it is a derived value as defined above, and its value is calculated as defined.
I only assume it is valid to swap it for its definition in physics formula.

[The Beige Avenger]

Ok, yes I am sticking to a fine distinction, that it is a derived value as defined above, and its value is calculated as defined.
I only assume it is valid to swap it for its definition in physics formula.

I still don't get what you mean...

The terms permeability and permittivity define how EM fields propagate through space (they are two separate things, one linked to electricity, the other to magnetism: E and M; which are inseparable).

I don't think you understand what I said.. I certainly don't understand what you're talking about.

[PetTastic]

Sorry, but from where I'm standing this all falls apart on the basic principle of conservation of energy and mass.

Please could you hilight where you think energy is lost or gained in my model.
The main strong point is the conservation of energy that is not present in the Big Bang version.
What with galaxies all accelerating away from each other at ever increasing speeds, that gives a very interesting interpretation of conservation of kinetic energy.
In BBT dark energy has gone from zero at the time of the big bang to 70% now.

(From Wikipedia)

If only because a condensing universe ends up with an energy imbalance and that simply does not fit with the observed evidence.

As my model is a very close fit to BBT on redshift,luminance and angular size, for redshift between 0.1 and 3.5, and only deviates very slightly below z = 10.
Astronomers consider BBTto be a good match for observation
What observable evidence does it not match

[M Paul Lloyd]

I don't quite see how an expanding universe can be compared so directly with one that is supposed to be condensing, after all they are direct opposites.

But I will to try and address your concerns over my comments. As I see it any system that condenses displaces energy in some way and your assertion that this energy is 'absorbed' and/or 'converted into matter' simply does not work.

When energy is converted into matter (a process which I cannot see a cause for in your theory) it ends up as roughly equal proportions of matter and anti-matter, as is said to have occurred following the 'big bang' event, these two opposite states of matter annihilate each other creating more energy.

Our entire universe and all the matter in it is what was left after this event and the temperature has dropped due to its 'observed' expansion.

If the universe was collapsing in on itself there would surely be evidence of this energy as it was forced to occupy less space making the universe hotter. Yet the universal background temperature of just 2.7 degrees Kelvin would suggest otherwise.

You will have to excuse me if I appear hopelessly ignorant but I'm an engineer not a scientist and my understanding of physics is the old bucket and thermometer type, but I still say that energy cannot simply disappear therefore, in my opinion, your theory cannot work. Sorry.

Nice pie charts by the way, even though I don't trust wiki stuff.

[PetTastic]

I don't quite see how an expanding universe can be compared so directly with one that is supposed to be condensing, after all they are direct opposites.

Well from my view they are almost the same thing
It seems you are more skeptical of BBT and the whole expanding universe thing than me, but it is the only accepted theory I can compare my model against.
In BBT all matter is shrinking compared to the size of the universe.
In BBT all distant objects viewed through a telescope are slowly shrinking, but only because they are moving away from us at fantastic speeds.
You just have to make a choice, do you look down on things from the large-scale and see matter shrink, or look up from deep inside and see everything get bigger?

But I will to try and address your concerns over my comments. As I see it any system that condenses displaces energy in some way and your assertion that this energy is 'absorbed' and/or 'converted into matter' simply does not work.

When energy is converted into matter (a process which I cannot see a cause for in your theory) it ends up as roughly equal proportions of matter and anti-matter, as is said to have occurred following the 'big bang' event, these two opposite states of matter annihilate each other creating more energy.

Well I think the Big Bang view is the best we have so far, and CP violation experiments do lend some credibility to matter wining over antimatter.
It is always slightly possible that antimatter galaxies do exist out there.
Good old E = mc^2 if the experence speed of light goes up there is more energy in matter.

Our entire universe and all the matter in it is what was left after this event and the temperature has dropped due to its 'observed' expansion.

I would point you at Wikipedia again
As the universe expanded in BBT the pressures went down and therefore, the temperature.
So in my version as matter shrunk, so it took up less space and therefore, had the same effect of reducing the pressure, etc.

If the universe was collapsing in on itself there would surely be evidence of this energy as it was forced to occupy less space making the universe hotter. Yet the universal background temperature of just 2.7 degrees Kelvin would suggest otherwise.

However, most of the matter in space is at 5,000K.
Gas falling millions of light-years in from the galactic voids into the galactic clusters hits with incredible speeds. The same happens at a smaller scale with proto-stars and molecular clouds.
Gravity is constantly crushing matter down heating everything up.

You will have to excuse me if I appear hopelessly ignorant but I'm an engineer not a scientist and my understanding of physics is the old bucket and thermometer type, but I still say that energy cannot simply disappear therefore, in my opinion, your theory cannot work. Sorry.

I am only claiming my model is interesting and conserves energy better than BBT, and it is impossible to tell the difference between the two if you are made of matter yourself.

Nice pie charts by the way, even though I don't trust wiki stuff.

Not sure I trust forums

[M Paul Lloyd]

Well from my view they are almost the same thing

Sounds a bit like Hawkins 'universe in revserse' idea, with the cup of tea reconstructing itself before leaping up from the floor and back onto the table..... Either way I see them as diametrically opposed concepts, they may display similar traits but do not necessarily have much in common. I guess its all down to your point of view, relatively speaking.

It seems you are more skeptical of BBT and the whole expanding universe thing than me, but it is the only accepted theory I can compare my model against.

Indeed I am, and given that the universe may well extend far beyond our 42 billion ly horizon I find it increasingly difficult to reconcile the idea that it all originated at one point as postulated by Le Maitre.

In BBT all matter is shrinking compared to the size of the universe.
In BBT all distant objects viewed through a telescope are slowly shrinking, but only because they are moving away from us at fantastic speeds.

Also we are viewing them as they appeared a long time ago before they have shrunk and yet it appears to be the same universe that we live in.

You just have to make a choice, do you look down on things from the large-scale and see matter shrink, or look up from deep inside and see everything get bigger?

I see neither, to me the universe as a vast, dynamic turbulent cloud, Cepheid Variables are not a reliable indicator of distance and red shift is an optical illusion. Sadly I have no proof, but by accepting a couple of unkowns over a myriad of theoretical models that try to fill the gaps in current theory I can see the universe as a far more workable system, its not as exciting but like a helio-centric solar system it works a whole lot better than a geo-centric one.

Well I think the Big Bang view is the best we have so far, and CP violation experiments do lend some credibility to matter wining over antimatter.
It is always slightly possible that antimatter galaxies do exist out there.
Good old E = mc^2 if the experence speed of light goes up there is more energy in matter.

I'll accept that anti-matter might still be out there but something favoured matter, at least from our point of view, sadly it is unlikely we will ever resolve that one in our lifetimes.

I would point you at Wikipedia again

Oh please don't, if my daughters school will not allow it as a source of reference then I am inclined to distrust it, sorry. I tend to prefer stuff direct from the horses mouth whenever possible.
Such as. http://web.mit.edu/16.unified/www/FALL/ ... ermo_4.htm

As the universe expanded in BBT the pressures went down and therefore, the temperature.
So in my version as matter shrunk, so it took up less space and therefore, had the same effect of reducing the pressure, etc.

I would refer you to the link above re the first law of thermodynamics. "All energy, from all sources, will eventually dissipate as heat" Sorry but I just don't see where the energy goes.

However, most of the matter in space is at 5,000K.
Gas falling millions of light-years in from the galactic voids into the galactic clusters hits with incredible speeds. The same happens at a smaller scale with proto-stars and molecular clouds.
Gravity is constantly crushing matter down heating everything up.

But all the matter in the universe, even if it were at 5,000 K could not account for the total energy present in the early universe, which as observations show is much the same as the one we live in today.

I am only claiming my model is interesting and conserves energy better than BBT, and it is impossible to tell the difference between the two if you are made of matter yourself.

I'll grant you that it is interesting.

Not sure I trust forums

Ah but we don't make any claims about being right, we merely provide a place where ideas can be exchanged, which is pretty much what we are doing here............ I hope.

Anyway this is my take on big bang theory.... even though I don't actually agree with it I thought I should at least try to understand it first.
an-easy-guide-to-big-bang-theory-t7.html

[M Paul Lloyd]

I should perhaps elaborate a little on this statement of mine.

But all the matter in the universe, even if it were at 5,000 K could not account for the total energy present in the early universe, which as observations show is much the same as the one we live in today.

As we know current big bang theory suggests that the universe was, at a point shortly after the big bang, at a temperature of 3,000 degrees Kelvin and one of the mechanisms that helped reduce it to current levels (even allowing for the small proportion that is at around 5,000 K) was expansion, or more correctly 'inflation' when the universe went from being very small to 98% of its current size in what amounts to a blink of an eye, at least in cosomological terms. This forced cooled through expansion is often thrust under my nose (by far better minds than mine) as one of the key 'proofs' of why the current model of the universe must be correct and if it had not expanded then it would be much hotter, possibly even too hot for life. Therefore if the universe contracted it would be even hotter and that obviously isn't the case.
May I recommend 'Mathematical Properties of Cosmological Models with Accelerated Expansion' by Alan D. Rendall ?
http://arxiv.org/abs/gr-qc/0408053

[The Beige Avenger]

Can I ask for a slight indulgence of a thread derailment...

When 'they' say the Universe was '5000 K', what are they actually meaning? Is it a calculated kind of analogue of the average energy per volume or is it actually the temperature of the particles with mass in a volume?

How was this number reached?

[Shadowwolf]

Can I ask for a slight indulgence of a thread derailment...

You certainly may, meanwhile I shall go back to this particular point again.

...and it is impossible to tell the difference between the two if you are made of matter yourself.

Now maybe I'm not getting it but bear with me. We have what appears to be an expanding verse of space time that was created along with all matter in it during the Big Bang event. Keeping it abysmally simple we had a theory that said we should expect to find certain things, we found em and it looks good for the theories long term veracity.

You take all this previous work but say it means something else, that the very nature of this difference makes it impossible to tell the difference and don't suggest anything unique that would enable us to actually tell. Earlier I mentioned the issue of how we might ascertain everything was shrinking when our perspective and instruments also shrink, you said we could examine light but never actually said how or how that would overcome the fact that our instruments have shrunk. So I'm still of the opinion that if we cannot tell, it does not add anything, it adds additional - needless even? - demands through giant particles that then shrink and it makes no predictions of its own then what you've got is an abstraction more so than a model. Perhaps I'm mistaken but if you cannot tell then that's a broken spot.

I find it increasingly difficult to reconcile the idea that it all originated at one point as postulated by Le Maitre.

I think that's a misconception of the BBT there, as I understand it everything was created including space, it was not an explosion that occurred in space already existing.

[PetTastic]

Can I ask for a slight indulgence of a thread derailment...

When 'they' say the Universe was '5000 K', what are they actually meaning? Is it a calculated kind of analogue of the average energy per volume or is it actually the temperature of the particles with mass in a volume?

How was this number reached?

No, this is the average temperature NOW!
Telescopes can easily detect the emission spectrum from this hot gas between the galaxies and stars.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interstellar_medium#Interstellar_matter

Intergalatic matter mostly plasma in intergalatic space is even hotter reaching 7,000,000K.

The gas is very very thin, but as hot as hell!

[M Paul Lloyd]

I find it increasingly difficult to reconcile the idea that it all originated at one point as postulated by Le Maitre.

I think that's a misconception of the BBT there, as I understand it everything was created including space, it was not an explosion that occurred in space already existing.

True, but as presented by Le Maitre, it seems to be suggested that the universe had a common point of origin, a 'singularity' as it were, which given the potential size of the universe is something I find a bit hard to grasp ?

This is his actual paper in pdf form, just for the sake of interest.
http://articles.adsabs.harvard.edu/cgi- ... etype=.pdf

[PetTastic]

The universe has always been the biggest thing around, never anything bigger.
Well not in this universe anyway

The whole concept of size when there is nothing else to compare it with is a bit of a mind bender.
Is a ballon expanding compared to the rubber is is made from, as rubber is stretching at the same rate?