No, The Universe Is Not Expanding at an Accelerated Rate, Say Physicists
And so this discovery is fundamental and a milestone for cosmology. And a challenge for generations of scientists to come. The find was backed up by data collected separately on things like clustering galaxies and the cosmic microwave background - the faint afterglow of the Big Bang. By all accounts, the discovery was a solid one Nobel Prize solid but it posed a very difficult question - if the collective gravity from all the matter expelled into the Universe by the Big Bang has been slowing everything down, how can it be accelerating?
As Brendan Cole reported for us in May: The effect is small - it's only noticeable when you look at far-away galaxies - but it's there. It's become known as dark energy - 'dark', because no one knows what it is. But now an international team of physicists have questioned the acceration of the Universe's expansion, and they've got a much bigger database of Type 1a supernovae to back them up. By applying a different analytical model to the Type Ia supernovae that have been identified so far, the team says they've been able to account for the subtle differences between them like never before.
They say the statistical techniques used by the original team were too simplistic, and were based on a model devised in the s, which can't reliability be applied to the growing supernova dataset. They also mention that the cosmic microwave background isn't directly affected by dark energy, so only serves as an "indirect" type of evidence.
The hypothesis that the universe is expanding is a basic pillar of the Big Bang theory. But observations of the size and brightness of thousands of galaxies contradict predictions based on the expansion hypothesis, thus shaking this key pillar, according to a new paper published in the journal Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, a publication of Oxford University Press. The new study by Eric J. Lerner, Chief Scientist at the research firm LPPFusion in Middlesex, New Jersey, finds that none of the published expanding-universe predictions of galaxy-size growth fit the actual data.
All of the proposed physical mechanisms for galaxy growth, such as galaxy mergers, also contradict observations. However, the paper finds that the data are closely fit by the contrary hypothesis that the universe is not expanding, and that the redshift of light is caused by some other, currently unknown, process. The new research tests a striking prediction of the expanding universe hypothesis that objects at great distances actually should appear larger, not smaller. In ordinary, non—expanding space, the farther the object is, the smaller it appears.
But in the expanding space of the Big Bang theory, very distant galaxies should actually look larger, an optical illusion due to the galaxies having been much closer when their light was emitted. No previous observations found this predicted illusion—the most distant galaxies do in fact look the smallest. A number of researchers then theorized that galaxies actually grow in size with time. Distant galaxies—observed as they were billions of years ago—are thus hypothesized to be babies, and their small intrinsic size neatly cancels out the predicted optical expansion.
Twelve years later, Hubble's discovery of other galaxies racing away from ours, their light waves stretched and reddened by the expansion of space-time, vanquished the static universe. It also eliminated any need for a cosmological constant to hold the galaxies steady. During his California visit, Einstein acknowledged as much. He reputedly told a colleague that the cosmological constant was his biggest blunder.
With or without that extra ingredient, the basic recipe for the expanding universe was Einstein's. You should Benny clearly read some of Einstein's newer stuff. In dense aether mode Seriously Zeph, you owe me more RAM. My browser needs it to keep all your pathetic illegally re-re-re-registered names in memory so that the ignore list works fine. Here, I'll do it for you from the link you put up: It presents a model in which the universe expands.
I don't except you to understand germany but maybe you can find a translation. I don't need to swing my ego around and say that I have a better education than you but I just happen to have. I've even published actual papers that can be found on google schrolar! I'm a real science man! It strikes me that increasing "velocity"with increasing "distance" indicates that the formation of space is an ongoing quantum "creation" event and not an ongoing big bang "expansion" event. Maybe it is time to move past the Big Bang. You might guess that the details of astrophysics are beyond me, and you would be right - I made that choice many years ago, but my interest has remained and that naivity does not does not necessarily discount an observation that otherwise makes sense and feels right.
Perhaps comparing the differences in velocities accumulated accelerations as a function of their distance will provide a more coherent standardized measure of the apparent rate of accelerating expansion that more mathematically sophisticated analysts can decipher. But without an ignition caused by? Space is not static and rigid; there is room for expansion.
Kindly correct me if I'm wrong. Kindly correct me if I'm wrong The problem is, you're https: If nothing, how it could be falsified? If DM exists and we just can't see it and yet believe in it Das ist nicht nur nicht richtig; es ist nicht einmal falsch!. That is why I requested any correction, if available. First, you accuse me of not directly quoting Einstein and now that I give you his own written paper you accuse me of not doing my job.
I'm pretty sure that if I had pasted someone translation of the paper you would have said that it was not written by Einstein. That is what you do here. I could have given you this link at first but I just wanted to see what stupid things you are going to say. But here you go, a translation and an analysis of the Einstein's paper https: I will even give you a direct quote from that paper if it is too much for you to read.
That somehow I'm in dispute with Einstein over something? I just showed you that Einstein believed in non-static universe in the 30's. You were quoting Einstein's stuff from which was old and represented his old ideas. But without an ignition there would have been a "static Universe", a SLOW "leaking out" of materiel, where any movement, if at all, would have had to be a ponderous motion which could not speed up if there was nothing to move it along, It's exactly like an internal combustion engine, the point of ignition must be within a closed boundary, in this case a cylinder wall.
That's wrong, loads of people have come up with simple convincing models, but in the main they are dismissed by lazy dogmatists who can't be bothered to actually think for themselves and follow the arguments through. In my case, I have to contend with idiots who deride the model without ever having read the book, never mind actually thinking about it. I'm afraid there are huge numbers of luddites and Cap'n Stumpy clones with impenetrably thick skulls whose first and only impulse is aggression. Ok, now I see your point about Einstein's "greatest blunder", I just didn't initially pick up on the contexts of the dating.
Yeah, Einstein first believed that universe was static like it was common those days but with the new evidence he buried that idea: It appears that Hubble had a great deal of influence on Einstein wrt Relativity. I read your link to the report. They were Hubble's observations that made Einstein change his mind. Einstein first believed that universe was static like it was common those days but with the new evidence he buried that idea: I know he did do preliminary calculations prior to to account for the motions of galaxies, but simply didn't believe the results of his own calculations, he dumped them for some reason.
From my point of view his greatest blunder was not publishing those calculations in even though he already had them substantially correct. They believed universe was finite! IF the redshift is due to something OTHER than 'motional recession' Doppler effects, then all bets are off It is due in part to recession of bodies moving in opposite directions, but that recession does not demand the Universe be INFINITE, it only means there is room enough inside this stellar island for things to move around inside of, this is my view of the Universe.
Star clusters, for which we can see the boundaries, ALWAYS have barycenter orbital mechanics, not all those stars within the cluster are all moving at the same velocity, oftentimes it's dependent on how close their approach to the barycenter of motion. There's a lot we don't know about how to calculate these effects. They're not making more of it. It is Space that has no limits to its expansion Same process again and again as long as an outlet is opened up.
Think of an aorta heart.
The universe's rate of expansion is in dispute – and we may need new physics to solve it
The blood within it is made up of plasma, blood plasma. In the blood plasma are red and white corpuscles that flow through the aorta, sometimes clumping slightly, but not very often. They swirl, twirl and tangle and there is a certain order to their motions and all is well. In the meantime, OUTSIDE of each red and white corpuscle is a vacuum filled with blood plasma, and that plasma is propelled through the aorta by a pumping heart. The plasma carries everything through all veins, arteries round and round as long as the body lives.
It could also be a mechanical pump, but there is an algorithm to keep it going. It never stops; it can't stop because the momentum is too strong. Our Universe is within such a place and there is a plasma outside. All the Laws within the Universe are in effect, except. No, the Universe isn't a red or white corpuscle, but it does hold the contents within it and it is still uncertain whether the Universe is in the shape of a globe, a donut, a cloud, or something else.
And the outside is something we can only guess about, but it IS there. I know that the comparison is far-fetched and is, of course, unfalsifiable. And most everyone who has an interest in it will have their very own take on the big question s. But quite frankly, even though what I have said sounds like WOO, I think that there could be a wee bit of truth somewhere in it. Ever see fireworks go off in the shape of a pyramid?
The spread of those fireworks is caused by the kinetic energy imparted to each particle at the point of ignition, stars do the same thing. Be careful here, you're getting close to aether, conjured up in the 19th Century along with Black Hole theory. I'm afraid there are huge numbers of luddites and Cap'n Stumpy clones with impenetrably thick skulls whose first and only impulse is aggression funny thing: Thus, if there is nothing outside, then there is nothing to flow - but the Universe would still be a part of the nothing, but insulated from it.
Benni wrt ignition I also wanted to ask you regarding the ignition of the Hydrogen and other chemistry of Stars. We know that before Stars ignite, they accumulate over a period of time a great or smaller amount of dust and gases from the disk in which they are the probable center. But once a Star has its full complement of the required chemistry to "light up", what is the catalyst for ignition for it to burn hot?
From a relatively cool temperature of Hydrogen gas, etc. And thanks - you are a good teacher. Yeah the universe might well be finite, but here you show your inability to understand the basics of GR and the BB model. I really urge you to again study the balloon analogy of expanding space, you still don't get it.
What a mistaka to maka Bennie still thinks of the BB as an explosion in space, growing larger and filling the emptiness, see no concept of GR even though he quotes Einstein mostly out of context. With the trillions of Stars that reside in our Universe, you could regard the Universe as a Stellar Island, as Benni chooses to call it. If you are a castaway living on a remote island in the Pacific, you could consider that an isolated tropical island that is full of coconut and palm trees.
I think that Benni was using a euphemistic term because the Universe is truly isolated like an island. Yes, Space is still expanding, but not because of a Big Bang or sudden explosion. All done even before the first Stars. Now we have seen an elephant fly - The vacuum stops at the edge of our universe in the vacuum! Ojorf, A relic of the flat earth society who still thinks the vacuum stops at 15billion Lys and you fall of the edge into oblivion! In all the papers I've seen, I have not found any observational evidence that shows that the "receding" redshift is due to any motion, or doppler effect of any kind.
Instead this idea of motion is simply implied by human's imagination. In a rotating galaxy, the stars do have a blueshift, and a redshift corresponding to the rotation, but this should be obvious why. Not so in the "receding" redshift. Are you just as confused as Benni? There in no outside and no border, this is school level science. If the rate of expansion was increasing, the measurement of the rate using near objects would be greater than the rate measured when looking at more distant objects. This isn't as exciting as new physics, though.
Distinguishing Doppler Shift Motion Red or blue Doppler shift in galactic rotation is obvious because two motions positive and negative are viewed Linear galaxy velocity only gives a single Doppler shift It is impossible to say which galaxy is moving, yours or the observed or both galaxies! All galaxies are receding, it makes no difference which galaxy is used to use as a datum point, all galaxies are receding from one another which prove the point - It is impossible to say which galaxy is moving, yours or the observed or both galaxies!
Which comes to the point of expansion, all that is being measured is galactic velocity not recession because all galaxies are in motion whether it's orbital or linear! There are several differing chains that can lead to overcoming nuclear forces resistance to fuse, it depends on what particles that chain starts with. Both Newton and Einstein said that the Universe ought to be collapsing due to gravity. This would result in a supermassive black hole to which all the galaxies were being drawn. In , it was discovered that the galaxies were accelerating, when Big Bang theory had predicted deceleration.
This is consistent with their motions being caused by the gravity of a great body. This ought to mean that the cosmological redshift is not isotropic. Different values for redshifts have been detected in different directions, suggesting anisotropy, but extreme values tending to near zero for distant galaxies at the same distance from the great body as the observer have not. This suggests that such galaxies are to be found where surveys are not carried out, in the Zone of Avoidance. The CMB has a dipole. This is explicable as the motion of our galaxy towards the great body.
It also has a much weaker quadropole. This is the transverse component of the spiral path of our galaxy. It was Einstein's presentation of Special Relativity in that began clarification as to why such collapse does not occur, he finalized it in GR. Thermal energy is irrelevant for gravitational attraction. Einstein's equations showed the Universe ought to be collapsing, but since he believed it was static, he introduced a fudge factor called the cosmological constant to stop the collapse happening.
He later called this his greatest blunder. But such a reversal requires a stopping point of expansion before it goes into reverse mode. BTW schoolbook info often become obsolete. Fusion is dependent on temperature and pressure. The pressure is enormous. You can find high temperatures in the corona, but the pressure is nowhere near enough to initiate fusion. In Earth-based attempts to create fusion in the lab, we cannot approach the pressures in a star, so the temperatures have to be considerably higher. Mass being a finite quantity cannot supply energy eternally to keep a galaxy in motion after all mass been transformed to Electro-Magnetic Energy to generate heat for the Kinetic Energy required to keep the galaxy in motion, ENTROPY.
It is the supply of energy from stars that keeps a galaxy in motion preventing a galaxy's own gravity from collapsing in on itself driving ENTROPY to zero, causing cessation of distribution of energy to occur.
Run out of fuel. Remember the last time your car ran out fuel? The next big question is: We know electron pair production is one means of energy transformation, a closed system that overheats shuts down. But there are "failed stars" and there are ongoing mixes of such chemistry in potential stellar disks that may be already in the process of heating, but haven't yet heated sufficiently to become Star materiel. We have set off lots of hydrogen bombs never having first placed hydrogen in some kind of compression chamber, a fission bomb is utilized for the needed temperature conditions for fusion, not pressure.
A stick of dynamite requires a catalyst to set off the chemicals within the chamber. That catalyst would be the spark that ignites the fuse leading to the chamber. Thanks to Benni for teaching good lessons. Thanks to jonesdave - our favorite kiwi. Thanks to granville for not succumbing to TgoO's evil tricks. It may help you a bit here to study Feynamen Diagrams for hydrogen fusion, there are numerous sources.
But I'll acknowledge ahead of time, this won't answer your deeper question about a subsequent catalyst for fusion once temperature conditions have been attained. A lot of atomic structure must be changed, but how deep into the quark range is something I have never studied. I think you mean 'remove the cylinder walls'. If you're referring to a diesel engine, this analogy is a gross oversight in terms of scale.
We could say that if you add enough fuel to any point in space that it's mass confines it due to its' own gravity exceeding the compression ratio for ignition we no longer need cylinder walls. If you're referring to gasoline engines your analogy is just plain unworkable as gasoline needs to be atomized and mixed with a catalyst to a very precise degree before ignition can take place.
Mechanics never talk about an engine in terms of it being a 4-wall, 6-wall, 6-wall V-6wall, etc, but it wouldn't surprise me that soon everyone afflicted with Pop-Cosmology Derangement Syndrome here will soon be adapting your inappropriate synonyms. We could say that if you add enough fuel to any point in space that it's mass confines it due to its' own gravity exceeding the compression ratio for ignition The cylinder is the chamber in which combustion takes place, encased in the block whose interior walls define the cylinder.
There's also a great analogy here for what jonesdave pointed out about man-made fusion. A diesel engine requires a glowplug to provide heat because the force required for the initial reaction is too great for mechanical means to initiate. As to your second quip, are you oblivious to crushing force we have termed gravity? You bandy about Einstein quotes enough one would think you would have picked up a clue or two by now.
Benni Did you forget which sock is on which foot? I can only say U lose again. It's called reaching Unity Entropy. As I was bristling with extreme curiosity, I searched for anything Google that would smack of the desired answer to my quest for "ignition in Star-making", but not in those exact words. I seem to have found a somewhat adequate answer in Wikipedia, part of which I offer here: This occurs when the energy being given off by the fusion reactions heats the fuel mass more rapidly than various loss mechanisms cool it.
At this point, the external energy needed to heat the fuel to fusion temperatures is no longer needed. Ignition should not be confused with breakeven, a similar concept that compares the total energy being given off to the energy being used to heat the fuel.
The universe's rate of expansion is in dispute – and we may need new physics to solve it
Breakeven is an important goal in the fusion energy field, but ignition is required for a practical energy producing design. Stars are so large that the fusion products will almost always interact with the plasma before it can be lost to the environment at the outside of the star. In comparison, man-made reactors are far less dense and much smaller, allowing the fusion products to easily escape the fuel. To offset this, much higher rates of fusion are required, and thus much higher temperatures; most man-made fusion reactors are designed to work at temperatures around million degrees, or higher.
Ignition has however been achieved in the cores of detonating thermonuclear weapons. The old idea about stellar ignition by heat produced during gravitational collapse developed before nuclear fission was discovered and no one, for more than six decades, until Herndon , thought to question the concept. It is well to recall that science is a logical process, not a democratic process.
New ideas begin with a single individual and then diffuse, sometimes slowly, throughout the scientific community. The idea that natural fusion reactions are ignited by natural fission reactions is a fundamentally new and revolutionary concept with profound astrophysical implications.
Blimey - fission, not fusion. The pressure is enormous The gravitational ignition of fusion, there is a cyclic process taking place, gravitational compression leading to heating resulting in cooling expansion to gravitational compression, with this process taking place millions of times like a sledge hammer cracking a nut These cyclic enormous gravitational hammer blows reach a far higher pressure than simply pressure alone which is exactly the theory behind pneumatic hammers P.
You need a better analogy than a balloon Ojorf. Perhaps Herndon is right, that consensus amongst Astrophysicists is too ingrained for heat from gravitational collapse and fusion ignition as the sole source of starlight. Such a narrow consensus without any regard towards a new science would disallow such scientists to be generally accepting of fission as the primary ignition of Stars, with fusion and gravitational collapse as secondary, despite a more logical observation in real time for fission ignition of Stars. Such a narrow consensus without any regard towards a new science would disallow such scientists to be generally accepting of fission as the primary ignition of Stars, with fusion and gravitational collapse as secondary, despite a more logical observation in real time for fission ignition of Stars "despite a more logical observation in real time for fission ignition of Stars" SHOULD READ AS "despite a more logical observation in real time for fission ignition of Nuclear Weapons H-Bomb.
This is the first time I've ever heard of the concept of "gravitational collapse" leading to fusion ignition. What's the theory behind this? Look at our Sun right now, there is no obvious condition leading us to believe gravitational collapse is present exists.
Perhaps I misstated what I meant to say. Any resulting collapse of enormous amount of Mass due to gravity would start the process of heat generated by chemical reaction throughout Mass. This is my present understanding of J. It is also theorised that there is fissionable materiel within the cores of our exoplanets, Jupiter, Saturn, Uranus, and that a certain amount of nuclear fission is occurring in these giant gas "failed stars". WRT the failed Stars in our Solar System, I have a theory based on biblical lore that I will keep to myself for the time being in order to avoid upsetting the god-haters in the physorg community.
There's a good lad. So you are correct. Nevertheless, it is estimated that within Jupiter and Saturn resides fissionable materiel in their cores, just like in the core of Earth, that if Jupiter and Saturn had a large enough supply of Mass, then they might have ignited, provided that all the good conditions were met. But my original concern was as to how a Star could have ignited with only the gravitational collapse of dust and gas and heat leading to Fusion.
I seem to have found the answer from J. Marvin Herndon's theory that Fission was the initial igniter of Stars. Most of the dust seems to have gone into making the INNER planets and left Jupiter and Saturn with a pittance, as gas planets go I was as, you noticed referring to proto stars as you are referring to proto stars forming from their dust clouds which can be described failed stars, so there is never going to be sufficient mass to actually form stars but this does not preclude nuclear reactions taking place in the planets as there are reactions taking place in the earth's core I am just looking at https: Thanks for the Wiki link wrt Herndon.
He is a maverick scientist, indeed.
But he makes good sense for everything else, especially wrt the Chemtrails. I can always tell the difference between the contrails of passing passenger or military planes their contrails disappear not long after , and the Chemtrails left behind by aircraft that fly at around the same altitude, but the Chemtrails they leave behind still remain after the aircraft are long gone. And these Chemtrails don't disperse very well - thick, white, slow moving The US gov has Black Ops agencies that do testing in, and of many areas of science.
But I know of no reason for aircraft emissions of Chemtrails that fill the sky as they slowly disperse. In any case, from what I understand of Herndon's paper regarding the outer giant gas planets, Jupiter, Saturn, Neptune, etc. What would happen if a fission bomb were set off in it's atmosphere? Would a fusion process begin that would ignite the entire planet into runaway fusion?
I guess we better hope some Earthling nutjob never tries an experiment. The second link leads to the same gravitational confinement page already linked above The key words are, still, temperature and pressure. Benni There would have to be additional fissionable materiel on or in the gas planet, such as Uranium which would start a chain reaction, with the "fission bomb" igniting the Hydrogen in the atmosphere.
But it would probably fizzle out since there still would not be enough Mass to turn the planet into a proper Star. Pressure is more of a concussive force that accompanies the initial ignition Fission and then is no longer needed for the continuing gravitational collapse of the Mass, which is the reason that enough Mass is required, so that the thermonuclear process doesn't fizzle. And in the Fusion process, two are fused into One.
There would have to be additional fissionable materiel on or in the gas planet, such as Uranium which would start a chain reaction, with the "fission bomb" igniting the Hydrogen in the atmosphere. I have no idea how different it would be to fuse the simplest form of hydrogen as opposed to the way it's done in H-bombs.
I'd guess even higher temps would be required, fusion stuff is way out of my line. It is interesting that there is a source of Uranium in an African nation, Gabon, I believe. Although that Uranium might be collected if that government gave permission, perhaps the only usefulness for it would be in Medicine. However, if there is much more of it farther down past the lower mantle and closer to the Core, it might indicate that Earth itself is a "failed Star", but for the lack of a Hydrogen atmosphere as in Jupiter.
I still believe that all the H-Bomb tests underground and in the atmosphere was detrimental to the environment and that the effects are still being felt in illness, disease and fish die-offs. The first tests were in the s and continued into the 50s, whereupon cases of certain illnesses and cancers started showing up and the effects are still with us.
Fusion is still a big challenge to science. But it is possible that someday, Fusion may be an economical propulsion "fuel" for rockets to Mars.
- Culture and Customs of Serbia and Montenegro (Cultures and Customs of the World);
- Finance at 40: How to Secure your Financial Future (Financial Intelligence).
- Universe is Not Expanding After All, Controversial Study Suggests.
Technically, by this criteria, Pluto is a failed star! I am completely shocked!