Some questions for better understanding of Main Stream Cosmology

[RajeshTrivedi]

With due respect to prevailing mainstream cosmology, some points are still nagging in my mind...

1. It is stated that Dark Matter does not interact with light, but Dark matter has Gravitational impact. So does it not put a big blow to the Unification Efforts? I mean does it not imply that Electromagnetism has got nothing to do with Gravity (from the Dark Matter point of view only).


2. It is stated that from t = 0 to t= 10^-43 sec remains unexplained and may be QGT would throw some light on this. But inflation supposed to have happened at the accelerated pace from t = 10^-35 to t = 10^-32 seconds and at the end of this inflation the size of universe was still very small (some cricket ball or Football size) having the entire mass. The question is what about Chandra limit and all? The estimated mass of the universe is around 10^53 Kgs, could it have remained compressed in such a small space?

3. About CMBR: I abide by the present explanation of this. But the question is..

Our Universe is Homogeneous and Isotropic, so whatever remote radiation we get around us has to be same? This alone can answer the uniform radiation signal around us (of course it cannot answer the nature of spectrum). But the point is, the relics of a cricket ball size universe is prevalent and present even after 14b years? If this is so then we should have observational evidence of such radiation around any celestial object, ditto around every object.


4. This is just the freaky curious question, is there any concept of ageing of light? Why I am asking this is, that we do not have much issues with the local group Galaxy red shifts (they are Gravity bound) but we get substantial Red Shift (Hubble Expansion) for Galaxies which are very far away, kind of aged light.

 

[paddoboy]

With due respect to prevailing mainstream cosmology, some points are still nagging in my mind...

1. It is stated that Dark Matter does not interact with light, but Dark matter has Gravitational impact. So does it not put a big blow to the Unification Efforts? I mean does it not imply that Electromagnetism has got nothing to do with Gravity (from the Dark Matter point of view only).

According to GR, gravity is not actually a force. It is simply curved/warped spacetime in the presence of mass/energy.

2. It is stated that from t = 0 to t= 10^-43 sec remains unexplained and may be QGT would throw some light on this. But inflation supposed to have happened at the accelerated pace from t = 10^-35 to t = 10^-32 seconds and at the end of this inflation the size of universe was still very small (some cricket ball or Football size) having the entire mass. The question is what about Chandra limit and all? The estimated mass of the universe is around 10^53 Kgs, could it have remained compressed in such a small space?

I don't understand....It didn't remain compressed. It had whatever it was that made the BB bang as impetus at that stage.

3. About CMBR: I abide by the present explanation of this. But the question is..

Our Universe is Homogeneous and Isotropic, so whatever remote radiation we get around us has to be same? This alone can answer the uniform radiation signal around us (of course it cannot answer the nature of spectrum). But the point is, the relics of a cricket ball size universe is prevalent and present even after 14b years? If this is so then we should have observational evidence of such radiation around any celestial object, ditto around every object.

The CMBR we see is at 2.7 K. How do you expect to see evidence of that around every single object? Think of gravity overwhelming the Universal expansion, in groups and clusters of galaxies.
Plus the photons we see at 2.7K, did not have a free and unhibited path until 380,000 years after the BB and during the recombination era.

4. This is just the freaky curious question, is there any concept of ageing of light? Why I am asking this is, that we do not have much issues with the local group Galaxy red shifts (they are Gravity bound) but we get substantial Red Shift (Hubble Expansion) for Galaxies which are very far away, kind of aged light.

This is known as "tired light" and was considered and discarded a while back...Fred Zwicky??? I think??
We have no evidence of such happenings.

 

[RajeshTrivedi]

According to GR, gravity is not actually a force. It is simply curved/warped spacetime in the presence of mass/energy.

But my question was towards Unification Efforts? I hope you are not suggesting that GR itself put a lid to Unification dream.

I don't understand....It didn't remain compressed. It had whatever it was that made the BB bang as impetus at that stage.

I am sorry I did not get you. The question is very clear, that after inflation the size of Universe was very small, then how could it accommodate a mass of 10^53Kgs?

The CMBR we see is at 2.7 K. How do you expect to see evidence of that around every single object? Think of gravity overwhelming the Universal expansion, in groups and clusters of galaxies.
Plus the photons we see at 2.7K, did not have a free and unhibited path until 380,000 years after the BB and during the recombination era.

That still supports the counter view that photons of inflation, which remained obstructed till 380000 years, are now present in the form of relic? I know we cannot map other objects as of now, but Homogeneous aspect certainly answers the first part, that is Uniformity.

This is known as "tired light" and was considered and discarded a while back...Fred Zwicky??? I think??
We have no evidence of such happenings.

Thanks

 

[paddoboy]

But my question was towards Unification Efforts? I hope you are not suggesting that GR itself put a lid to Unification dream.

I'm suggesting what I said.
We do not as yet have a TOE. [Discounting the 3 or 4 delusional ones that lay claim to it on this forum]

I am sorry I did not get you. The question is very clear, that after inflation the size of Universe was very small, then how could it accommodate a mass of 10^53Kgs?

Whatever mass the Universe had at those times, was in a far different form then we know now, and under conditions we are not as yet able to replicate.
Plus of course as has been mentioned a 100 times, we still have plenty of fine tuning, and tinkering to do, that will not in anyway detract from the BB itself and the evidence that points to that.

 

[origin]

With due respect to prevailing mainstream cosmology, some points are still nagging in my mind...

1. It is stated that Dark Matter does not interact with light, but Dark matter has Gravitational impact. So does it not put a big blow to the Unification Efforts?

No

I mean does it not imply that Electromagnetism has got nothing to do with Gravity (from the Dark Matter point of view only).

From all points of view Electromagnetism is different from Gravity

2. It is stated that from t = 0 to t= 10^-43 sec remains unexplained and may be QGT would throw some light on this. But inflation supposed to have happened at the accelerated pace from t = 10^-35 to t = 10^-32 seconds and at the end of this inflation the size of universe was still very small (some cricket ball or Football size) having the entire mass. The question is what about Chandra limit and all? The estimated mass of the universe is around 10^53 Kgs, could it have remained compressed in such a small space?

It was very dense. Physics is not based on what you find acceptable.

3. About CMBR: I abide by the present explanation of this. But the question is..

Our Universe is Homogeneous and Isotropic, so whatever remote radiation we get around us has to be same? This alone can answer the uniform radiation signal around us (of course it cannot answer the nature of spectrum). But the point is, the relics of a cricket ball size universe is prevalent and present even after 14b years? If this is so then we should have observational evidence of such radiation around any celestial object, ditto around every object.

First the radiation is from the time of about 380,000 years after the big bang and the universe was much larger. The radiation from the big bang is seen in every direction we look. Yes even between the sun and the earth there is the CMB, it is a little hard to see though.

4. This is just the freaky curious question, is there any concept of ageing of light? Why I am asking this is, that we do not have much issues with the local group Galaxy red shifts (they are Gravity bound) but we get substantial Red Shift (Hubble Expansion) for Galaxies which are very far away, kind of aged light.

The idea of aging light is a current pseudo-science idea held by some confused and ignorant people. I am beginning to believe with what you keep writing that it may be 'right up your alley'. Too bad...

 

[DwayneD.L.Rabon]

Well, at any rate current observation of the stars and gaining data requires some complete revision, mainly because there is nothing that is reliable in observation past 250 lightyears. there may be background noise that is viewable ect... but the universe looks nothing like what we see in pictures.

So Rajesh Trivedi the people that you are argueing with really are at a complete loss, as well as nasa,esa ect and other astronomers and space observing institutions. its a cold fact that they hate to come to grips with because they have presented so much vision to the world both in the specialist feild and to the general public. so they are forced to say what we know of the universe as we can see it with the eye, or photograhic plate.

below i give you a simple formula for correction, but it does not cover all the inability to observe the universe, or regions beyond 250 lightyears. for example consider the center of the galaxy, when using the formula and you will find that in order it is nowhere near where it is plotted.


Simple formula for Lightyears is; 21.385858425 miles per lightyear, equals the position error range. for 10 lightyears the distance from true position would be 213.858 miles or 3 degrees.

in short there is no vision of the true solid body, and its position as your see the light at one location but the physical body is located at some distance, for long range objects the true postion of a body may be on the other side of the earth. so the galaxy it self really has a different appearance and different oreintation of direction.

so do not let current cosmology derail you in asking questions about the orientation of space, mainly because a lot of thier understanding has been knocked down, but not thier intelligence.

DwayneD.L.Rabon

 

[brucep]

I

With due respect to prevailing mainstream cosmology, some points are still nagging in my mind...

1. It is stated that Dark Matter does not interact with light, but Dark matter has Gravitational impact. So does it not put a big blow to the Unification Efforts? I mean does it not imply that Electromagnetism has got nothing to do with Gravity (from the Dark Matter point of view only).


2. It is stated that from t = 0 to t= 10^-43 sec remains unexplained and may be QGT would throw some light on this. But inflation supposed to have happened at the accelerated pace from t = 10^-35 to t = 10^-32 seconds and at the end of this inflation the size of universe was still very small (some cricket ball or Football size) having the entire mass. The question is what about Chandra limit and all? The estimated mass of the universe is around 10^53 Kgs, could it have remained compressed in such a small space?

3. About CMBR: I abide by the present explanation of this. But the question is..

Our Universe is Homogeneous and Isotropic, so whatever remote radiation we get around us has to be same? This alone can answer the uniform radiation signal around us (of course it cannot answer the nature of spectrum). But the point is, the relics of a cricket ball size universe is prevalent and present even after 14b years? If this is so then we should have observational evidence of such radiation around any celestial object, ditto around every object.


4. This is just the freaky curious question, is there any concept of ageing of light? Why I am asking this is, that we do not have much issues with the local group Galaxy red shifts (they are Gravity bound) but we get substantial Red Shift (Hubble Expansion) for Galaxies which are very far away, kind of aged light.

Chandrasekhar limit
http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chandrasekhar_limit
This is natural phenomena associated with gravitational COLLAPSE. Inflation is associated with gravitational expansion. You just keep asking irrelevant questions. That's because you haven't done any research to help you ask a relevant question. Try the WMAP site to learn something about modern cosmology and what a relevant question should look like.

#3 is completely irrelevant. #4 is crank bullshit. Tired light would mean that the photon gives up energy to the gravitational field over it's natural path through spacetime. The null geodesic. Nonsense that contradicts theoretical prediction (GR) and empirical observation.

Do a little reading and ask questions about what physics you don't understand. Right now you need a complete makeover with respect to very basic concepts in physics. Maybe you'll get an answer that is longer than "no". Good fortune in the quest to answer any query that has something to do with cosmology.

 

[brucep]

Well, at any rate current observation of the stars and gaining data requires some complete revision, mainly because there is nothing that is reliable in observation past 250 lightyears. there may be background noise that is viewable ect... but the universe looks nothing like what we see in pictures.

So Rajesh Trivedi the people that you are argueing with really are at a complete loss, as well as nasa,esa ect and other astronomers and space observing institutions. its a cold fact that they hate to come to grips with because they have presented so much vision to the world both in the specialist feild and to the general public. so they are forced to say what we know of the universe as we can see it with the eye, or photograhic plate.

below i give you a simple formula for correction, but it does not cover all the inability to observe the universe, or regions beyond 250 lightyears. for example consider the center of the galaxy, when using the formula and you will find that in order it is nowhere near where it is plotted.


Simple formula for Lightyears is; 21.385858425 miles per lightyear, equals the position error range. for 10 lightyears the distance from true position would be 213.858 miles or 3 degrees.

in short there is no vision of the true solid body, and its position as your see the light at one location but the physical body is located at some distance, for long range objects the true postion of a body may be on the other side of the earth. so the galaxy it self really has a different appearance and different oreintation of direction.

so do not let current cosmology derail you in asking questions about the orientation of space, mainly because a lot of thier understanding has been knocked down, but not thier intelligence.

DwayneD.L.Rabon

Crank nonsense. Try making sense next time you post.

 

[paddoboy]

Do a little reading and ask questions about what physics you don't understand. Right now you need a complete makeover with respect to very basic concepts in physics. Maybe you'll get an answer that is longer than "no". Good fortune in the quest to answer any query that has something to do with cosmology.

Totally agree,
From what he has posted and asked questions on in this post, it appears he is only Interested in any and all pseudo quackery concepts that have been raised many times, and just as quickly discarded.
And then we have the hue and cry about all posters having the right to post whatever they like, nonsense or not.
And of course they do, but just as valid is the fact that when such nonsense is posted, it will be refuted and invalidated for what it is.
You have already commented on one of those crank posts already brucep.

 

[RajeshTrivedi]

1. It is stated that Dark Matter does not interact with light, but Dark matter has Gravitational impact. So does it not put a big blow to the Unification Efforts? I mean does it not imply that Electromagnetism has got nothing to do with Gravity (from the Dark Matter point of view only).

Answers by:

1. Paddoboy : He just defined Gravity (GR definition).
2. Origin : Question remains without proper answer.
3. Brucep : Did not attempt to answer after quoting.


Question remains open.

2. It is stated that from t = 0 to t= 10^-43 sec remains unexplained and may be QGT would throw some light on this. But inflation supposed to have happened at the accelerated pace from t = 10^-35 to t = 10^-32 seconds and at the end of this inflation the size of universe was still very small (some cricket ball or Football size) having the entire mass. The question is what about Chandra limit and all? The estimated mass of the universe is around 10^53 Kgs, could it have remained compressed in such a small space?

Answers by:

1. Paddoboy : Whatever mass we had at that time was different.
2. Origin : It was very dense. Physics is not based on what you find acceptable.
3. Brucep : He gave a wiki link of Chandra limit, and observed profoundly that limit is applicable at the time of Collapse not at the time of expansion. In law terms that means he knew the operative part of the judgement, not the details, like most of the law guys.

Question remains unanswered and thus open.

3. About CMBR: I abide by the present explanation of this. But the question is..

Our Universe is Homogeneous and Isotropic, so whatever remote radiation we get around us has to be same? This alone can answer the uniform radiation signal around us (of course it cannot answer the nature of spectrum). But the point is, the relics of a cricket ball size universe is prevalent and present even after 14b years? If this is so then we should have observational evidence of such radiation around any celestial object, ditto around every object.

1. Paddoboy : He gave some basic information on CMBR, without answering the question.
2. Origin : Some additional information without answering the question.
3. Brucep : Declared the question itself irrelevant.

Question still remains unanswered,

4. This is just the freaky curious question, is there any concept of ageing of light? Why I am asking this is, that we do not have much issues with the local group Galaxy red shifts (they are Gravity bound) but we get substantial Red Shift (Hubble Expansion) for Galaxies which are very far away, kind of aged light.

1. Paddoboy : Nicely answered by him. Salutations. Question closed.
2. Origin : Paddoboy Response + Controlled Crap.
3. Brucep : Paddoboy Response + Uncontrolled Crap.


The question was closed by me with a thanks to Paddoboy. Any further comments on the question or on the response should have some value addition.

 

[paddoboy]

Your questions have been answered many many times throughout this thread, as peculiar and as nonsensical as some of them were. But at the same time those answers invalidate your silly alternative hypothesis and are not what you wanted to here....
But let me do some summing.....
The standard cosmological model overall, has passed peer review and matches observations better then any alternative models.
That doesn't mean we still don't have problems. But you have also been told that.
The BB/GR aspect of the overall cosmological model are near certain, despite some uncertainty, some unknown quantities, and logical speculation with some details along the way and at near the quantum level.
NOTE: The few uncertainties are being vigouressly worked on and researched by many mainstream cosmologists even as we speak.
Any new findings revelations etc will be by mainstream and subsequent peer review will take place without fear nor favour, just as it has with the BICEP 2 experiment.
Those results are being reviewed and examined at this time.

What is annoying is that it seems you want to highlight these uncertainties as somehow invalidating all of cosmology.
Yet you [and others] have nothing at all to offer to replace the model, that supports all that we observe and the data that has been retrieved form our particle accelerators.

Q1: Why would DM not interacting with light, have any bearing on unification?
That was answered quite correctly as "NO"and we dont have a TOE as yet......

Q2:You erroneously raised the Chandreskhar limit in relation to the Universe after Inflation and the CMBR.
The Chandreskar limit as explained by brucep is irrelevant.
Again as you have been told, what caused the BB and Inflation is unknown, but educated guesses include the CC/DE which may well be the same [as you have been told previously]

Q3:
The CMBR was not a picture of the Universe from the BB or Inflation. It was a picture of the Universe at 380,000 years after the BB, and recombination. Answered by origin.

Q4:Nice to see you accept that.


http://ned.ipac.caltech.edu/level5/Watson/Watson_contents.html

http://ned.ipac.caltech.edu/level5/Guth/Guth_contents.html


Lots of stuff there....No nonsensical alternative hypothesis....all accepted, or logically speculative scenarios that mainstream has good reasons to accept.

 

[brucep]

Answers by:

1. Paddoboy : He just defined Gravity (GR definition).
2. Origin : Question remains without proper answer.
3. Brucep : Did not attempt to answer after quoting.


Question remains open.




Answers by:

1. Paddoboy : Whatever mass we had at that time was different.
2. Origin : It was very dense. Physics is not based on what you find acceptable.
3. Brucep : He gave a wiki link of Chandra limit, and observed profoundly that limit is applicable at the time of Collapse not at the time of expansion. In law terms that means he knew the operative part of the judgement, not the details, like most of the law guys.

Question remains unanswered and thus open.





1. Paddoboy : He gave some basic information on CMBR, without answering the question.
2. Origin : Some additional information without answering the question.
3. Brucep : Declared the question itself irrelevant.

Question still remains unanswered,






1. Paddoboy : Nicely answered by him. Salutations. Question closed.
2. Origin : Paddoboy Response + Controlled Crap.
3. Brucep : Paddoboy Response + Uncontrolled Crap.


The question was closed by me with a thanks to Paddoboy. Any further comments on the question or on the response should have some value addition.

You need to understand the difference between gravitational collapse and inflation which is gravitational expansion. One is what happens when stars run out of fuel and the other is when the cosmological constant dominates the metric and spacetime expands. There's physics which explain both. Physics you're not going to learn asking irrelevant questions in a public science forum. Regardless whether you think they're relevant to cosmological science or not relevant to cosmological science. You seem to be uneducable by choice. Based on the continuing irrelevance associated with what you think hasn't been considered by cosmologists.

 

[origin]

Answers by:

1. Paddoboy : He just defined Gravity (GR definition).
2. Origin : Question remains without proper answer.
3. Brucep : Did not attempt to answer after quoting.

Question remains open.

The question was answered, but your inability to understand or do even the most minimal research resulted in your continued confusion.

Answers by:

1. Paddoboy : Whatever mass we had at that time was different.
2. Origin : It was very dense. Physics is not based on what you find acceptable.
3. Brucep : He gave a wiki link of Chandra limit, and observed profoundly that limit is applicable at the time of Collapse not at the time of expansion. In law terms that means he knew the operative part of the judgement, not the details, like most of the law guys.

Question remains unanswered and thus open.

The question was answered, but your inability to understand or do even the most minimal research resulted in your continued confusion.

1. Paddoboy : He gave some basic information on CMBR, without answering the question.
2. Origin : Some additional information without answering the question.
3. Brucep : Declared the question itself irrelevant.

Question still remains unanswered,

The question was answered, but your inability to understand or do even the most minimal research resulted in your continued confusion.

 

[DwayneD.L.Rabon]

Well, brucep and paddyboy here is were you come to a point of failure, as you can not continue on it your concepts of cosmology when the base of observation has been changed. it is a simple fact that you have to begin again. its called trial and error.

it does not matter that groups of people have followed the wrong orientation of discipline for the science.

In this case your arguments are without foundation and any way you try to organzise will fail. all done with a simple and small deviation. I am sorry if it hurts your felling, if you feel that all your work has been a waste, or if your career has been damaged. but it is a world science that you are working in and as in the past total studies and branches of science have had to be eliminated or reorganzised, you can exspect it to happen again in the future.
You can not take it personal the issue is not a divorce procceeding or child custody issue.

Plainly put the observations of space on which cosmology is currently in view of is not the physical world, galaxy or universe.


It becomes evident that a new page has to be written, but the page is not completely blank, many of the skills and studies that where gained in the current order of study of cosmology will carry over into the new order of issues, many of those prior stuides will help write the new page.


DwayneD.L.Rabon

 

[origin]

Well, brucep and paddyboy here is were you come to a point of failure, as you can not continue on it your concepts of cosmology when the base of observation has been changed. it is a simple fact that you have to begin again. its called trial and error.

it does not matter that groups of people have followed the wrong orientation of discipline for the science.

In this case your arguments are without foundation and any way you try to organzise will fail. all done with a simple and small deviation. I am sorry if it hurts your felling, if you feel that all your work has been a waste, or if your career has been damaged. but it is a world science that you are working in and as in the past total studies and branches of science have had to be eliminated or reorganzised, you can exspect it to happen again in the future.
You can not take it personal the issue is not a divorce procceeding or child custody issue.

Plainly put the observations of space on which cosmology is currently in view of is not the physical world, galaxy or universe.


It becomes evident that a new page has to be written, but the page is not completely blank, many of the skills and studies that where gained in the current order of study of cosmology will carry over into the new order of issues, many of those prior stuides will help write the new page.


DwayneD.L.Rabon

I could address each one of your comments and respond with, "WTF are you talking about" to each one?

But I think it is simpler to just respond to the entire post with: WTF are talking about?

 

[DwayneD.L.Rabon]

Well , in general Orgin I am talking about the disoreination of the studies involved in cosmology as a result of error in data or information made in the foundation of observation of space.

example the pictures that you see of the galaxies, the view of the appearnance of the milkyway galaxy, deep space and star groups observed in the milkyway galaxy are not a true physical plotted orientation. So current observation becomes a light show, or laser light show you see at a special theater. even so it does provide usable data.

I gave a simple formula in a pervious post to correct to some degree the error.



DwayneD.L.Rabon

 

[Aqueous Id]

Well , in general Orgin I am talking about the disoreination of the studies involved in cosmology as a result of error in data or information made in the foundation of observation of space.

What studies? Have you read about Hubble's work? Describe in your own words what he decided to do, how he did it, and what he discovered.

example the pictures that you see of the galaxies,

Any galaxy? There are several.

the view of the appearnance of the milkyway galaxy, deep space and star groups observed in the milkyway galaxy are not a true physical plotted orientation.

Nonsense. You have no idea what you are talking about. Name a galaxy, and every observatory in the world knows how to locate it.

So current observation becomes a light show, or laser light show you see at a special theater. even so it does provide usable data.

Are you taking meds? This is meaningless gibberish.

I gave a simple formula in a pervious post to correct to some degree the error.

First learn some basic science, then come back and tell the world how wonderful your math is.

 

[paddoboy]

But I think it is simpler to just respond to the entire post with: WTF are talking about?

Agreed.
There will though always be those that put pseudo quackery ideas, that in there mind, matches observations and reality better then the incumbent models.
We need to accept that and accept that forums such as this will always be the only outlet they ever have. For that alone, we need to be thankful.
For the lay people that do visit here, these cranks and there pseudo quackery take on life and the Universe, will be painfully obvious, and should always be refuted for the nonsensical crap that they so obviously are.
That's about all that can be done on a local forum scale.

 

[Walter L. Wagner]

Agreed.
There will though always be those that put pseudo quackery ideas, that in there mind, matches observations and reality better then the incumbent models.
We need to accept that and accept that forums such as this will always be the only outlet they ever have. For that alone, we need to be thankful.
For the lay people that do visit here, these cranks and there pseudo quackery take on life and the Universe, will be painfully obvious, and should always be refuted for the nonsensical crap that they so obviously are.
That's about all that can be done on a local forum scale.

You should have seen some of his posts from a few years ago. Compared to them, these almost make sense.

 

[danshawen]

The original poster of this thread reveals that he is misinformed and/or inconsistent on almost every single line item. There is no way to tell whether his information has come from reputable sources or not, and as far as that goes, precious few of the follow-up posters can claim superior cosmological knowledge either, based on current astrophysics or anything else.

This is one reason I'm so amused whenever someone here mentions words like "mainstream", or "standard" in the same sentence with cosmology.

Apart from the existence of something like the BB and stellar nucleosynthesis of lighter atoms and molecules, there's really no consensus on much of anything cosmological. This shouldn't really surprise anyone. We are smack in the middle of what will eventually be known as the cosmological dark ages. Little of anything is known. Less of that is certain.

When someone actually knows for certain and can prove that dark matter and / or dark energy exists, and why, that person can claim to know something about cosmology worth talking about.