Questions on the big bang expanding universe.

[Native]

Next, distances in the far cosmos are best determined either by expansion factor (known as z) or by the optical effects (dimming, angular size, etc). it is the relation between the different methods that leads to the conclusion of accelerated expansion and hence of dark energy. Refraction is relevant to dark matter, not dark energy.

Just think of it in the "light" of "Big Bang": From where should a secondary increasing force from the beginning of a Big Bangs come from?

This considering should immediatly end all speculations of some dark energy and admit that something is seriously wrong with the distance measuring methods, most probably the idea of light as a constant itself as this is slown down everywhere in the real world.

 

[Miken]

The "refraction bending and slowing down light" happens all over in the observable Universe and it probably confuses the convensus cosmological scientists to conclude wrong distances measurements in cosmos, hence the idea of "dark energy".

The vast majority of the universe is vacuum. To get refraction you need a transparent material medium, one loaded with electrons. Sorry, your idea does not work.

 

[Native]

Irrelevant. it is the differences in density that determine refraction, not the density itself. And, given the fact that the lensing happens close to galaxies, it isn't a cumulative thing over 13.8 billion light years, but an aspect of galactic clusters.

We know that light from the Sun can be refracted in the Earth´s gaseous atmosphere and show diffferent figures in the Sky, including a bright luminous circle - apropos the scientifical PhotoShopped ring of a "black hole".

Occams Razor state this refraction to be the same case everwhere in cosmos, thus fooling theoretical mathematical scientists to think this natural phenomenon has something to do with "gravitational lensing".

E&M allows two types of polarization while gravity allows for four.

Interesting! I never heard gravity should contain four polarities? Explain away please.

 

[Native]

The vast majority of the universe is vacuum. To get refraction you need a transparent material medium, one loaded with electrons. Sorry, your idea does not work.

Sorry your understanding of cosmos doesn´t work There is no such thing as a vacuum in the real Universe. It is more or less denced by gaseous molecules and metallic particles all over the places.

 

[gnostic]

Sorry your understanding of cosmos doesn´t work There is no such thing as a vacuum in the real Universe. It is more or less denced by gaseous molecules and metallic particles all over the places.

If that was true, you wouldn’t see much outside of the Milky Way through unfiltered optical telescopes, let alone see more of the rest of the universe.

 

[Polymath257]

We know that light from the Sun can be refracted in the Earth´s gaseous atmosphere and show diffferent figures in the Sky, including a bright luminous circle - apropos the scientifical PhotoShopped ring of a "black hole".

Yes, and the density of matter in intergalactic space is far, far less than what we have in our atmosphere.

Occams Razor state this refraction to be the same case everwhere in cosmos, thus fooling theoretical mathematical scientists to think this natural phenomenon has something to do with "gravitational lensing".

No, it does not say that when the phenomena are easily distinguished.

We understand refraction quite well and can tell when we are seeing it versus gravitational effects.

Interesting! I never heard gravity should contain four polarities? Explain away please.

Why? Go and look it up yourself. There are no gravitational dipoles. The first multipole for gravity is quadrupole.

 

[Polymath257]

Sorry your understanding of cosmos doesn´t work There is no such thing as a vacuum in the real Universe. It is more or less denced by gaseous molecules and metallic particles all over the places.

Not to nearly the extent required for the effects you are seeing.

If matter was as dense as you require, we would not be able to see even other stars because of the dimming effects, let alone other galaxies.

Yes, interstellar space gas gas in it. About one *atom of hydrogen per cubic meter*. Whether you want to call that a vacuum is up to you, but it is far less dense than anything we can produce on Earth. Our atmosphere has quintillions of atoms per cubic meter, for comparison.

As for 'metallic particles', the effects of such would be very obvious. There *is* dust and gas in space, but hardly the amounts you seem to think there are. Metals, in particular, would make it so that we could not see very far at all.

 

[viole]

I would like to learn what others believe the big bang universe is expanding into? I only want to talk with those who are prepared to explain their own understanding directly, not second parties, and I don't intend to read articles by others that may be posted or linked to on this thread. .Thank you for your understanding.

Something does not need to be embedded into something else to make sense. Our mind cannot conceive something like a sphere without a space containing it, for instance. We always visualise a sphere, or a ball, within a three dimensional space containing it. As much as we try, we have problems to imagine a sphere without a surrounding space, even though it is very easy if we use math only.

But this is only because of our imperfect mind, which is limited by being the product of naturalistic processes geared for survival in a 3-dimensional environment containing things. If we were two dimensional beings evolved to have a natural intuition for two dimensional space, then we would have probably no problem to imagine that.

So, the Universe is not expanding into anything. There is not a spacetime context in which it lives, since it is itself the spacetime context. It would be like saying: what contains the three dimensional space we observe? Or: where did the Universe start?

Ciao

- viole

 

[Native]

The first multipole for gravity is quadrupole.

Oh, now I get it. You just should have linked me to the page of Gravitational Quadrupole which states that: "The mass quadrupole is analogous to the electric charge quadrupole".

You see? E&M can easily replace "gravity".

(And you said earlier that E&M only had dipoles)?

 

[Subduction Zone]

Of course I rejected the premis as a BB is just a human invention "backed up" by a huge amount of hindsigt bias addings.

That is not the case. It is a theory that made predictions. The theory was tested using those predictions and found to be correct. You are now describing what Christians and Muslims do when they try to claim that there is "science" in their holy books.

One important aspect of any scientific theory is that it has to be falsifiable. It needs to make predictions that can refute it. You have heard of the Cosmic Background Radiation. That was predicted long before it was detected. It was a lucky accident when it was first observed and the people that observed it won the Nobel Prize in Physics for it. Not because they came up with it, but for the fact that when they saw it they recognized it for what it was.

 

[Polymath257]

Oh, now I get it. You just should have linked me to the page of Gravitational Quadrupole which states that: "The mass quadrupole is analogous to the electric charge quadrupole".

You see? E&M can easily replace "gravity".

No, that is not a replacement: it is an *analogy*.

(And you said earlier that E&M only had dipoles)?

No, I did not say that. I said that gravity has no dipoles.

 

[Native]

That is not the case. It is a theory that made predictions. The theory was tested using those predictions and found to be correct. You are now describing what Christians and Muslims do when they try to claim that there is "science" in their holy books.

One important aspect of any scientific theory is that it has to be falsifiable. It needs to make predictions that can refute it. You have heard of the Cosmic Background Radiation. That was predicted long before it was detected. It was a lucky accident when it was first observed and the people that observed it won the Nobel Prize in Physics for it. Not because they came up with it, but for the fact that when they saw it they recognized it for what it was.

You can get back on these issues when you can explain causally how a "Big Bang" came to be. Until then, I still take it all to be simple speculations and hindsight bias assumptions.

 

[Native]

Native said: ↑
Oh, now I get it. You just should have linked me to the page of Gravitational Quadrupole which states that: "The mass quadrupole is analogous to the electric charge quadrupole".

No, that is not a replacement: it is an *analogy*.

"Analogy" definition: A comparison between one thing and another, typically for the purpose of explanation or clarification".

And you don´t wonder at all that a "gravitational mass quadrupole" is similar to "the electric charged quadrupole"? Apparently it hurts you too much to make the logical connection and conclusion.

No, I did not say that. I said that gravity has no dipoles.

OK, my mistake, sorry :-(

 

[Polymath257]

And you don´t wonder at all that a "gravitational mass quadrupole" is similar to "the electric charged quadrupole"? Apparently it hurts you too much to make the logical connection and conclusion.

Sure: both gravity and E&M can have waves. But, for example, so can sound. Those are three very different types of waves. But they are analogous because they are waves.

So, sound is a pressure wave, it is longitudinal, and moves fairly slowly. Light is a transverse vector wave of electric and magnetic fields, and moves at the speed of light. Gravity waves are tensor waves of spacetime curvature and move at the speed of light.

There are analogies between these, but they are very different types of phenomena.

 

[Native]

Light is a transverse vector wave of electric and magnetic fields, and moves at the speed of light. Gravity waves are tensor waves of spacetime curvature and move at the speed of light.

Ups, yet another E&M "analogy"

How can any gravitational mass or object propagate waves at the speed of light?

 

[Polymath257]

Ups, yet another E&M "analogy"

How can any gravitational mass or object propagate waves at the speed of light?

The waves move at that speed, not the objects.

 

[Native]

The waves move at that speed, not the objects.

Still, WHAT causes the waves to move at the speed of light?

 

[Polymath257]

Still, WHAT causes the waves to move at the speed of light?

The speed of light is the same in all reference frames. So we expect that waves associated with massless particles will move at that speed.

 

[Native]

The speed of light is the same in all reference frames. So we expect that waves associated with massless particles will move at that speed.

We were discussing WAVES and not particles.

Again: Still, WHAT causes the waves to move at the speed of light?

 

[Aupmanyav]

That is the problem with people who may not have studied science and close their eyes for it because of their unscientific religious beliefs. They will consider wave and particle as two things when discussing physics.