A Critical Look at the Standard Cosmological Picture by Daryl Janzen

Daryl

"Rather, the paradox can be resolved, and the theory reconciled with true becoming, according to the description I've given in section 3 of my essay"

Not so, because your start point, although being that which is almost universally held, is wrong. Simultaneity as per Poincare, and repeated in section 1 1905 is incorrect, as to is its reification into a model of reality known as spacetime. And SR keeps being referred to as something which is different from what Einstein defined it as when he coined the phrase. As this keeps on coming up in many different blogs, I used my blog on my essay to post two explanations of all this (ie it could have been an alternative essay). They are my posts 11/7 19.33 & 13/7 11.24.

Paul

Edwin

Reality keeps re-occurring, differently, That's it. We can identify difference when we are able to compare (ie have more than one). One aspect of difference is the rate at which it occurred (ie irrespective of type). Timing calibrates those rates, ie of themselves. I think, after some extensive examination of the proverbial mulberry bush JCN agrees with this, and in effect probably always did, but expressed it in an ontologically faulty way, ie by not stating that this was a direct function of physical existence, and nothing to do with timing. That being a human measuring system.

Paul

For the record, ie in case it looks as if I have ignored Avtar, a copy of this was posted on my blog and I have responded to it.

Paul

Paul,

You've been doing this for a year or so, plenty of time for you to take a calculus class or two and learn something about continuity. Since you aren't interested in anything but the very simplest concepts--that most five year olds can comprehend--please do me the favor of not spamming my comments. I'm not the least interested.

Thanks,

Edwin Eugene Klingman

Edwin

Perhaps you could please explain, with evidence, how "continuity" occurs in physical reality, other than as a sequence, rather than the comment you did make.

I am also not aware that posting a comment on what somebody says is "spamming".

Paul

Good Afternoon Daryl Janzen,

This is an excellent presentation of scientific observations on red shift in spectrum from distance objects. In the context, it is suffice to say, the presumption that the cause of shift is at source and not billions of light years it takes the light to arrive at detector is inherent in mainstream thinking on the nature of this phenomenon.

In PicoPhysics, the explanation of this phenomenon is common with cosmic background radiation and dark matter. It has lot to do with space traversed by light from source to destination. Latest observations where-in mainstream physics has contemplated oscillating universe (Cyclic Model) is also relevant here.

PicoPhysics proposes a steady state model of universe and accounts for all these different set of observations by taking account of all factors namely

1. Path from source to destination

2. Relative speed of source and destination

3. Dark Energy present along the path of travel

4. Uneven directional matter density due to detector location in galaxy

We have started to unfold PicoPhysics to mainstream scientific community. The first effort is the essay on 5-dimensional universe.

May I invite you to review my essay at http://fqxi.org/community/forum/topic/1326

I look forward to your comments and rating of the essay.

Thanks & Best Regards,

Vijay Gupta

Daryl,

Your essay begins with:

''The discovery that the Universe is accelerating in its expansion has brought the basic concept of cosmic expansion into question.''

Well, I said ''see my essay'', because I wanted to avoid having to copy the arguments of my essay in your thread why the observed redshift of galaxies doesn't necessarily mean that the universe expands.

What's more, I reject the entire big bang hypothesis, not because of arguments like those of Fred Hoyle c.s., but for a much more fundamental reason: because big bang cosmology in the concept of cosmic time states that the universe lives in a time continuum not of its own making.

The idea that we, in our imagination, can look at the universe from without only holds in a universe where particles, particle properties only are the cause of interactions.

However, if we reject the idea that the universe has been created by some outside intervention, then ours must be a self-creating universe.

If in such universe particles have to create themselves, each other, then particles, particle properties must be as much the product as the source, the cause as the effect of their interactions, of forces between them.

In that case we are not allowed to regard the universe as an object we can, in principle, not in practice, inspect from without, so we simply cannot assert that it expands.

There is a much simpler explanation for the linearity between the redshift of galaxies and their distance.

In contrast to a big bang universe which lives in a time realm not of its own making, a self-creating universe contains and produces all time within, so here we see clocks showing an earlier time as they are more distant, which only is possible if they (are observed to) run slower as they are more distant.

Though you'll object by saying that we see clocks run slower because of the finite light speed, in a self-creating universe the speed of light isn't a velocity but refers to a property of spacetime, which, if you take the trouble to read my essay, is something else entirely.

Anton

All

"Well, I said ''see my essay'', because I wanted to avoid having to copy the arguments of my essay in your thread"

I do agree with the general point being made here. There are some very awkward exchanges taking place, as this becomes more like a beauty contest than a search for facts, and hopefully controversial ones. There is a difference between making a relevant point, but having to refer back for substantiation (or purely by implication referring back), and making an oblique point (or just saying 'well done') in order to market an alternative essay. Posts can only be short. And understandably, people would prefer a discussion which has direct relevance to something they have written to be on their blog, because it inherently looks as if there is interest in their essay.

I might also take the opportunity to express my opinion that I am unhappy rating other people's work, particularly since this has implications. By definition, if one can 'understand' what is being said then unless it tallies with what you have said......we are back to beauty contest, more than assessment by factual validity.

Paul

In my last post I meant to say:

A self-creating universe does NOT live in a time realm of its own making but contains and produces all time within, so here we see clocks showing an earlier time as they are more distant, which only is possible if they (are observed to) run slower as they are more distant, even if they are at rest with respect to the observer.

In such universe we need no mysterious dark energy to explain the observed linear relation between the redshift of galaxies and their distance.

As to the point Paul makes:

For reasons I have set out in my essay, I think big bang cosmology is a waste of time and taxpayer money, so I try to subvert any paper I can find on this subject in this year's essays, not to wage a beauty contest or to fish for readers for my own essay, but mainly to put an end to a completely outdated idea and clear the way for some real progress.

Though I certainly don't intend to offend people working in big bang cosmology or don't respect their good intentions and efforts, I want to break through the habit in this branch in physics which, based on a deeply flawed idea, keeps spawning other hypotheses which, based on the same misconception, necessarily are as flawed.

To me what happens in cosmology here, is comparable to an alien society where the belief that their own planet is at the center of the universe is a truth which under no circumstances is to be relinquished. As a result these alien cosmologists had to dream up an artificial, very complicated scheme which keeps that illusion intact but nevertheless is able to predict motions of stars and galaxies pretty good.

If observations are made which seem to contradict these hypotheses, then they either are in the process of being incorporated into a new hypothesis of processed into a variation of an already existing hypothesis, so what I want to do is break the taboo by showing a how things look like from a different vantage point, where no far-fetched hypotheses have to be thought up to explain observations.

Though in general I agree that physics shouldn't be a playground for philosophy but a domain for statements which can be experimentally tested; some philosophical insights can have a huge impact on physics if they concern the interpretations of observations, even if they aren't experimentally verifiable, like the question whether the speed of light refers to a velocity or to a property of spacetime.

Anton

Daryl,

Thanks for a delightfully well argued essay. I always appreciate work in which no attempt is made to hide assumptions, and everything falls into place precisely. For an alternative view in which no background space, coordinate system or cosmic rest frame applies (or can apply), I hope you get a chance to visit my essay site.

Congratulations and good luck,

Tom

Daryl

OK, but I am not sure why since these are important underpinning assumptions. Neither am I sure the extent to which your conception of SR correlates with what Einstein said it was, which was the point I raised. Simultaneity is timing, but I was not having a discussion about timing, JCN was, my point was about physical existence.

Paul

Daryl

''As Einstein noted [..] there appears to be a frame relative to which the bodies of our Universe are at rest, on average [..] Without such assumption nothing can be known about the redshift, of course. For it is true ... that a cosmic time must be assumed in order to calculate redshifts''

The introduction of such reference frame comes down to saying that the universe lives in a spacetime continuum not of its own making: to an imaginary observer outside the universe. This is no problem in classical mechanics which is based on the assumption that particles and particle properties only are the cause, the source of interactions and forces. However, if in a self-creating universe particles create themselves, each other, then particles and particle properties must be as much the product as the source of their interactions, of the force between them -in which case it is illegitimate to consider the universe as an object which has particular properties and is in some particular state as a whole. If by definition there's nothing outside a universe which creates itself out of nothing, without any outside intervention, nothing with respect to which it can have any particular property or be in some particular state, as a whole, then it cannot have such properties or be in such state.

In that case the entire concept of cosmic time, and hence the big bang idea is meaningless, so big bang cosmology describe a fictitious universe.

Though you reproach me for not really reading your essay, from your reactions on my posts, I gather that you haven't really read my essay (and posts) or don't really understand it (or don't want to as my findings invalidate yours?), which indeed is hard as it shows things from an entirely different perspective than big bang cosmology does.

Anton

Anton

There cannot be a proper cosmic time (as in timing) unless there is some physically existent phenomenon that always travels at the same speed, in the same direction,and is functionally perfect at 'recording' all the details of another physically existent phenomenon. That is, a perfect reference. Then, and only then, do we have a reference against which the timing of events can be properly inferred. And of course, this presumes we can then intercept it, without affect, and fully and accurately de-code it. Now, what we do have is a reasonable indication of the chronology of events.

Paul

Daryl

Thanks for that. It is not 'perfect' in the sense that I was trying to convey, which is that it would be capable of revealing every physical detail of a any physically existent state, point in time by point in time (ie is the perfect timing reference). Indeed that is probably impossible for any physical phenomenon to achieve, let alone us having to have brains the size of a planet to process the data! But that failure, in terms of sensory deection, does not mean that that is not what physically occurs, and this (CMB) is certainly, 'good enough' as a 'clock' for the purposes required. Which were the points I was trying to get across to Anton. All of which leads back to 'Big Bang' as a logical start point of physical existence, as it is knowable to us.

Paul

The main thrust of your paper is a distinction between the symmetries of spacetime, or its local transformation group SO(3,1) of Lorentz, and the symmetries of the spacetime solution. The synchronous basis is one where Killing vectors K_i, i = 1,2,3 obey the SO(3) group [K_i, K_j] = ε_{ijk}K_k. The distinction is then between the Lorentz group of spacetime that holds in local frames and the global symmetry of the spacetime manifold.

Cheers LC