Embedded Files
Summary: I argue here that cosmic expansion violates observed large-scale homogeneity.
By Vincent Sauvé
Contact: vsskeptica@gmail.com
The following conversation illustrates the problem of expansion with the observed homogeneity. I've included the simulation of the "cosmic web" graphic above which illustrates the homogeneity at very large scales. This is a usual scientific mainstream understanding.
NOTES: Expanding space (or rather spacetime) does not mean everything expands. In the expanding space (universe) idea gravity can easily over-power the supposed expansion. It would only manifest itself at scales between galaxy clusters on average in the interpretation. For example, galaxies in our local group are gravitationally bound together. The Andromeda galaxy's spectra shows a blueshift indicating that our galaxy and Andromeda are moving together. Such blueshifts or redshifts are real and do indicate relative motion. But, it is my view that we should not shut and forever lock the door to the idea that the cosmological redshift (the one that has been interpreted as caused by expanding space, or as an initial explosion-like event) is not in fact caused by some additional effect simply related to distance (by some as yet undetermined physical interaction). It is a fallacy of logic to assert that since we don't know what else could be the cause of something that it must be the first and only choice. For some other possible causes for the cosmological redshift see some of the links near the bottom of this webpage: https://sites.google.com/site/bigbangcosmythology/
This was our conversation on Quora. Date of last response thus far is September 6, 2019. Link:
https://www.quora.com/What-should-we-observe-if-the-universe-is-really-infinite-in-time-and-space-and-we-have-expansion-wrong-i-e-the-cosmological-redshift-is-really-only-a-distance-effect/answer/Leon-Sprenger?__filter__=&__nsrc__=2&__snid3__=5169579940&comment_id=108191191&comment_type=2What should we observe if the universe is really infinite in time and space, and we have expansion wrong, i.e., the cosmological redshift is really only a distance effect?
Leon Sprenger, Computer specialist, physics philosopher, problem solver.
Light travels at some finite speed and that means that we can look back into the history of the universe and see how the matter density evolved during the history of the universe.
That matter density has been decreasing from as far as we can look back. If there would be no expansion, then we should have seen a constant matter density.
I suggest stopping this second-guessing of the experts. This witch-hunt against red shift is futile. Red shift is not the only evidence for expansion. There are many independent evidences that all point in the same direction: the universe is expanding.
Leon, constant matter density on a large-scale average means homogeneity, which is observed. An expanding universe means observations in deep spacetime should show galaxy clusters closer to other galaxy clusters, which if that were observed would mean no large-scale homogeneity.
I have no witch-hunt against the redshift. There is the gravitational redshift, which I agree with, and there is the Doppler redshift, which I also agree with. In addition, there is the cosmological redshift which is interpreted as a Doppler effect corresponding with distance and an additional Doppler-like effect. That interpretation has problems which led Edwin Hubble to be unconvinced about the extra motion interpretation and for him his linear law of redshifts was for a stationary infinite universe, not an expanding one. What I'm saying is contrary to how it is taught in astronomy textbooks but if you read his writings like I have you will see that what I'm saying is true. See:
edwinhubble - Big Bang Cosmythology
Original Author · Thu
> An expanding universe means observations in deep spacetime should show galaxy clusters closer to other galaxy clusters, which if that were observed would mean no large-scale homogeneity.
That is what is observed. It is observed that galaxy clusters were closer to other galaxy clusters in the past. That does not mean that the universe was or is not homogenous. The universe has been homogenous on large scales at all times but the matter density is not constant over time. The homogenous matter density has been decreasing all the time as far as we can look back.
So you are saying, in effect, that homogeneity exists when deep spacetime is ignored.
To show you what I mean let's visualize a miniature 3d model in a big room. In the center is our local universe. In the local universe centered on us the average spacing between our rice-grained sized galaxy clusters is, we will say, 5 units of distance. With the unit of distance defined by us locally.
In the expanding model, far (in space and time) from our local universe, the average spacing of galaxy clusters to each other is 3 units of distance. But now, in that case, we do not have homogeneity over the large scale space and time.
Are you wanting to say that the unit for measuring distance is not a constant?
Original Author · Thu
Space-time cannot be deep. It can only have curvature. If I understand you correctly then what you call deep space-time is what I, and most other people, call the past.
In any case, I am only talking about space.
Matter is distributed homogeneous in space now and it has been distributed homogeneous in space 380000 years after the big bang and at any moment in between.
The only thing that changed over time is the matter density: it has been decreasing always.
There is observational evidence of that.
That is what is meant with the expansion of the universe.
Leon, there cannot be measures of space without measures of time. When I measure the space of something it takes time, i.e., at 3:00 pm I hook my tape measure to the end of the table, at 3:02 pm I note the number on my tape measure that matches up with the other end of the table. In this case we can see that it is a small table top by the short amount of time it took us to measure the space. Because causality is of a finite speed—the speed of light, there is always a time component even when extreme spacetime curvature results as viewed from our reference frame.
In reality, exactly the opposite holds good, ...it is not things that presuppose space and time, but space and time that presupposes things, for space or extension presupposes something that extends, and time, movement, for time is indeed only a concept derived from movement, presupposes something that moves. Everything is spatial and temporal....
In an infinite non-expanding model universe, spacetime (how matter moves) is locally curved by the local matter content, but those local effects nullify to zero at various places, such as their centers, and motions (such as an inertial freefall frame), and at distances much larger than those masses, and thus spacetime is flat and homogenous overall, just as observed.
Original Author · 17h ago
I see your words and try to understand what you are trying to say, and I cannot.
Distances are measured in meters and not in seconds.
A light-year means the distance light takes to move in a year. It is a measure of distance and time. All measures of space are measures of time too. That store that is a 15-minute drive from here is also a measure of distance with a certain normal average speed.
Look in a good dictionary like the OED and you will see that space and time are often used interchangeably.
Original Author · 9h ago
You are mixing up concepts.
The dimension of a lightyear is meters: The dimension of light speed is meters per second and the dimension of a year is seconds. If you multiply their dimensions you get the dimension of what is called a lightyear which is short for lightspeed-year which is m/s . s = m.
A distance measure in seconds (or minutes) is meaningless because it depends on the vehicle. A store that is 15 minutes away are typically car minutes. Pedestrian minutes are much higher and rocket minutes much lower.
The fact that space and time are used interchangeably in places has nothing to do with distance measurements. That is part of a theory and model of gravity. You are comparing apples to oranges.
My comments were only an attempt to address what I see as the incorrect approach in your post (the bold is my emphasis):
"Space-time cannot be deep. It can only have curvature. If I understand you correctly then what you call deep space-time is what I, and most other people, call the past.
In any case, I am only talking about space.
Matter is distributed homogeneous in space now and it has been distributed homogeneous in space 380000 years after the big bang and at any moment in between.
The only thing that changed over time is the matter density: it has been decreasing always.
There is observational evidence of that.
That is what is meant with the expansion of the universe."
Notice that you cannot logically refer to simply space, you also referred to time. Anytime there is change that is a reference to time. (Time is a concept that comes from observing motion.) That is why I said deep spacetime, and thus the homogeneity is not existing in an expanding model universe. You (and many in the field of cosmology) have been thinking in terms of frozen slices of time. At each slice of frozen “now” time there is homogeneity (*see note below). But my thinking is an integration of all such slices of “now” time over billions of years because when we look into deep (distant) space we are also looking deeply in time through innumerable slices of spacetime. That is why I say that expansion is a violation of the observed homogeneity.
Post conversation note: *Actually, true homogeneity in an expanding model wouldn't exist at anytime in the past. The expanding universe could not be isotropic either. One direction should show up as more concentrated than all the rest. The balloon analogy is no good because our real universe is not an expanding surface. This confidence that cosmologists/astronomers have in the homogenous expansion must spring from an undue reliance on what the mathematicians are conjuring.
Original Author · 2h ago
It is obvious to me why you see it as incorrect because you have made up your own understanding of how things work in the universe. An understanding that is not correct according to mainstream science and that makes your comments incorrect according to mainstream science.
Yes, that is right. I'm an independent thinker not subject to fashionable thinking. Growing up most my life as an atheist I realized that the majority can be wrong. It is a conceit that students of science think that their period of discovery is the first to be only about the science, where culture has little to no influence. In fact, even today, religious-cultural influence is not absent in the field of cosmology. See: bigbangreligion - Big Bang Cosmythology
Recapitulation and further implications:
- Homogeneity cannot just mean homogenous on a surface of a sphere that inflates like in the balloon analogy, because our universe, the real one, is not a surface of a sphere.
- Our real universe has width, height, and depth, or we find things along x, y, z coordinates. The farther those measures, the deeper in time, as light signals move at a finite velocity.
- If the universe is truely expanding, when we look at very distant structure of the spacing of galaxy groups we should see clusters closer to other clusters relative to such structures in our local universe (because we are looking back into time and space). If, that is what we see, than the universe is not displaying itself as homogenous at those scales.
- If the universe is truely homogeneous and isotropic than it cannot be expanding.
- The observed homogeneity and isotropy tells us that the universe has the large-scale geometry of a non-expanding universe. If it is not expanding than it must be infinite. If the universe were to be finite than gravity would cause the universe to collapse. Since there is zero evidence of cosmic collapse, infinity is the only way to avoid collapse, thus logically the universe is infinite.
- Infinity is the only model type where homogeneity and isotropy makes perfect sense.
Page updated
Google Sites
Report abuse