The Infinite Cosmic Lattice

Discussions ranging from space technology, near-earth and solar system missions, to efforts to understand the large-scale structure of the cosmos.

Re: The Infinite Cosmic Lattice

Postby sponge on October 20th, 2012, 4:17 pm 

I love all this! As an idiot with my nosed pressed against the window of cosmology I’ve always been a little in awe of you Big Guys who understand all that stuff.

Now I find you’re theorizing about possibilities that seem to fit the observations and suddenly it all seems a little shakier – more like my territory over in metaphysics!

It’s quite a comfort, in a strangely anarchistic way, to realize that you don’t have everything all sewn up. Who knows, our worlds might collide even yet.
sponge
Member
 
Posts: 833
Joined: 17 Mar 2012


Re: The Infinite Cosmic Lattice

Postby Dave_Oblad on October 20th, 2012, 7:20 pm 

Hi all,

Actually my favorite line from above was:
Jorrie wrote:Dark matter clumps together, ducks don't.

Never heard of a flock of ducks? (ok, I'm just being silly.. sorry)

For Gregorygregg1,

You asked earlier: "What is the Universe expanding into? Itself?"
If one thinks of the Void as empty, then none of this thread makes any sense. How can one stretch nothing or add nothing and still see expansion (more)? But Space-Time isn't nothing.. it's Existence. So in all these ideas we are adding more Existence or stretching Existence.

Beyond this fabric of Existence is Non-Existence. The Universe is encroaching into the domain of Non-Existence and re-defining itself (perhaps larger by the moment). I'm sorry, but that's the best I can do to answer your question. Maybe this will help:

As a programmer, I may build a 3D game. It will use a numerical scale or co-ordinate system to keep/organize all the 3D objects I might place into it. Buildings, Streets etc. So I build a 3D city within this domain. Rat's.. I just realized my initial numerical scale was too small. I only allowed 64,000 integer points to express the XYZ positions of all my objects. But I wanted a bigger city.. so I can add more buildings etc. So I simply increase my world scale to have 128,000 XYZ points instead. Now ask yourself.. Since I have added/doubled my number of reference points, to fit more buildings, what have I expanded this City into? That's your answer.

That's the closest analogy I think your going to find and I hope it helps.

Oh.. Jorrie, sorry.. my programming skill set is weak in those areas you mentioned. I mostly do Machine Language and some "C" or "VB" for PC's. However, the latter two are fine for complex formula solving but, unlike the two mentioned, are platform dependent, namely Windows PC.

Best wishes all,
Dave :^)
User avatar
Dave_Oblad
Resident Member
 
Posts: 3218
Joined: 08 Sep 2010
Location: Tucson, Arizona
Blog: View Blog (2)


Re: The Infinite Cosmic Lattice

Postby BurtJordaan on October 21st, 2012, 3:05 am 

Gregorygregg1 wrote:Emptiness eating emptiness to make more . Hey, leave those red cubes alone! ...Damn ducks.


Yes, the perhaps not so empty emptiness :)
Scientists are slowly developing techniques and engineers the tools to probe this 'empty' domain.

One may ask: to do what with? Maybe what's there will one day save our bacon, e.g. cleaner energy, means of escape in case of Armageddon, etc...
--
Regards
Jorrie
User avatar
BurtJordaan
Forum Moderator
 
Posts: 2854
Joined: 17 Oct 2009
Location: South Africa
Blog: View Blog (9)


Re: The Infinite Cosmic Lattice

Postby BurtJordaan on October 21st, 2012, 3:17 am 

sponge wrote:It’s quite a comfort, in a strangely anarchistic way, to realize that you don’t have everything all sewn up. Who knows, our worlds might collide even yet.


Hi sponge, yes the possibility of an 'expanding sponge' one day colliding with the 'expanding lattice' is not ruled out.

Jokes aside, an expanding sponge, where just the open spaces, not the material stuff itself, expand is quite a good cosmic analogy as well. More difficult to work with, but feasible.
--
Regards
Jorrie
User avatar
BurtJordaan
Forum Moderator
 
Posts: 2854
Joined: 17 Oct 2009
Location: South Africa
Blog: View Blog (9)


Re: The Infinite Cosmic Lattice

Postby BurtJordaan on October 21st, 2012, 3:35 am 

Dave_Oblad wrote:Beyond this fabric of Existence is Non-Existence. The Universe is encroaching into the domain of Non-Existence and re-defining itself (perhaps larger by the moment).


In modern parlance this could perhaps read "Beyond this fabric of Existence is the 'bulk'. Our fabric of Existence is emerging out of the bulk, more and more by the moment." The bulk could be in another dimension, or it may perhaps just be what's outside of the cosmic event horizon at any time.

This idea may cause a big diversion from the simple lattice tuition objective of this thread, so maybe another thread is required. Problem is, it's still new and raw and I don't understand much of it. Maybe we can speculate on it in the less formal "Alternative..." thread?
--
Regards
Jorrie
User avatar
BurtJordaan
Forum Moderator
 
Posts: 2854
Joined: 17 Oct 2009
Location: South Africa
Blog: View Blog (9)


Re: The Infinite Cosmic Lattice

Postby vivian maxine on November 20th, 2016, 12:55 pm 

A very, very late post:
Marshall wrote:I wonder what will happen with this new stuff, here now in SCF AstroCosmo forum. I'd hate to see pedagogical stuff of this caliber go to waste. I expect it will not however--something will turn up. We'll see what happens.


Well, not a 'something' but a 'someone' turned up. I'm so glad the thread stayed around. Wonderful instruction. Thank you. Viv
vivian maxine
Resident Member
 
Posts: 2746
Joined: 01 Aug 2014


Re: The Infinite Cosmic Lattice

Postby BurtJordaan on November 23rd, 2016, 12:52 am 

vivian maxine » 20 Nov 2016, 18:55 wrote:Well, not a 'something' but a 'someone' turned up. I'm so glad the thread stayed around. Wonderful instruction. Thank you. Viv

Thanks Viv.

I use the balloon analogy and lattice analogy interchangeably, depending on the cosmological problem that I'm thinking about. For example, when I have to explain what curved spacetime means in flat space, the balloon is not very instructive, because its surface is spatially curved. In the lattice, one can easily visualize in your mind a distortion of the lattice that can imitate curved space of any sign (positive, flat or negative).

Take the case of flat space, but the lattice uniformly expands uniformly over time, so that it remains undistorted. Light rays that start out parallel will diverge away from each other. If the lattice contracts over time, the same light rays would converge and eventually cross, potentially multiple times. Both represent curved spacetime in flat space.

=J
User avatar
BurtJordaan
Forum Moderator
 
Posts: 2854
Joined: 17 Oct 2009
Location: South Africa
Blog: View Blog (9)


Re: The Infinite Cosmic Lattice

Postby Dave_Oblad on November 23rd, 2016, 4:12 am 

Hi all,

Also, the Balloon analogy poses a difficult concept for some that don't realize that the curved surface is flat when your only observation is that information travels on the surface in pseudo straight lines. Telling them that the real surface could be 4 Dimensional and you can have 3 directions to travel (X,Y,Z) without going inside/outside the Balloon is very hard to grasp. To go inside the Expanding Balloon, you simply have to point your finger at Yesterday and go in that direction.. lol. Also, I prefer to think of the balloon as a solid growing ball, new Space-Time being painted on the surface, rather than just a hollow empty shell. Also, being a solid Ball makes some aspects of QM more palatable.

Regards,
Dave :^)
User avatar
Dave_Oblad
Resident Member
 
Posts: 3218
Joined: 08 Sep 2010
Location: Tucson, Arizona
Blog: View Blog (2)


Re: The Infinite Cosmic Lattice

Postby BurtJordaan on November 23rd, 2016, 4:42 am 

Also, the balloon analogy sprouts "marginally false" concepts like the one that Dave_O just posted:
To go inside the Expanding Balloon, you simply have to point your finger at Yesterday and go in that direction.. lol.

Yea, lol... ;)

In a proper interpretation of the balloon analogy, you are then pointing into another (fictitious) space dimension, not into time. Time is a non-fictitious dimension that are at right angles (orthogonal) to all 3 of the space dimensions present in the balloon analogy. This is not possible to visualize for most people, but that's how one should talk about it; otherwise you are getting a confusing mixture of space and time to deal with.

Part of the reason is that while time runs uniformly in the standard model, the balloon's expansion rate is not - it is continuously changing, from very high in the beginning, to a minimum at about half the present age and is presently speeding up again.
User avatar
BurtJordaan
Forum Moderator
 
Posts: 2854
Joined: 17 Oct 2009
Location: South Africa
Blog: View Blog (9)
dandelion liked this post


Re: The Infinite Cosmic Lattice

Postby vivian maxine on November 23rd, 2016, 10:43 am 

BurtJordaan wrote:This is not possible to visualize for most people, but that's how one should talk about it; otherwise you are getting a confusing mixture of space and time to deal with.


Truer words were never spoken. When you get into space and time and curved space and time, it's a whole new ball game. Let's try this. Are space and time expanding and contracting? I could see that with space but not with time. My mind is taking that farther but I'll let it rest there for now.
vivian maxine
Resident Member
 
Posts: 2746
Joined: 01 Aug 2014


Re: The Infinite Cosmic Lattice

Postby BurtJordaan on November 23rd, 2016, 1:51 pm 

vivian maxine » 23 Nov 2016, 16:43 wrote:Are space and time expanding and contracting? I could see that with space but not with time.

It depends on what part of space you are looking at. A hand-waving explanation might go something like this: If you are far from massive objects and you look into the depths of space, you will notice that space is expanding and that time runs pretty much uniformly everywhere on the grand scale. Zoom in on a very massive object and you will notice that both space and time are contracting the nearer the object you look. At least that is what you will observe from a distance.

The difficult part is that if you would head to a location near that massive object and then look around in your vicinity, space and time will appear normal. Look some distance away from that vantage point near the object, and you will notice that both space and time are expanding the farther you look. If the massive object happens to be a black hole and you look to a position nearer to it, you will notice that both space and time are contracted. Look into the depths of space and again space will appear to expand, but time runs the same everywhere. Confusing? Yea, it is, but read on.

Now this sounds much like Brian Greene's popularizations! In more scientific terms, one will have to specify very carefully and exactly what you are observing, how you would observe it and what coordinate system you are using for the observations. Preferably you must specify it accurately in mathematical form, with clear definitions of every parameter used. Most scientific write-ups assume that you are familiar with the topic under discussion and leave out many of the definitions, but not the math.

This is probably why proper scientific explanations are boring to read and difficult to comprehend, if you are not in the field. Hence, all these popularizations that are sometimes as confusing, but at least they are mostly fun to read...
User avatar
BurtJordaan
Forum Moderator
 
Posts: 2854
Joined: 17 Oct 2009
Location: South Africa
Blog: View Blog (9)
vivian maxine liked this post


Re: The Infinite Cosmic Lattice

Postby vivian maxine on November 23rd, 2016, 2:05 pm 

Your last paragraph says it all. Thank you. My first reaction is "back to "Eureka" (E. A. Poe). That expanding and contracting sounds much like his ending of the universe prediction - except, of course, that is not what you are saying. I do understand the difference. It is just a fast reaction that I have.

So, it depends on where I stand and what I am looking at. Don't we have similar perceptions right here on the planet re something close and something far away? What it makes me ask is: "How much of this is real?". "Is it possible that neither expansion nor contraction are happening?" Are those dumb questions? No doubt I'm still missing something? Like I am standing still while I observe these contradictory movements.

To be continued. Thanks again.
vivian maxine
Resident Member
 
Posts: 2746
Joined: 01 Aug 2014


Re: The Infinite Cosmic Lattice

Postby Dave_Oblad on November 24th, 2016, 6:15 am 

Hi Jorrie,

Jorrie wrote:Part of the reason is that while time runs uniformly in the standard model, the balloon's expansion rate is not - it is continuously changing, from very high in the beginning, to a minimum at about half the present age and is presently speeding up again.

So.. in the beginning the Universe has no Matter and expands real fast. It cools off and Matter appears, pretty much a homogeneous mix and the Expansion rate slows dramatically everywhere. Then time passes and the Matter clumps together by Gravity. Now the Voids are becoming barren of stray Matter.. so the Voids begin to return to their original rapid expansion and Clumpy areas of Matter (Galaxies) are even more restricted expansion wise.

So who needs Dark Energy?

Note: This is also why they Paste Galaxies on the Balloon rather than Paint them on ;^P

Regards,
Dave :^)
User avatar
Dave_Oblad
Resident Member
 
Posts: 3218
Joined: 08 Sep 2010
Location: Tucson, Arizona
Blog: View Blog (2)


Re: The Infinite Cosmic Lattice

Postby Scott Mayers on November 24th, 2016, 7:10 am 

I'm too late to this thread to go into depth without investing the time to see what was covered already. I disagree with the Standard model for certain reasons I'll contribute to later.

Burt, I find your explanation in the first post fine to the model but can't speak to the rest without more time to pay attention to the details. But I just wanted to note something about the way you spoke of the mathematical description on Humble's constant where you said of the formulation of expansion in example as "one meter per year per km distance".

The use of language on division is fuzzy when it uses, "per". Acceleration is often spoken as "x meters per second per second" to mean x m/s² . But depending on use, it could mean (x m/s)/s which is simplified as "x meters" where the second division mathematically means the same as (m/s)*s. I tried to think of a better way to suggest something better and can't quite do so other than to spell it out in algebraic terms directly.

I believe the confusion actually lies in the nature of one of the variables that are of the same KIND to appear as though they need to be algebraically combined when that might be an error. The actual kind of measure that Hubble used was to treat distinct (instantaneous) velocities of galaxies at those distances and so is a comparison of the object's velocity AT given distances. Mathematically one could thus actually treat the final "per km distance" as a multiple OR a divisor depending on context on what one is trying to emphasize. As such, I'd recommend using the velocity/distance way to argue this at first. Then show how this is used to express the quantity of expansion rate. Hubble's use of Ho is in terms of the slope of velocity/distance and so would be of the reduced form (1/s) and so that 'per' comes from

dist/(time x dist) measure. It is the slope constant used to show how the velocities are directly proportional to the distance to those objects. So it hides that the distance in the numerator is an INSTANTANEOUS part of time as it approaches to zero. As such, technically, all terms cancel out. The velocity is a derivative itself and the slope that the constant represents then is a double derivative.

I hope this might help. I just know that when we use the words, they tend to be more ambiguous. I recommend using an explanation using a velocity per distance way and then LATER show how you can derive the actual expansion factor. The 'unit' of 1/s is often considered "frequency" and its opposite as "period". These might only confuse others in understanding your mention of the time factor "TH" [which looks like a 'period' without clarity to what that actually means]
Scott Mayers
Member
 
Posts: 343
Joined: 04 Aug 2015


Re: The Infinite Cosmic Lattice

Postby BurtJordaan on November 24th, 2016, 10:37 am 

Dave_Oblad » 24 Nov 2016, 12:15 wrote:So.. in the beginning the Universe has no Matter and expands real fast. It cools off and Matter appears, pretty much a homogeneous mix and the Expansion rate slows dramatically everywhere. Then time passes and the Matter clumps together by Gravity. Now the Voids are becoming barren of stray Matter.. so the Voids begin to return to their original rapid expansion and Clumpy areas of Matter (Galaxies) are even more restricted expansion wise.

This a little over-simplified and will surely lead to false impressions. The 'voids' are not barren of matter, they just contain somewhat less mass density, while the clusters contain more mass density than the average large scale density. So matter do tend to flow generally from the centers of the voids towards the higher densities in the "walls", but studies have shown this effect be orders of magnitudes too small to mimic the accelerated expansion that we observe.

So, sorry, we still need dark energy, which is likely to be no more than the cosmological constant (Lambda). This constant is as fundamental to Einstein's GR as the gravitational constant (Newton's original 'G'). Just like in the case of 'G', we can presently only determine its value by observation. Until (and if) we find a quantum theory of gravity that gives its value from first principles, we are stuck with what we see.
User avatar
BurtJordaan
Forum Moderator
 
Posts: 2854
Joined: 17 Oct 2009
Location: South Africa
Blog: View Blog (9)


Re: The Infinite Cosmic Lattice

Postby BurtJordaan on November 24th, 2016, 11:09 am 

Scott Mayers » 24 Nov 2016, 13:10 wrote:I hope this might help. I just know that when we use the words, they tend to be more ambiguous. I recommend using an explanation using a velocity per distance way and then LATER show how you can derive the actual expansion factor. The 'unit' of 1/s is often considered "frequency" and its opposite as "period". These might only confuse others in understanding your mention of the time factor "TH" [which looks like a 'period' without clarity to what that actually means]


Thanks Scott, but I'm not sure that what you wrote will make it any clearer. I will however look at my description again. Just take note that the Hubble Constant is not an acceleration. It actually has the base unit of "per time" (like frequency), because the two distance variables cancel out in it units (save for an arbitrary constant, depending on the distance units used). And TH is defined as Hubble Time, which is the inverse of the Hubble constant by definition.
User avatar
BurtJordaan
Forum Moderator
 
Posts: 2854
Joined: 17 Oct 2009
Location: South Africa
Blog: View Blog (9)


Re: The Infinite Cosmic Lattice

Postby Scott Mayers on November 24th, 2016, 11:25 am 

BurtJordaan » November 24th, 2016, 10:09 am wrote:
Scott Mayers » 24 Nov 2016, 13:10 wrote:I hope this might help. I just know that when we use the words, they tend to be more ambiguous. I recommend using an explanation using a velocity per distance way and then LATER show how you can derive the actual expansion factor. The 'unit' of 1/s is often considered "frequency" and its opposite as "period". These might only confuse others in understanding your mention of the time factor "TH" [which looks like a 'period' without clarity to what that actually means]


Thanks Scott, but I'm not sure that what you wrote will make it any clearer. I will however look at my description again. Just take note that the Hubble Constant is not an acceleration. It actually has the base unit of "per time" (like frequency), because the two distance variables cancel out in it units (save for an arbitrary constant, depending on the distance units used). And TH is defined as Hubble Time, which is the inverse of the Hubble constant by definition.

Yes, I understood that Hubble's constant was like the "frequency" (cycles/time or '1/s') version and the "period" is the inverse. I was just cautioning that these are accidental and can be misleading because the actual measures are NOT frequencies nor periods in the 'apparent' sense when you cancel terms. This is because the numerator distances are NOT of even the same 'kind' of distance meaning. "Velocity" (at a point) is like a what IF kind of distance could one travel in some second because it IS indistinguishable from 'acceleration'.

I DO have a paradox to present with respect to the expansion that points out the problem but will leave that for another thread. (I need to use illustrations on it) I don't want to disrupt your purpose of demonstration of the standard model you made here. But I understand your point until we discuss it elsewhere.
Scott Mayers
Member
 
Posts: 343
Joined: 04 Aug 2015


Re: The Infinite Cosmic Lattice

Postby BurtJordaan on November 24th, 2016, 12:10 pm 

Scott Mayers » 24 Nov 2016, 17:25 wrote:This is because the numerator distances are NOT of even the same 'kind' of distance meaning. "Velocity" (at a point) is like a what IF kind of distance could one travel in some second because it IS indistinguishable from 'acceleration'.

The Hubble constant has nothing to do with acceleration, so how does this fit into the argument? I do not see how this prior statement is even mathematically valid.:
"But depending on use, it could mean (x m/s)/s which is simplified as "x meters" where the second division mathematically means the same as (m/s)*s." ???
User avatar
BurtJordaan
Forum Moderator
 
Posts: 2854
Joined: 17 Oct 2009
Location: South Africa
Blog: View Blog (9)


Re: The Infinite Cosmic Lattice

Postby Scott Mayers on November 25th, 2016, 2:17 am 

BurtJordaan » November 24th, 2016, 11:10 am wrote:
Scott Mayers » 24 Nov 2016, 17:25 wrote:This is because the numerator distances are NOT of even the same 'kind' of distance meaning. "Velocity" (at a point) is like a what IF kind of distance could one travel in some second because it IS indistinguishable from 'acceleration'.

The Hubble constant has nothing to do with acceleration, so how does this fit into the argument? I do not see how this prior statement is even mathematically valid.:
"But depending on use, it could mean (x m/s)/s which is simplified as "x meters" where the second division mathematically means the same as (m/s)*s." ???

Like I said, there is a paradox because it IS an acceleration via perspective that is indistinguishable from it being space itself growing in a constant linear rate. I will be presenting this at some point in the future here. What it will show is that if it isn't an acceleration, then the Big Bang interpretation of a singularity is contradictory.

Yes, I made an error on the point. It should be in units of m/(s/s). I was contrasting it with (m/s)/s and how the language does not permit us to know where the brackets are when using just "m per s per x".
Scott Mayers
Member
 
Posts: 343
Joined: 04 Aug 2015


Re: The Infinite Cosmic Lattice

Postby BurtJordaan on November 25th, 2016, 3:16 am 

Scott Mayers » 25 Nov 2016, 08:17 wrote:Like I said, there is a paradox because it IS an acceleration via perspective that is indistinguishable from it being space itself growing in a constant linear rate.

Growing at a constant linear rate is not quite what is meant by acceleration in cosmological terms. It you meant a Hubble "constant" that is really constant over time, then I might agree with you. The present Hubble value H(t) is declining over cosmological time. But if H was constant in the early universe, or will become a constant in the future, it represents exponentially growing space, which is what is meant by acceleration of the expansion of space.
User avatar
BurtJordaan
Forum Moderator
 
Posts: 2854
Joined: 17 Oct 2009
Location: South Africa
Blog: View Blog (9)


Re: The Infinite Cosmic Lattice

Postby Scott Mayers on November 25th, 2016, 3:38 am 

BurtJordaan » November 25th, 2016, 2:16 am wrote:
Scott Mayers » 25 Nov 2016, 08:17 wrote:Like I said, there is a paradox because it IS an acceleration via perspective that is indistinguishable from it being space itself growing in a constant linear rate.

Growing at a constant linear rate is not quite what is meant by acceleration in cosmological terms. It you meant a Hubble "constant" that is really constant over time, then I might agree with you. The present Hubble value H(t) is declining over cosmological time. But if H was constant in the early universe, or will become a constant in the future, it represents exponentially growing space, which is what is meant by acceleration of the expansion of space.

You'll have to see what I mean and you'll follow (and maybe be able to see something I missed?) I'll try to get a thread on this just for that one paradox I see.
Scott Mayers
Member
 
Posts: 343
Joined: 04 Aug 2015


Re: The Infinite Cosmic Lattice

Postby BurtJordaan on November 25th, 2016, 3:44 am 

Cool, just click Astronomy & Cosmology above and then New Topic. ;)
User avatar
BurtJordaan
Forum Moderator
 
Posts: 2854
Joined: 17 Oct 2009
Location: South Africa
Blog: View Blog (9)


Re: The Infinite Cosmic Lattice

Postby Andrex on December 2nd, 2016, 4:46 pm 

BurtJordaan, I just love your description/explication of the universe by its simplicity.

But I see a problem if your "cubes" are "particles" (matter) since particle have mass and mass "deforms" space-time.
On the other hand, if I consider this picture as representing the universe BEFORE mass appeared, we then get a "flat" universe which, like you say, seems to be flat since the beginning.

So let us stick to your cubes being particles, but let's say "massless" particles. You said in your first post:
"An observer somewhere near any red cube (say at the viewpoint in the diagram) will get the impression that she is at the center of a large expanding system of cubes,…”

Permit, then, your observer to grab one of the cubes and prevent it from moving further away from him (or her). He (or she) will then provoke a distortion in the "flat" geometry of your expanding universe. That portion disturbed will present itself like a “deformation of the geometry” of your universe; and that is exactly what produces the consequence called: gravitation.

This could be added to all that the pictures explains.
Andrex
Member
 
Posts: 641
Joined: 25 Jun 2015


Re: The Infinite Cosmic Lattice

Postby BurtJordaan on December 3rd, 2016, 1:47 am 

Andrex » 02 Dec 2016, 22:46 wrote:BurtJordaan, I just love your description/explication of the universe by its simplicity.

But I see a problem if your "cubes" are "particles" (matter) since particle have mass and mass "deforms" space-time.

Thanks for the 'accolades' and suggestions :) The LCDM modeled has large scale homogeneity and is isotropic, with smallish perturbations on the small scale, but we use average mass (ordinary and dark). In the numerical modeling, we first use an average mass as it if is spread homogeneously. But we still need the non-expanding cubes/blobs as galaxy clusters so that we can visualize distance changes with expansion. Since the fictitious lattice is 'infinite', one can view on a scale that dwarfs the in-homogeneity and just find all galaxies following Hubble's law for every location.

On the other hand, if I consider this picture as representing the universe BEFORE mass appeared, we then get a "flat" universe which, like you say, seems to be flat since the beginning.


Since the lattice models LCDM from after inflation, all the radiation, matter particles, ordinary and dark, are already there. The spatial flatness that cosmologists refer to ignores the minor bumps caused by the slight in-homogeneity - it simply asks whether on the large scale, triangles' interior angles add up to pi; if yes, it means spatially flat; more than pi and space is positively curved; less than pi and space is negatively curved.

Permit, then, your observer to grab one of the cubes and prevent it from moving further away from him (or her). He (or she) will then provoke a distortion in the "flat" geometry of your expanding universe. That portion disturbed will present itself like a “deformation of the geometry” of your universe; and that is exactly what produces the consequence called: gravitation.

It is the classical 'tethered galaxy' scenario as described by Tamara Davis et al.

On the scales considered, it makes no difference to the LCDM model, but locally, the 'grab' does. Davis discusses this in fair detail.
User avatar
BurtJordaan
Forum Moderator
 
Posts: 2854
Joined: 17 Oct 2009
Location: South Africa
Blog: View Blog (9)


Re: The Infinite Cosmic Lattice

Postby Dave_Oblad on December 3rd, 2016, 5:19 am 

Hi Jorrie,

Jorrie wrote:it simply asks whether on the large scale, triangles' interior angles add up to pi

Did you mean 180' rather than pi? (or am I missing something?)

Best Regards,
Dave :^)
User avatar
Dave_Oblad
Resident Member
 
Posts: 3218
Joined: 08 Sep 2010
Location: Tucson, Arizona
Blog: View Blog (2)


Re: The Infinite Cosmic Lattice

Postby BurtJordaan on December 3rd, 2016, 8:01 am 

Hi Dave, I meant pi radians ;)
User avatar
BurtJordaan
Forum Moderator
 
Posts: 2854
Joined: 17 Oct 2009
Location: South Africa
Blog: View Blog (9)


Re: The Infinite Cosmic Lattice

Postby Andrex on December 3rd, 2016, 10:38 am 

On the scales considered, it makes no difference to the LCDM model, but locally, the 'grab' does. Davis discusses this in fair detail


I was talking of considering your picture as being a universe composed exclusively of massless” particles (before inflation). But your remark brings up a personal big problem to my mind; and I’m going to take the risk of mentioning it. Hoping that you can solve it before getting upset. :-)

Being obliged to exclusively consider SCDM, OCDM and now LCDM, all of them accepting the existence of dark matter, which is pure speculation, seems to me like going in a fight with one arm tied in my back; or even worse: blindfolded (and since I'm not a Kung Fu master...).

As a “neophyte” I wonder what was the general view in astrophysics before most of researchers accepted an idea imagined by a “hardcase” scientist of the 1930’s, idea that was rebuked by the scientists of his time. The reason of refusing the idea was that in science (at the time), scientists based their opinion on “facts” proven to exist; not on imagined stipulations disguised as “facts”, whatever the reason behind it.

For example; the universe being “flat” is, today, practically proven as a “fact”. Dark matter and Dark energy are still “imaginary” stipulations.

So let’s review a bit:

Those stipulations (dark matter and dark energy) are needed because, we consider our universe being entirely “matter” (E=Mc2); when, in fact, we cannot observe more than 5% of “matter” in that universe. The exact “fact” is that our universe is 100% space-time, which 5% of it, is occupied by “matter”. This is THE “fact”.

Another “fact” is that our universe is “flat”; and, in result of our latest discoveries, it was BORN “flat”.

We know that our universe (space-time) manifests energy (since it is dynamic). We also know that the total energy in our universe, never changed since the beginning; it was only gradually “diluted” by expansion. These are also “facts”.

Our latest discoveries seems to indicate that the 5% of matter (in fact mass-energy) actually in the universe, wasn’t there when the universe was born. And, still, it was born “flat”.
So what is that imaginary problem of “critical mass” based on? Universe was born “flat” and there’s no more questions about it. It is a “fact”. It was “flat” simply because there was no “mass energy” involved at the time. It is a simple “fact” that cannot be refused.

Let us look at that famous dark matter:

a) Jan Oort, in 1932, was studying stellar motions in the local galactic neighborhood and found that the mass in the galactic plane must be greater than what was observed, but this measurement was later determined to be erroneous.

b) In 1933, Swiss astrophysicist Fritz Zwicky, who studied galactic clusters, applied the virial theorem to the Coma galaxy cluster and obtained evidence of unseen mass that he called dunkle Materie 'dark matter'. That virial theorem can be obtained directly from Lagrange's Identity as applied in classical gravitational dynamics (1772). Which means that the results of Zwicky was based on Newton’s gravitation and not on GR.

c) Vera Rubin and Kent Ford in the 1960s–1970s provided further strong evidence (sic), also using galaxy rotation curves. An influential paper presented Rubin's results in 1980. Rubin found that most galaxies must contain about six times as much dark as visible mass; so, by around 1980 the apparent need for dark matter was widely recognized as a major unsolved problem in astronomy (funny way to present a "solution"; we must agree).

But what was causing the problem exactly?
It is pretty simple to answer that question:

The problem was caused by the fact that stars where moving too fast on their orbit in regard of their distances to the center of the galaxy. So the “error” was attributed to the stars and not to the interpretation of scientists regarding their observation. Stars where wrong to go so fast; even though GR stipulates that the orbit of an object is exclusively decided by its speed.
But this “fact” observed, was not submitting itself to scientists interpretations based on Newton’s law of the inversely proportional to the square of the distance between masses. Furthermore, most of the stars orbiting around the center of a galaxy, have practically the same speed, even though they are scattered in a large corridor around that center. Two "facts" that are not "bothered" at all by GR, but are "wrong" by Newton's law.

What I feel is that the easiest solution was to adopt Zwicky’s elucubration and that’s what was done. Scientists started to search reasons to accept that elucubration instead of revising and verify their accepted opinions.

And it seems to me that the “liberty” of using those kind of “easy imaginary solutions” is getting stronger.

I really hope I’m wrong; for if not, science credibility is at stake; and that would be catastrophic.

Sorry for being "off subject". :-(
Andrex
Member
 
Posts: 641
Joined: 25 Jun 2015


Re: The Infinite Cosmic Lattice

Postby Dave_Oblad on December 3rd, 2016, 5:09 pm 

Hi all,

Andrex:

I have to wonder if the problem is that Science still perceives Matter as being independent of Space? If we see Space as having variable Scale for a foundation then Matter in that Space would also have variable Scale to match.

In essence this means the distance around a Black Hole is far shorter than the straight line distance through a Black Hole. This is the only way one can reconcile that the Speed of Light is always (c) Locally.

By comparison, the distance around the perimeter of a Galaxy is far shorter than the Distance around half that perimeters Diameter inside the Galaxy. So the Stars on the perimeter are going far slower than the stars further inside.. but the distance around is much shorter for the Stars on the outside perimeter.

So rather than invent "Dark Matter" to explain this, Science needs to accept that the Planck Length has variable (reduced) Scale within a Gravity Field, which in my estimation, is what a Gravity Field actually is: Variable Planck Scale. This (I believe) is what is causing a Mathematical Singularity when one tries to place a 1000 solar masses inside a Black Hole.

One can't reconcile the Electron Orbitals in such a compressed state unless one accepts the Scale is equally compressed.. at which time Black Holes are just very large Stars with normal Physics operating on a foundation of reduced Scale. I think this is what Curved Space is all about. It's not an issue of actually being bent (curved) but an issue of being a Variable Planck Length (vacuum/foundation Density).

Why does the light bend passing though a Glass lens? It a property of distance through the glass. Same applies to a Gravitational Lens. The center of such is a greater distance than near the edges of such.

So, IMHO, Science should Blow Off Dark Matter and accept Variable Scale as a solution to all its issues. Don't think of a Vacuum as being Warped or Curved.. just Variable Scale with no sharp edges.

In Jorrie's Model, the bars are equally spaced in "Flat Space" and non-linearly spaced about (as) a Gravity Field.

Regards,
Dave :^)
User avatar
Dave_Oblad
Resident Member
 
Posts: 3218
Joined: 08 Sep 2010
Location: Tucson, Arizona
Blog: View Blog (2)


Re: The Infinite Cosmic Lattice

Postby Andrex on December 3rd, 2016, 6:59 pm 

The universe is "flat" except where you have "volumes" of "warp or curved" because of the variable scales (decreasing metric) from its edge to its center of gravity. All we have to accept is the simple fact that "gravity" is not a universal "force" (it's not even a "force") but a located volume of space-time with deformed "geometry" cause by the "action" of mass-energy on its center of gravity.
What else can deform space-time than a disturbance in its geometry; I ask you.
Andrex
Member
 
Posts: 641
Joined: 25 Jun 2015


Re: The Infinite Cosmic Lattice

Postby Dave_Oblad on December 4th, 2016, 2:47 am 

Thanks Jorrie,

Not being formally trained, I had to look up Radians. Now I get it.

Hi Andrex,

Exactly. When Matter is accelerated, the Electron Orbital Diameter (for Scale reference) is reduced at the front of said Matter and stretched at the rear. This is the same whether Matter is being Pushed or Pulled. It tends to clump at the front. This Non-linear Geometry is Matter under Acceleration.

So if one exposes Matter to a Foundation with the same Non-linear Geometry, Matter must adopt the same Geometry as Acceleration Geometry. Thus Matter Accelerates in a Gravity Field. This adopted Geometry is not instantaneous. It takes some Time to reconfigure to changes that allow it to exist. If you exceed the ability to adopt a new Geometry Time-wise, the Matter will shatter. Ie: Boosting a Bowling Ball to 50% (c) in a micro second. This is the basis of Inertia (resistance to velocity change).

So why are Black Holes Black? A giant Star in a Gravity/Distance Well would have Gravitational Red Shift of emitted light. We might be able to see a small Black Hole with an Infra-Red Telescope, especially if it is not surrounded by dust or debris that absorbs the heat and diffuses the image. I have high hopes for the Webb Telescope for this reason. Larger Black Holes may red-shift emitted light down to Sonic wave-lengths, making them (pretty much) invisible.

If all this is true, what does that mean for Event Horizons?

Regards,
Dave :^)
User avatar
Dave_Oblad
Resident Member
 
Posts: 3218
Joined: 08 Sep 2010
Location: Tucson, Arizona
Blog: View Blog (2)


PreviousNext

Return to Astronomy & Cosmology

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Google [Bot] and 3 guests