Re: Farmers in orbit

Thus spake Oz <Oz@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Oh No <notI@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> writes
Thus spake Oz <Oz@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>

This is not very surprising since it hasn't been constant since the BB.

I don't think so. In a universe devoid of dark matter and dark energy
gravity will slow expansion down.

Only if there is enough ordinary matter. That again is an important
result. With half the rate of expansion there is enough ordinary matter

to slow expansion down and let the universe contract again.

So the hubble expansion has NOT been constant since the BB.

Certainly not. The Hubble constant is only called a constant because it

varies so slowly that we can regard it as constant in our era. We don't

need to worry changes in the value of Hubble here, as we are working on

very short cosmological timescales.

Meanwhile I have a lot on my mind, like affidavits for court and trying

to get son from Urumqi in West China to Shanghai, where he is booked on

to a TEFL diploma course. Probably last chance to see that he does not
become a permanent layabout. Impossible to book flights on the
internet,
and he did not sort it out in time at his end as I told him to.

Oh, bugger .....

I thought his mother might have helped, but actually of course she
blackmailed me into giving her more than the cost of the flight.
Meantime second wife is claiming new husband is now out of work and I
should provide housing for him and his kids as well as my own (he
already has substantial house and farm) thereby putting me and other
son
into poverty. I don't think she can get away with that, but it is aggro

to say the least.

Jill, you probably know. Is Kevin really out of work?

Within bound systems big-bang redshift is not seen because we do not
exist within a uniform universe and have been mutually interacting via
the vastly stronger force of gravity for some ten billion years,
destroying traces of expansion characteristics.

I think it is not seen because in the standard model it is locally
exactly equivalent to Doppler shift. In expanding coordinates bound
systems accelerate inward at a rate which exactly cancels expansion.

An artefact of the co-ordinate system no doubt. I also note that your
co-ordinate system is shrinking...

shrinking, expanding, it's all relative and depends which way you look
at it.

Not really. Given, for example, that a H atom should be the same
everywhere and the transition should be the same everywhere and you can
only play about with rescaling dimensionless constants or you will alter
physical laws this certainly isn't true.

Yeah, all right. I concede that an expanding universe (with constant
size for H atom) is equivalent to a shrinking coordinate system, with
constant size for universe, and shrinking H atoms.

A blue shift means you are either approaching OR their clock is running
faster OR your clock is running slower OR you are a crank.

Take your pick....

There is a shift in clock speeds as you move around a Schwarzschild
geometry anyway. There is also a non-linear relationship between
quantum
time and cosmic time in a homogeneous universe. Now we want to look at
how that gets altered in the vicinity of Schwarzschild, a problem into
which hitherto I have had little insight.

Now, when in speculative mood I like to see the universe as a
contracting black hole.

JB once rejected one of my posts for drawing that analogy. I thought it

gave some insight, but he can be a pedantic bugger and it cannot be
made
precise in any way.

This is nice because the *observable* universe
ought to mass precisely the critical mass for a black hole of this size.

I think not.

Now, from my position of infinite ignorance, I like to see spacetime
contracting within a black hole in the time direction (which is really
the r-direction as seen from 'outside'). Now, if your method is right
photons from far away are further away in time and thus less compressed
and so look like a longer wavelength and thus redder. One can of course
have endless hours speculating along these lines....

Yes. What one needs is to find a way to work this mathematically. I
have
started a new thread on spr "Exercises in Expansion", which I hope will

produce some answers.

Modeling is tricky even in standard gtr. You will see I have asked a
question on spr, to which I expect no answers. MTW spend a page trying
to explain how meaningless it is to ask where the expansion takes place

in gtr.

Of course, expansion happens everywhere, but most models are 'rather
approximate'.

But my model starts to give answers to that question. The
expansion has to be everywhere, but is such that it appears as an
artefact of a coordinate system within bound systems which do not
expand
relative to themselves.

I'm pretty happy with that, but there is a philosophical problem as I
said before. Everything in the observable universe is to some extend
bound. We are bound to the earth, which is in orbit around the sun, in
orbit around the galaxy, in orbit around the loacl group, in orbit
around the great attractor and bigger than that who knows?

What's more interesting is that except for ourselves, all are following
geodesics and so are following an unbound=unaccelerated path.

Hence some clear thinking is required....

At first one sees as though through a glass derkely. Then one looks for

a better glass manufacturer.

I thought that's what you had done originally, thus producing a
different interpretation to expansion rate and distance. Slower
expansion and a much older universe. Which is grand, of course.

Yes. That is what I have done originally. Now I have started to think
that this original argument has implications for the motion of Pioneer.

Yes, its newtonian....

Yes. It's Newtonian in static Schwarzschild coords. But when one looks
from the view of quantum coords, the universe is constant size and
Schwarzschild shrinks, as does the H atom.


For ranging, doppler isn't important. A pulse (to simplify) is sent on a
round trip and the elapsed time to return is measured and hence the
distance measured.

Get yourself clear on this.

Also note that for a reflection there IS an interaction with a moving
body since the reflected beam has a different frequency to the
transmitted beam.

Yes, but not in the reference frame of the moving body.

Relativity rules, OK?

It gets so much harder to think about when you do a ranging measurement

on a body which is moving with the cosmic fluid. I must get a different

result from standard gtr for a classical Doppler measurement in this
instance. Then I am getting an illusory acceleration for Pioneer from
classical Doppler measurements, as well as quantum measurements (which
we actually don't do). This illusory acceleration only applies to
radial
motions, not orbital motions. But note that neither the Milky way nor
distant galaxies are in orbit about Sol, so I do expect illusory
MONDian
motions for the Milky and for distant galaxies, but not for the solar
system.

This is because the photon (in effect) popped out of (part of) our
universe for 24 hours (as it travelled to earth) and so lost 24 hours of
expansion (although it presumably did see 25 light hours of spatial
expansion).

It should be subjected to 24 hours expansion.

Ok, and arrive back here redshifted, not blueshifted.

As it does. The blueshift just means the redshift is an eensy bit less
than expected.

Strange that it is precisely the hubble expansion parameter then...
Er, but the WRONG SIGN....

Yes indeed. This has to do with the weird quantum stretching of
coordinates and that Hubble expansion is half that anticipated in the
standard model. Hubble expansion would give an outward acceleration, so

half that appears as an inward acceleration of half the magnitude. Then

it gets stretched.



Viking data determines the difference
between the Mars and Earth orbital radii to about a 100
m accuracy, and their sum to an accuracy of about 150
m. The Pioneer effect is not seen."

Ok so in my book that is conclusive that the pioneer effect is one of
misinterpreted measurement due currently incomplete theory.

Its NOT REAL.

Which is good, IMHO.

This may be so, and indeed many physicists take the view that Pioneer
is
probably just a modelling problem. But I don't think so. I think
Anderson and the JPL guys did a pretty thorough analysis, and
eliminated
the possibilities. Also, the further out Pioneer goes, the less fast it

is going as compared to the standard model with twice Hubble expansion.

So there is definitely an inward acceleration compared to standard.

Not necessary.

Hmmm... did they include standard hubble in their analysis?

I think that in standard gtr they did not have to, because in standard
gtr Hubble is exactly the same as Doppler recession velocity in a local

frame. IOW in the standard model it is all taken care of in coordinate
transformations and gives you exactly the same result whether or not
you
include hubble.

If they did (and I don't think they did) then if hubble is half what
they used, then they will see a blue shift....

So IOW they did include Hubble, but not explicitly. Only by default
because it makes no difference to calculation. That is no longer true
with the teleconnection.

Still needing examination is the doppler shift data for the milky way
galaxy. You seem to suggest some evidence for corrections to newton
although to me this seems still unformed and preliminary.

That is, do the average to newton when you apply francis-modian
correction?

Very close I would say, given the accuracy of data, which is not great.

Is it close, or not? This is important data.

I think close, bearing in mind that we only have theoretical models for

mass distribution in the Milky way. A damn sight closer than either
MOND
or Newton can manage.

If the milky way turns out to be correctable to newton then its definite
that the correction is one of theory and thus 'not real'.

Which is where we came in ....

Unfortunately, even if I can show consistency for the Hipparcos
Pleiades
distance, I do not think one measurement in the Milky Way will be
regarded conclusive. When Gaia has been up a few years, then we will
have some useful data.

I thought there was now a huge bunch of data for the 'closer stars' in
the milky way.

Apart from parallax measurements, which only go so far, we can only
deduce distances for open clusters like the Pleiades and the Hyades, by

assuming that all the stars in the open cluster are moving at the same
velocity (as observed, to within 1km/s). Mostly open clusters are
beyond
parallax measurements, but Hipparcos got parallax measurements of a few

nearer ones. Depending on where the cluster is in the sky, I don't
necessarily expect an inconsistency, and any inconsistency in Hyades
seems pretty small. But there is a definite inconsistency in Pleiades
(and I think two or three others). Now they say they think Hipparcos
screwed up, but they don't know how or why. The result, Pleiades 10%
closer than thought, ties in roughly with other adjustments I think are

necessary. Much analysis to be done.



Regards

--
Charles Francis
substitute charles for NotI to email

.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Another Hurdle for LeSagian Theory
    ... Measurements are taken and are related to a theory/belief. ... universe except that from cosmological observations. ... gravitational response in bias to expansion. ... But we still see it (the true reality) every day and convolute it into ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: Hubble Redshift is the expansion of time
    ... Wouldn't it also be possible to determine the expansion rate based on ... Hubble redshift is clear empirical evidence: ... We have to accept that Hubble redshift is clear empirical evidence ...
    (sci.physics)
  • Re: Is the speed of light really constant ?
    ... if Hubble was considered on the one hand to be so right ... >> the greater the distance of the galaxy, ... > The acceleration in the news these days is different. ... > that the rate of expansion is not constant, ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: How fast is the universe expanding?
    ... any effect of the expansion of the universe is much smaller than you ...  On the galactic scale, ... except for distances commensurate with the Hubble radius. ... and a typical Solar System distance is 10^m, ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: Expansion is wrong and its soooo freakin obvious
    ... Say that you're at point A, and you're friend is at point b ... and distance is measured in Mpc. ... c, due to the expansion of space, you will have traveled a little less ... Did you even look at the link I posted, this is not what the hubble ...
    (sci.physics)