1. Forum
  2. Usenet
  3. SCI.ASTRO

  • Cosmologists : Expanding Space between Nonexpanding Galaxies

    From Pentcho Valev@21:1/5 to All on Wed Aug 24 03:17:41 2022
    Sabine Hossenfelder: "The solution of general relativity that describes the expanding universe is a solution on average; it is good only on very large distances. But the solutions that describe galaxies are different - and just don't expand. It's not
    that galaxies expand unnoticeably, they just don't. The full solution, then, is both stitched together: Expanding space between non-expanding galaxies...It is only somewhere beyond the scales of galaxy clusters that expansion takes over." http://
    backreaction.blogspot.bg/2017/08/you-dont-expand-just-because-universe.html

    So cosmologists apply the expansion solutions only to voids deprived of galaxies; to galaxies and galactic clusters they apply nonexpansion solutions. Why do cosmologists resort to this trick? Because, if they applied expansion solutions to galaxies and
    galactic clusters, observations would immediately disprove the expansion theory. Here is why:

    If expansion is actual inside galaxies and galactic clusters, the competition between expansion and gravitational attraction would distort those cosmic structures - e.g. fringes only weakly bound by gravity would succumb to expansion and fly away. And
    the theory, if it takes into account the intragalactic expansion, will have to predict the distortions.

    But no distortions are observed - there is really no expansion inside galaxies and galactic clusters. And cosmologists, without much publicity, have simply made the theory consistent with this fact.

    Since there is no expansion inside galaxies and galactic clusters, perhaps there is no expansion anywhere? "Expanding space between non-expanding galaxies" sounds awkward, doesn't it?

    See more here: https://twitter.com/pentcho_valev

    Pentcho Valev

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Pentcho Valev@21:1/5 to All on Wed Aug 24 09:27:38 2022
    "Indeed, Wilczek began his lecture by speaking of the profound analogy between materials and vacuum. What our naked senses perceive as empty space turns out to be a riotous environment of virtual particles fluorescing and dying away on extremely small
    scales of space and time, as well as fog-like fields and condensates, which permeate all space and dictate the properties of elementary particles. To give an analogy for this perplexing new picture of reality, Wilczek asks us to imagine intelligent fish
    in a world surrounded by water. Such creatures would perceive the water surrounding them as their version of empty space or a vacuum. "The big idea I want to convey is simply this: We're like those fish," he said. What our senses perceive as empty space
    is better understood as a substance, a material." https://asunow.asu.edu/20170208-finding-nothing-conversation-frank-wilczek

    Paul Davies: "This leads to the prediction of vacuum friction: The quantum vacuum can act in a manner reminiscent of a viscous fluid." http://philpapers.org/rec/DAVQVN

    So photons gradually slow down as they travel through space, an effect caused by vacuum friction:

    "Some physicists, however, suggest that there might be one other cosmic factor that could influence the speed of light: quantum vacuum fluctuation. This theory holds that so-called empty spaces in the Universe aren't actually empty - they're teeming with
    particles that are just constantly changing from existent to non-existent states. Quantum fluctuations, therefore, could slow down the speed of light." https://www.sciencealert.com/how-much-do-we-really-know-about-the-speed-of-light

    For not so distant stars slow speed of light is manifested as cosmological (Hubble) redshift; beyond a certain distance the star light does not reach us at all (Olbers' paradox).

    More here: https://twitter.com/pentcho_valev

    Pentcho Valev

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Lou@21:1/5 to Pentcho Valev on Fri Aug 26 02:03:43 2022
    On Wednesday, 24 August 2022 at 11:17:42 UTC+1, Pentcho Valev wrote:
    Sabine Hossenfelder: "The solution of general relativity that describes the expanding universe is a solution on average; it is good only on very large distances. But the solutions that describe galaxies are different - and just don't expand. It's not
    that galaxies expand unnoticeably, they just don't. The full solution, then, is both stitched together: Expanding space between non-expanding galaxies...It is only somewhere beyond the scales of galaxy clusters that expansion takes over." http://
    backreaction.blogspot.bg/2017/08/you-dont-expand-just-because-universe.html

    So cosmologists apply the expansion solutions only to voids deprived of galaxies; to galaxies and galactic clusters they apply nonexpansion solutions. Why do cosmologists resort to this trick? Because, if they applied expansion solutions to galaxies
    and galactic clusters, observations would immediately disprove the expansion theory. Here is why:

    If expansion is actual inside galaxies and galactic clusters, the competition between expansion and gravitational attraction would distort those cosmic structures - e.g. fringes only weakly bound by gravity would succumb to expansion and fly away. And
    the theory, if it takes into account the intragalactic expansion, will have to predict the distortions.

    But no distortions are observed - there is really no expansion inside galaxies and galactic clusters. And cosmologists, without much publicity, have simply made the theory consistent with this fact.

    Since there is no expansion inside galaxies and galactic clusters, perhaps there is no expansion anywhere? "Expanding space between non-expanding galaxies" sounds awkward, doesn't it?

    See more here: https://twitter.com/pentcho_valev

    Pentcho Valev

    Interesting to read the contortions of logic the Big Bangers go through to prove that
    the latest JWST images of far too many galaxies that are far too old for
    the Big Bang theory to explain let alone predict...are saying that actually this new
    JWST evidence confirms the nonsense predictions of the BBT!!:
    The ‘Big Think’, an online so called science publication, says this about anyone who
    dares point out the BBT predictions and model have failed to match the JWST data:

    “However, the claim that "this disproves the Big Bang" isn't being made scientifically, but rather by a crackpot attempting to prop up his long-discredited ideas”
    (Big Think aug/2022)

    Hmmm. Basically what these crackpot editors are saying is: Anyone who uses evidence from JWST that contradicts the BBT to criticise the theory and point out
    it has failed (again)....isn’t being scientific!😂😂

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Pentcho Valev@21:1/5 to All on Fri Apr 14 14:00:11 2023
    If the universe were expanding, the competition between expansion and gravitational attraction would distort cosmic structures (galaxies and galactic clusters) - e.g. fringes only weakly bound by gravity would succumb to expansion and fly away. No
    distortions are observed, and in a world different from Einstein's schizophrenic world this would mean an unequivocal refutation of the expansion theory. In Einstein's schizophrenic world, any answer to questions equivalent to "Why are there no
    distortions?" is acceptable. For instance, here an intellect says "Electromagnetic forces is the answer":

    https://youtu.be/M6S2kyS2VT4?t=87

    Neil deGrasse Tyson clumsily adds "Even the solar system is not expanding", and this is incompatible with "Electromagnetic forces is the answer", but there is no reaction. The problem is solved.

    The famous Dr. Becky has also found a simple and straightforward explanation. Gravity is stronger than expansion, Dr. Becky teaches, and that's it. Problem solved (let's move on):

    https://youtu.be/IEtPy0o8i0M?t=348

    So the lack of distortions should not worry cosmologists, no criticism is coming from anywhere, and yet they behave as if the danger is serious. Cosmologists apply the expansion theory only to gravity-free space. Theoretical descriptions of galaxies and
    galactic clusters presuppose no expansion:

    Sabine Hossenfelder: "The solution of general relativity that describes the expanding universe is a solution on average; it is good only on very large distances. But the solutions that describe galaxies are different - and just don't expand. It's not
    that galaxies expand unnoticeably, they just don't. The full solution, then, is both stitched together: Expanding space between non-expanding galaxies...It is only somewhere beyond the scales of galaxy clusters that expansion takes over." https://www.
    forbes.com/sites/startswithabang/2017/07/28/most-things-dont-actually-expand-in-an-expanding-universe/

    "Space DOES NOT Expand Everywhere...Is the space inside, say, a galaxy growing but overcome by the gravitational attraction between the stars? The answer is no. Space within any gravitationally bound system is unaffected by the surrounding expansion."
    https://youtu.be/bUHZ2k9DYHY?t=356

    The reason behind the hoax is simple. If theoretical descriptions of galaxies and galactic clusters presupposed expansion, then the competition between expansion and gravitational attraction would have to be analysed quantitatively. And the analysis
    would not conclude "No distortions anywhere inside galaxies and galactic clusters". And the expansion theory would be unequivocally refuted.

    Pentcho Valev https://twitter.com/pentcho_valev

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Pentcho Valev@21:1/5 to All on Sat Apr 15 12:58:51 2023
    "The universe is expanding, and that expansion stretches light traveling through space in a phenomenon known as cosmological redshift." https://www.nasa.gov/feature/goddard/2019/nasa-s-webb-to-explore-galaxies-from-cosmic-dawn-to-present-day

    "As light travels towards us from the distant galaxies, it is stretched over time by the ever expanding space it is travelling through. The longer it travels, the more the wavelengths are increased (reddened)." https://www.wwu.edu/astro101/a101_hubble_
    redshift.shtml

    "Expansion stretches light" is one of the most preposterous cause-effect explanations in the history of science. Why should the expansion of the universe stretch the wavelength of light while failing to stretch anything else? And how can stretching occur
    if part of space is expanding and the other part is not expanding? Light is stretched as it travels in the space between galactic clusters, then stretching stops as the light enters a cluster, then stretching continues as the light leaves the cluster,
    etc?

    The statement that light is stretched by space expansion, just like Big Brother's 2+2=5, is so preposterous that no rational criticism is possible. The reaction can only be hysterical ("But this is idiotic, don't you see?") and then the critic becomes
    crank, crackpot, troll, etc.

    George Orwell: "In the end the Party would announce that two and two made five, and you would have to believe it. It was inevitable that they should make that claim sooner or later: the logic of their position demanded it. Not merely the validity of
    experience, but the very existence of external reality, was tacitly denied by their philosophy. The heresy of heresies was common sense. And what was terrifying was not that they would kill you for thinking otherwise, but that they might be right. For,
    after all, how do we know that two and two make four? Or that the force of gravity works? Or that the past is unchangeable? If both the past and the external world exist only in the mind, and if the mind itself is controllable what then?"

    Pentcho Valev https://twitter.com/pentcho_valev

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)