View Single Post
  #4  
Old December 13th 18, 06:10 PM posted to sci.astro
Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 76
Default gravity, Hubble, negative mass and Dr. Farnes

wrote:
Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn
wrote:
An isotropic Universe is defined as having each subdivision of its volume
containing equal amounts of every constituent endemic to that Universe. […]
No.


[not even wrong]


Learn English, study physics, get a newsreader, post physical/cosmological
theories in English.


I also said: “In *this* order.” You should have read my words and heeded them.

Sorry. This is my fault. It never occurred to me that I was being “murky”.
I was aware that my use of isotropic was clumsy.


It was _wrong_; see below.

According to the Standard Cosmological model at some early epoch there
was a phase transition between an energy dominated Universe and a matter
dominated Universe.


I would not call *that* a “phase transition”.

[Likewise, “isotropic” (Ancient Greek: “isos” + “tropikos”: “equal when
turning”) means “the same in every direction”. What you described is
meant by the word “homogeneous” (Ancient Greek: “homogenes”: “of the
same family/kind”) instead.]

Density differences, (that are imprinted on the CMB), are
then indications of seeds for matter structures.


Yes, correct.

My idea is that these density fluctuations are the result of random perturbations
in a previously homogenous Universe.


But on large scales our universe *is* assumed to be homogeneous (*and*
isotropic).

This assumption is based on the fact that, in all directions, we observe
less galaxies the farther we look, precisely as if our universe would be
homogeneous and the inverse square law for the intensity of electromagnetic
radiation, extinction, and the distance–redshift relationship would apply
(which so far have only been confirmed).

So my idea was to begin my monologue prior to the development of these density differences.

It was also my intention that the growth of Matter structures and the growth of
the Voids are concurrent.


While voids *are* growing, "matter structures" *in general* do NOT, because
galaxies on "short" distances and objects in galaxies are gravitationally bound.

For example, the Milky Way and the Andromeda Galaxy (M 31), two galaxies of
the Local Group, are going to merge in ca. 2 × 10⁹ years as they are moving
towards each other.

Gravitational binding is the reason why the Hubble relation only holds for
greater distances (outside the Local Group; and then only using *general*
relativity).

(Standard models accept only gravitational collapse.)


Simply untrue. The current standard model of cosmology (ΛCDM) *predicts* a
universe whose expansion is accelerating, because that is precisely what has
been observed in 1998 (the Nobel Prize in Physics 2011 was awarded for the
discovery) [1].

But that expansion is not affecting the formation of moons, planets, stars,
galaxies, and galaxy clusters, for the reason given above.

[1] https://www.nobelprize.org/prizes/physics/2011/summary/

That each is dependent upon the other for perpetuating
the overall structure we see today.


This statement is almost vacuous. But if interpreted in your favor,
precisely this connection *is* made by ΛCDM.

That is the low density Voids and the high density filaments.


So what?

It is known that expanding space time metrics will push Matter.


No, that is only your misconception.

[ex falso quodlibet]


--
PointedEars

Twitter: @PointedEars2
Please do not cc me. / Bitte keine Kopien per E-Mail.