View Single Post
  #6  
Old December 14th 18, 02:55 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:
Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn


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


Your opinion! Citations showing otherwise please.


Well, then *actually* *cite* evidence for your claims for a change.

[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.]


I am aware of what isotropic and homogeneous mean. The standard cosmological
model uses that assumption.


Yes, but not only.

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


Otherwise the FLRW metric would not be valid within that standard model.


Correct.

This assumption is based on the fact that, in all directions, we observe
less galaxies the farther we look,


That is just wrong.


No, it is not.

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).


I have no argument with that.


Then your statement above, “that is just wrong” is inconsistent with your
opinion here.

Because that we *see* (observe) less galaxies the farther we look is a
direct consequence of the mentioned relationships. Do you even know what
the words mean?

You’ve only introduced that to rebut an idea I didn’t state.


Incorrect. You stated:

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


The wording “*previously* homogenous” [sic; emphasis mine] implies that you
have the idea that our universe *has been* _homogeneous_ but no longer is.
Observation shows that this idea is wrong.

The FLRW metric assumes a uniform density in an expanding Universe.


Uniform *energy* density, yes.

The model is a dust model. It predates the discovery of large
scale structure. (Voids and Filaments) Noting that the Universe is isotropic and
homogeneous only on large scales is a “fix” that reinforces the original dust model
idea.


Complete and utter nonsense. Why do you make up stuff and pretend that it
is true?

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.


Mattter structures grow by gravitational collapse of existing matter.


Complete nonsense. Think about what you are saying! How can something
*grow* if it collapses? How can it possibly *grow* *by* collapsing?

Voids grow by either the introduction of new spacetime


No.

or the expansion of existing spacetime.


Yes.

You’ve introduced an objection to a conjecture I did not make.


Wrong, I objected to nonsense that you, clueless, did claim.

(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].


I know that.


No, you do not. Apparently you do not realize what you are writing.

Again, you’ve misinterpreted what I wrote.


There is no way to misinterpret your quoted statement above. You are simply
utterly confused, and you do not know what you are doing – what the words
*mean* that you use.

Matter Structure growth is assumed to be the result of gravitational collapse.


No. That idea *of yours* is utterly ridiculous.

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


Again, I know. I never wrote that.


Yes, you did. You claimed that (the) standard model(s) assume(s) something
that it/they do(es) not do, and then you went on to argue against your own
straw man. That is typical of a crackpot.

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.


It is the lambda cold dark matter model that I’m reinterpreting.


s/reinterpreting/misunderstanding/

I’m saying that we should not look for exotic matter.


Which is nonsense. You cannot assume that ΛCDM (that means:
Lambda-Cold-*Dark-Matter*) is *correct* and then discard dark matter (DM).
You can’t have your cake and eat it too.

We should instead be taking what we know to be real


Dark matter, as it is defined, *is* real. There *is* matter than does not
interact electromagnetically, but does interact gravitationally. Therefore
we observe its effects: non-Newtonian intragalactic rotation curves and
unexpected gravitational lensing by galaxy clusters.

and re-thinking our notions of how they can interact.


Your ideas are not based on either theoretical or observational facts, only
on your ignorance about the topic that you are having ideas about.

This approach is hopeless.

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

No, that is only your misconception.


Then you reject the conclusions of W. Israel? Of Humitaka Sato? And
others? You should explore the literature.


I reject *your* *claims*.

[ex falso quodlibet


Ultimately what I’m arguing (and you’re misinterpreting) is that a model
based on gravitational potentials with more/less values spread across
the Universe cannot be valid. […]


The Newtonian quantity of “gravitational potential” does not appear in
general relativity, the theory underlying ΛCDM.

You are completely clueless.

--
PointedEars

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