"Morenga"
Message-id:

Well, according to Hawkins and even the late Einstein
himself the Universe *has* to either expand or contract.
It can not be static !

[I can't see my comment to this post of yours that I posted
yesterday so I comment again. If my last post shows up
eventually, you might see two similar posts of mine, but it
is better to have two than none, I think.]

The universe can't be "static" but can be "stationary".

The difference is basically that while in "static" nothing
moves (which is obviously not a case with our universe)
in "stationary" the objests move but the general shape
of the universe stays the same (it becomes neither
bigger nor smaller).

Contrary to popular opinion the universe may be (and
as far as our observations allow to tell, is) "stationary".

The apparent expansion is the result of interpreting
Hubble's redshift as Dopler redshift (caused by the
galaxies moving away from each other). This in turn
is caused by the poor understanding of general relativity
(or actually no understanding whatsoever) by
astronomers and so called "gravity physicists" who are
not even physicists but applied mathematicians who
apparently never learned any real physics and don't
have any appreciation of conservation of energy and so
don't mind assuming that the universe can expand even
if it violates conservation of energy, as you noticed. An
eveluation of "gravity physics" written by R. P.
Feynman is in
http://www.geocities.com/wlodekj/sci/feynman.htm
if you are curious about Feynman opinion about
"gravity physics".

I do not dispute the notion of a dynamic Universe.
I just think that the idea of endless accelleration
for all particles is utter nonsense.

Yet this is an observational fact. So either you accept
it as abolishing laws of thermodynamics or as an
apparent acceleration of an apparent expansion (in
other words a misinterpretation of data). Luckily for
thermodynamics, general relativity requires that in a
stationary universe there is a Hubble's type redshift
that simulates accelerated expansion. So we can
conclude that the acceleration of the expansion that
we observe, and that would violate the principle of
conservation of energy if it were real, is confirmed to
be an illusion and so the general relativity (Einsteinian
gravity) is still describing correctly what we observe
(with different metric though than proposed by
supporters of the idea that the universe is really
expanding). So practically the hypothesis of expanding
universe died with discovery that this expansion "is
accelerating". Not everybody noticed this development
though. But if you wait a while, it will start dawning on
astronomers too everntually.

Accelleration requires energy.
Pos. Gravitational potential equals a finite amount of
energy. The inverse grav. potential as required by the
"Big Rip" theory would require infinite energy as the
acceleration never stops!

I don't know what "Big Rip" theory is so I can't comment
on it, however, as I said above, since there are no
observations that require us to believe that the universe
is even expanding, we don't need to worry about
creation of energy from nothing.

The most important differences are conservation
of energy and "acceleration of expansion".
Neither can be accommodated by the expanding
model, and both fit naturally the stationary one.

The stationary Universe is a leftover of Newtonian
views of our World. Indeed it would require some
mythical forces to keep it static.

It is not "static", it is "stationary", and so it does not
require any mythical forces to stay this way. It is its
natural state.

Since the very process by which energy is "produced"
(which it is not, it just changes shape) is the "destruction"
of matter (aka its transformation into energy), this means
that the ratio of matter to energy is ever changing.
This alone prevents a static Universe, as it also influences
the very fabric of the space curvature which is governed by
that one unilateral force - gravity derived from the distribution
of matter.

According to Einsteinian gravity (general relativity) there
is no "unilateral force - gravity" at all in the universe. You
must be talking about Newtonian model that is not a right
model for cosmology since it does not have curved space
and curved space is an important thing for cosmological
applications. Newtonian "gravitational force" is not. If you
treat cosmology with Newtonian model you are bound to
make a lot of errors in your reasoning as most
astronomers already did and that's why we have this
mess with accelerating expansion considered to be real.

needed to understand why a stationary universe
looks as if it were expanding,

Please try to explain that one to us ordinary mortals.

I explained it in my "Einsteinian Gravity for Poets"
(no math, just for "ordinary mortals") in
http://www.geocities.com/wlodekj/sci/gravity.htp
but if you find it too long and boring the basic result
is that to keep energy conserved in the space that
contains masses the time has to run slower at the
greater distance from an observer by 1/R per unit
of distance (where R is radius of curvature of space;
there is a link to the derivation of this result over
there too for mathematically oriented readers).

Since this is also what is observed, there is no
observational contradiction of this prediction of
general relativity, we can assume that it is just
what happens in the real world (and so the laws
of theromdynamics are still working).

How can a Universe where stars are dieng, black holes
are "removing" matter beyond their event horizon and
gravity is always there to "pull you down, but never up" be
static? The very fact that galaxies attract each other ...

According to Einsteinian gravity galaxies don't attract
each other (nor "black holes are removing the matter
beyond their event horizon -- all of it are fantasies of
silly and most likely bored applied mathematicians who
don't have better things to do but to invents such things
to earn living somehow).

... means that only if their movements where frozen in
space/time by a mythical "broomstick force" (which
they are not), could this world of ours be static.

What you are saying is still a Newtonian look at the
universe. But the universe is surely not Newtonian, so
you don't need to worry about a "broomstic force".
I suggest you read the article I mentioned to update
your gravity to Einsteinian.

The Big Rip theory would be perfect for your view of the world
if not for the issue that it requieres ever ongoing acceleration.
Outdoing gravity and even relativity in the end.

As I said I don't know what "Big Rip theory" is nor what
phrase "outgoing gravity" might mean. Since Einsteinian
gravity still works without slightest problem I just stay
with it and strongly advise you to do the same.

So how do you counter the universal foe of "stationarism",
gravity, in your Universe?

What foe? There is no foe in Einstein's universe. You have
to be more precise. Are you talking again about Newtonian
"universal gravitational attraction"? It disappeared from
physics almost a century ago, so most likely before you
were even born. And you still didn't hear about it?

(for a
stationary universe though, the one the astronomers
find difficult to understand).

Wrong. All Astronomers, starting with Ptolomei to young
Einstein himself, understood the concept of the static
Universe "perfectly". It was the concept of dynamics,
introduced with the Theory of Relativity, that caused to
many of them headaches (including you?).

Not me. But I'm talking about contemprary astronomers
who still believe in existence of "attractive gravitational
force" that acts somehow at the distance, since
Einsteinian gravity with its curved space seems to them
to difficult to understand and not worth learning because
they hope it might be replaced soon by something else.
Well, I think that they are wrong and there is nothing
that can replace it since this is how the nature works.
R. P. Feynman once said that in all disputes between
Einstein and othere the nature always took Einstein's
side. Apparently it is the same case in gravity.

So all these Astronomers are stupid and you are the
only smart one here?

I'm not the only smart one. Apparently as statistics
show about 5% of astronomers don't accept the
hypothesis that the universe is expanding, and
historically the majority was always wrong about the
nature. But if 95% of astronomers interpret the
observations wrong it is not because they are stupid
but because they don't know certain things. With
even more observations contradicting the expansion
than only "acceleration" of it, and "anomalous"
acceleration of Pioneers 10 and 11, they will learn
soon enough. Because they are not stupid just they
don't have time to study every detail in physics while
their field of interest is astronomy.

"The General Time Dilation" which is a
phenomenon, not discovered yet by astronomers (due
to their lack of mathematical skills I presume)

Quick, Jim, quick. You have to send in your papers to
the Nobel Price commitee so they can make your fame
eternal. You discovered something that neither Hubble,
Herschel or Hawkins found out about.
Not to speak of their dullwittet contemporaries.

I'll await to read about your glorification in the news

Don't be silly. All those things are contained already
in Einstein's theory of relativity, I just learned it becuse
I wanted to know why so many people think that the
universe is expanding. It turned out that it isn't and it
is the end of it. Nothing more to learn about it except
what is the real metric of the spacetime. So I wrote
this metric for all who care about this issue (it is
exp(-r/R)dt^2 + 2 sinh(r/R)dtdr - exp(r/R)dr^2).

The physics and math of the phenomenon is
straightforward general relativity and if all the great
brains that you listed (with some spelling errors
though) didn't see it in Einstein's theory it is because
they were not looking for answers in it. Einstein
himself worried that his theory is left not exploited to
the end, and that people instead of trying to find out
all its predictions fantasize about their own ideas
(like expansion, black holes, and even more silly
things like time travel). I just looked for its predictions
and found out that it predicts that a stationary
universe should look as if it were expanding with
Hubble's constant c/R and acceleration of this
"expansion" (c/R)^2/2. It is too little for a Nobel prize,
not even enough to be worth published in a scientific
journal since any interested physicist can derive it in
about 15 minutes knowing that the universe is really
not expanding.

Editor of "Physical Review Letters" even told me that
as he knows his readers it wouldn't be iteresting to
them so he does not even needs to read my
derivation and form an opinion about it if he is not
going to publish it anyway :-) which is rather a sound
attitude. Saves a lot of time (and space in the journal).

Your most humble admirer
Morenga

Your patient explainer of the mysteries of nature

-- Jim