A Space & astronomy forum. SpaceBanter.com

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Go Back   Home » SpaceBanter.com forum » Astronomy and Astrophysics » Astronomy Misc
Site Map Home Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

General Cosmology: universal expansion as an illusion of changing spatial curvature



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old February 2nd 19, 10:15 PM posted to sci.astro
Eric Flesch
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 313
Default General Cosmology: universal expansion as an illusion of changing spatial curvature

The text below is copied from my website http://quasars.org. Just as
Special Relativity was generalized into General Relativity, so I've
tried to generalize the Standard Cosmological Model into a General
Cosmological Model which uses the full range of mathematically valid
spatial curvatures. The below model seems viable. Eric Flesch

--------------------------------------

Is our Standard Cosmological Model "fit for purpose"? An engineer
wouldn't think so, because there are three pieces of non-scientific
magic built into it, being inflation. dark matter, and dark energy.
These 3 are placeholders, quantifications of what we don't know, the
gaps between the standard model and what is actually observed. That
"dark matter" is so often elaborated as a form of matter, just shows
the social power of a word. If instead the term was e.g.,
"gravitational scalar", then a more eclectic set of explanations would
be presented. Same story with "dark energy", so the terms "dark
matter" and "dark energy" are unfortunate. As for "inflation", it's a
magic wand for transitioning the universe from its initial singularity
to a larger universe that can be calculated and modelled. Well, magic
will hold up neither bridges nor universes.

Is today's cosmology run by a "new generation of flat Earthers"?
People have grown so used to the Big Bang interpretation of the
Universe, that they have grown inured to a sense of absurdity at the
scenario of things flying apart at high speed. My own view is that a
more general theory will remove the need for physical expansion. The
current Standard model is underpinned by the "flat universe", a
spatial manifold of zero curvature with local perturbations. Guth's
"inflation" theory provides a mechanism whereby a flat universe was
attained as the result of an unknown causal process in the Universe's
earliest moments. Today's cosmologists use this flat manifold in all
their cosmological calculations including matter ratios, missing
(dark) matter, and so-called accelerating expansion due to "dark
energy". Thus, *the flat universe is a crucial and indispensible
platform for the Standard Cosmological Model*.

So, to generalize the Standard Cosmological Model in a similar way as
relativity was generalized, we start by designating it as the "Special
Cosmological Model" -- special in that it requires a flat universal
manifold. We now generalize this into a "General Cosmological Model"
by incorporating non-flat geometries which is found to be a
surprisingly simple change, as follows.

First, a quick simple description of the geometries. In a flat (i.e.,
curvature=0) 3D manifold, a sphere has a surface area of 4pR. A 3D
manifold with curvature0 is called spherical and in it a sphere has a
lesser surface area, similarly curvature0 is called hyperbolic in
which a sphere has a greater surface area. These "non-Euclidean"
geometries are known to be mathematically complete and internally
consistent just as flat space is.

Note that these geometries seamlessly transition from one to the other
as curvature changes. Flat space of curvature=0 is but a single point
on the curvature range, just as, with time, the present is only a
single point on the past-present-future time range. These two
paradigms look the same and may indeed be the same paradigm -- given
that "spacetime" unifies 3D space with time. As we perceive time as a
forward flow akin to migration across past/future, so it is indicated
that spatial curvature may also be migrating from (say) hyperbolic to
spherical, with "flat" space simply being the current state -- not
because of any huge coincidence, but because we natively see the
current curvature as flat regardless of wherever on the curvature
scale it happens to be -- just as we see the current time moment as
the "present" even though it is always migrating.

This notion that our space is flat simply because we see the current
curvature as flat opens up interesting consequences:

(1) The value of lightspeed (c) varies with spatial curvature.
Hyperbolic space would look to us as the same as "flat", but if you
travel in it you will find that your destination is closer -- this is
because the "shells of space" contain larger volumes. As distances
are less, lightspeed would cover more distance, thus is faster in
terms of distance. Thus lightspeed is a simple scalar measure of the
background spatial curvature. Lightspeed would be invariate by some
other as-yet-unmodelled measure.

(2) As we look into deep space we are unknowingly looking into a
universe of greater spatial curvature, thus our luminosity functions
lose accuracy. It is like the whole universe is lensed darkly, moreso
the farther you observe. This accounts for what is currently
interpreted as "dark energy".

(3) This extrapolates to the first moment of the universe which then
would have been almost infinitely hyperbolic with every place
contiguous to all others, allowing instantaneous action over the
whole, a.k.a. "inflation". Since then, spatial curvature would decay
with time via the standard exponential decay function C(t) =
C(0)*e^(-kt) where k~Hubble time.

This model thus appears to replicate inflation & dark energy, and
provides a mechanism for the redshift by virtue of the slowing
lightspeed over the ons. What we know as "universal expansion" is
just a nave interpretation of the migrating spatial curvature. CMB
reverberations are thus far not accounted for, but its absence doesn't
make this TOE wrong, just incomplete. :-)

The possibility that lightspeed is decreasing with universal time puts
a crimp into the modern technique of defining the length of the metre
(meter) in terms of light cycles. Inflation will be seen to happen as
our metre grows smaller causing old objects to measure as bigger (and
heavier in metric terms), whether old standard kilograms or dinosaur
bones. Issues remain but the simplicity of this General Cosmological
Model appeals.

Ads
  #2  
Old February 4th 19, 04:54 AM posted to sci.astro
[email protected]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 6
Default General Cosmology: universal expansion as an illusion of changingspatial curvature

Eric Flesch said:
This notion that our space is flat simply because we see the current
curvature as flat opens up interesting consequences:


(1) The value of lightspeed (c) varies with spatial curvature.
Hyperbolic space would look to us as the same as "flat", but if you
travel in it you will find that your destination is closer -- this is
because the "shells of space" contain larger volumes. As distances
are less, lightspeed would cover more distance, thus is faster in
terms of distance. Thus lightspeed is a simple scalar measure of the
background spatial curvature. Lightspeed would be invariate by some
other as-yet-unmodelled measure.


(2) As we look into deep space we are unknowingly looking into a
universe of greater spatial curvature, thus our luminosity functions
lose accuracy. It is like the whole universe is lensed darkly, moreso
the farther you observe. This accounts for what is currently
interpreted as "dark energy".


(3) This extrapolates to the first moment of the universe which then
would have been almost infinitely hyperbolic with every place
contiguous to all others, allowing instantaneous action over the
whole, a.k.a. "inflation". Since then, spatial curvature would decay
with time via the standard exponential decay function C(t) =
C(0)*e^(-kt) where k~Hubble time.


This model thus appears to replicate inflation & dark energy, and
provides a mechanism for the redshift by virtue of the slowing
over the ćons. What we know as "universal expansion" is
just a naďve interpretation of the migrating spatial curvature. CMB
reverberations are thus far not accounted for, but its absence doesn't
make this TOE wrong, just incomplete. :-)


The possibility that lightspeed is decreasing with universal time puts
a crimp into the modern technique of defining the length of the metre

(meter) in terms of light cycles. Inflation will be seen to happen as
our metre grows smaller causing old objects to measure as bigger (and
heavier in metric terms), whether old standard kilograms or dinosaur
bones. Issues remain but the simplicity of this General Cosmological
Model appeals



I wonder if there aren’t some other aspects of a variable light speed that
might show themselves. For instance, what about Matter structures? If
light speed is greater, then stars can be larger, no?
Presumably greater light speed means greater energies and higher pressures.
Unless, the different geometry means different type reference frames for measuring
energy.

Greater radiation pressures make gases more difficult to collapse, but those that do
will form larger stars. . And those larger stars may not be the same color as “today’s”.
Not only larger but longer lived. If radiation pressures are
greater, large stars would remain stable. Spacetime geometry
should have little effect on geometry inside a star, but variable light speed should
induce differences in chemistry inside stars, relative to our era, no?

Acceptance of an expanding Universe lies at the heart of this next point.

Aren’t galaxies inside Voids structurally different and dimmer than others
“living” within the filaments and part of large scale structures? If so, that is a modern
example of chemistry within stars being unaffected by the spacetime geometry
they “live” in. The dimming effect being a consequence of the expanding geometry
of the Void.

Just thoughts. Thanks.

Brad
  #4  
Old February 4th 19, 10:21 PM posted to sci.astro
Steve Willner
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,162
Default General Cosmology: universal expansion as an illusion of changing spatial curvature

In article ,
(Eric Flesch) writes:
The current Standard model is underpinned by the "flat universe",
a spatial manifold of zero curvature with local perturbations.


Why do you think that? Ned Wright's cosmology calculator
http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/CosmoCalc.html
works fine for curved space.

Existing observations show that space is flat to extremely small
tolerance. What I found quickly was Fig 26 at
https://www.aanda.org/articles/aa/fu...a25830-15.html
but I'm sure I've seen better plot and more extensive discussion. The
topic has been studied in great detail, and a wide variety of
observations are relevant.

(1) The value of lightspeed (c) varies with spatial curvature.
Hyperbolic space would look to us as the same as "flat", but if you
travel in it you will find that your destination is closer


Which distance did you have in mind? All of them change with spatial
curvature, but changing speed of light would be new physics.

The possibility that lightspeed is decreasing with universal time...


Isn't this ruled out by observations? Changing speed of light
changes the ratio of frequency to wavelength. That would mean
grating spectrographs, which measure wavelength, would get different
results than radio observations, which measure frequency. In other
words, redshifts would differ between radio and optical measurements.

--
Help keep our newsgroup healthy; please don't feed the trolls.
Steve Willner Phone 617-495-7123
Cambridge, MA 02138 USA
  #5  
Old February 5th 19, 01:59 AM posted to sci.astro
Eric Flesch
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 313
Default General Cosmology: universal expansion as an illusion of changing spatial curvature

On Mon, 4 Feb 2019, (Steve Willner) wrote:
(Eric Flesch) writes:
The current Standard model is underpinned by the "flat universe",
a spatial manifold of zero curvature with local perturbations.


Why do you think that?


I've never yet seen calculations done onto evolving spatial curvature.
Nowadays only static flat is used, particularly since the measurements
(including that impressive Planck paper which you referenced) show a
flat universe. But if we see a flat universe, there can really only
be two possibilities: (1) it is flat, or (2) it isn't flat but looks
like it is. (2) is the generalization of (1).

(1) The value of lightspeed (c) varies with spatial curvature.
Hyperbolic space would look to us as the same as "flat", but if you
travel in it you will find that your destination is closer


Which distance did you have in mind?


For example, at z=1, c would be twice the value. This is as seen
natively, that is a local observer at z=1 sees a flat universe just
like ours but with c twice as fast. But that universe (at z=1) has
twice the spatial curvature (on some absolute scale) as ours, so c is
still invariant by some curvature-compensated measure.

All of them change with spatial curvature, but changing speed of light
would be new physics.


I'm trying to *get rid of* new physics, specifically dark matter, dark
energy, and inflation, just by using spatial curvature. We know c to
be invariant, but that assumes no dependence of c on spatial curvature
-- as seen locally. I haven't found any work done on that topic --
would be interesting if there were some.

The possibility that lightspeed is decreasing with universal time...


Isn't this ruled out by observations?


No because we've observed only here in this local place. If
physicists looked for a migrating value -- a very tiny change over
decades -- maybe they could find it. Consider the standard kilogram.
It seems the oldest physical ones are annoyingly heavier by some
infinitesimal amount. They blame contaminants for that -- mercury
contamination in particular, but I think they're just guessing? If c
is migrating to slower -- some imperceptible amount except to
oscilloscopes -- physical things would be measured to grow
correspondingly -- especially if you tie the meter to c, as is done
now. That they have done so, makes it that much harder to measure a
change in c, like tools have been disabled. Does it actually make it
harder to *even just think about*?!? Maybe it wasn't such a great
idea to define a unit of length in terms of c.

Changing speed of light changes the ratio of frequency to wavelength.
That would mean grating spectrographs, which measure wavelength, would
get different results than radio observations, which measure frequency.
In other words, redshifts would differ between radio and optical
measurements.


No, the frequency is invariant but the wavelengths compress with the
slowing light -- so it looks the same as if both here & there were
flat. My model may be wrong but not for that reason.

Eric

  #6  
Old February 5th 19, 02:39 AM posted to sci.astro
Eric Flesch
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 313
Default General Cosmology: universal expansion as an illusion of changing spatial curvature

Steve Willner wrote:
changing speed of light would be new physics.


Just to clarify that c is still invariant in this model, but that
local places would see a different value of c as part of the illusion
of flat curvature. When you said, Steve,

Which distance did you have in mind?


I think perhaps you meant, in a space with twice the curvature as
ours, if you want to walk 20 meters, do you only have to walk 10
meters to get there? The answer is yes, but only if you are seeing
the curvature -- and if you are seeing the curvature, then c is the
same invariant value everywhere across all curvatures. But native
life doesn't see the curvature, it is mapped to flat -- perhaps for
reasons of sanity. And as part of the mapping, the one truly
invariant thing, c, is seen to be different.

Mapping is common, eyesight is mapped to up-is-up in the long term, so
if someone hangs upside down long enough (and still lives), the brain
reprocesses vision to turn things right-side up.

So c is still invariant in this model, but to what value? We are just
seeing the lightspeed resulted by mapping our own local curvature into
flatness -- our own necessary illusion.

  #8  
Old February 6th 19, 07:43 PM posted to sci.astro
Jan Panteltje
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 453
Default General Cosmology: universal expansion as an illusion of changing spatial curvature

(Eric Flesch) wrote in :
On Mon, 4 Feb 2019,
(Steve Willner) wrote:
(Eric Flesch) writes:
The current Standard model is underpinned by the "flat universe",
a spatial manifold of zero curvature with local perturbations.


Why do you think that?


I've never yet seen calculations done onto evolving spatial curvature.
Nowadays only static flat is used, particularly since the measurements
(including that impressive Planck paper which you referenced) show a
flat universe. But if we see a flat universe, there can really only
be two possibilities: (1) it is flat, or (2) it isn't flat but looks
like it is. (2) is the generalization of (1).

(1) The value of lightspeed (c) varies with spatial curvature.
Hyperbolic space would look to us as the same as "flat", but if you
travel in it you will find that your destination is closer


Which distance did you have in mind?


For example, at z=1, c would be twice the value. This is as seen
natively, that is a local observer at z=1 sees a flat universe just
like ours but with c twice as fast. But that universe (at z=1) has
twice the spatial curvature (on some absolute scale) as ours, so c is
still invariant by some curvature-compensated measure.

All of them change with spatial curvature, but changing speed of light
would be new physics.


I'm trying to *get rid of* new physics, specifically dark matter, dark
energy, and inflation, just by using spatial curvature. We know c to
be invariant, but that assumes no dependence of c on spatial curvature
-- as seen locally. I haven't found any work done on that topic --
would be interesting if there were some.

The possibility that lightspeed is decreasing with universal time...


Isn't this ruled out by observations?


No because we've observed only here in this local place. If
physicists looked for a migrating value -- a very tiny change over
decades -- maybe they could find it. Consider the standard kilogram.
It seems the oldest physical ones are annoyingly heavier by some
infinitesimal amount. They blame contaminants for that -- mercury
contamination in particular, but I think they're just guessing? If c
is migrating to slower -- some imperceptible amount except to
oscilloscopes -- physical things would be measured to grow
correspondingly -- especially if you tie the meter to c, as is done
now. That they have done so, makes it that much harder to measure a
change in c, like tools have been disabled. Does it actually make it
harder to *even just think about*?!? Maybe it wasn't such a great
idea to define a unit of length in terms of c.

Changing speed of light changes the ratio of frequency to wavelength.
That would mean grating spectrographs, which measure wavelength, would
get different results than radio observations, which measure frequency.
In other words, redshifts would differ between radio and optical
measurements.


No, the frequency is invariant but the wavelengths compress with the
slowing light -- so it looks the same as if both here & there were
flat. My model may be wrong but not for that reason.

Eric


It is a very interesting discussion.

I was thinking, often I read that space is not empty,
but has 'virtual particles popping in and out of existence'.

The Michelson & Morley experiment has shown that an aether cannot exist
as it (as with waves in water) would affect lightspeed if you moved through it,
but they measured lightspeed a constant in all directions.
However if these 'aether' particles were created on the spot
(those that pop in and out of existence) and those would pass on the light wave energy
then the aether would always move with you.
That could explain the M&M experiment, and would still allow objects
to travel FTL relative to other objects...
I am no physicist, but always looked for a physical mechanism,
other than some geometric solution.

  #9  
Old February 7th 19, 09:30 PM posted to sci.astro
Eric Flesch
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 313
Default General Cosmology: universal expansion as an illusion of changing spatial curvature

On Wed, 06 Feb 2019, Jan Panteltje wrote:
I am no physicist, but always looked for a physical mechanism,
other than some geometric solution.


Physical mechanisms won't do it. The solution, if decipherable, is
going to be strange.

"...the universe is not only queerer than we suppose, but queerer than
we *can* suppose." J.B.S. Haldane (1927)

  #10  
Old February 13th 19, 08:54 PM posted to sci.astro
Steve Willner
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,162
Default General Cosmology: universal expansion as an illusion of changing spatial curvature

In article ,
(Eric Flesch) writes:
I've never yet seen calculations done onto evolving spatial curvature.


Doesn't the Friedman equation say how curvature evolves?

Nowadays only static flat is used, particularly since the measurements
. show a
flat universe.


As you say, the observations seem clear, and nobody today thinks our
Universe has much curvature. There were, however, plenty of papers
on that subject in the past, and modern observers still look for
whatever residual curvature there might be.

But if we see a flat universe, there can really only be two
possibilities: (1) it is flat, or (2) it isn't flat but looks like
it is.


You need to relate "looks like" to specific observations. It's not
as though no one has thought of curvature before.

SW Which distance did you have in mind?

For example, at z=1, c would be twice the value.


Redshift z represents the scale factor, not a distance. You need a
cosmological model to translate scale factor to distance and lookback
time, and there are at least three different distances relevant to
cosmology.

Are you suggesting that a local measurement of c at z=1 would return
a value twice as large as measured at z=0? I'm pretty sure that's
ruled out by observations.

SW Isn't [changing c] ruled out by observations?

No because we've observed only here in this local place.


??? There are plenty of redshifts for high-z objects, and optical and
radio redshifts agree with each other. Moreover, CO redshifts agree
with H I redshifts, both measured with radio techniques. That
wouldn't be the case if c were varying because the 21 cm line is a
hyperfine splitting that has a different dependence on c than
ordinary lines.

No, the frequency is invariant but the wavelengths compress with the
slowing light -- so it looks the same as if both here & there were
flat. My model may be wrong but not for that reason.


Optical (grating) spectrographs measure wavelength. If there were a
change, why wouldn't that be measured?

--
Help keep our newsgroup healthy; please don't feed the trolls.
Steve Willner Phone 617-495-7123

Cambridge, MA 02138 USA
 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Acceleration of Universe's Expansion an Illusion! Double-A[_3_] Misc 22 March 4th 12 11:24 PM
Curvature Cosmology: new edition David Crawford[_2_] Astronomy Misc 2 March 13th 09 11:05 PM
Summary of Curvature Cosmology David Crawford Astronomy Misc 0 April 11th 07 04:46 AM
Curvature Cosmology David Crawford Astronomy Misc 1 January 1st 07 08:27 AM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 11:30 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright 2004-2019 SpaceBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.