A Space & astronomy forum. SpaceBanter.com

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

[WWW] A possible solution to the dark energy, cosmic acceleration and horizon problems



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #11  
Old March 27th 11, 12:11 AM posted to sci.astro.research
Phillip Helbig---undress to reply
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 629
Default A possible solution to the dark energy, cosmic acceleration and horizon problems

In article , Nicolaas Vroom writes:

Cosmology is now a data-driven science;

I do not completely understand this sentence.


It just means that there is now a huge amount of cosmological data,
while not long ago this wasn't the case. As Malcolm Longair was told
when he started studying cosmology in the 1960s, "There are only
two-and-one-half facts in cosmology". 25 years later, Longair brought
it up to 9 facts. Now, there are many, many more.
  #12  
Old March 27th 11, 09:59 AM posted to sci.astro.research
Dave Rutherford
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 10
Default A possible solution to the dark energy, cosmic acceleration and horizon problems

On Mar 26, 3:08 pm, Phillip Helbig---undress to reply
wrote:
In article , Dave Rutherford

writes:
Hubble's law, in terms of the PROPER DISTANCE, holds exactly. But this
is not observable.


How can you claim that it holds exactly if it's not observable?


Theory. Within the context of classical cosmology, proper distance is
not directly observable, but nevertheless one can say something about
it.


Are you claiming that Hubble's proper distance-redshift law c*z =
H_0*d_0, where d_0 is the (present) proper distance and z is
cosmological redshift, holds exactly for all z? If so, I can show you
that it doesn't. Look at

http://www.softcom.net/users/der555/diagram.pdf

The distance modulus derived from Hubble's proper distance-redshift
law (the curve labeled "Hubble Law" in the diagram) does not hold for
large z.

If you mean does my curve pass through every data point in the data
set, no. But the concordance model doesn't do that either. If you plot
my model's m-z curve and the concordance model's m-z curve (\Omega_m =
0.31, \Omega_\Lambda = 0.69) against the data, you'll see that they
almost exactly coincide.


One needs a quantitative comparison of goodness-of-fit.


Can you please explain to me what "a quantitative comparison" means
relative to "goodness-of-fit"?
  #13  
Old March 27th 11, 11:55 AM posted to sci.astro.research
Phillip Helbig---undress to reply
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 629
Default A possible solution to the dark energy, cosmic acceleration and horizon problems

In article , Dave Rutherford
writes:

Are you claiming that Hubble's proper distance-redshift law c*z =
H_0*d_0, where d_0 is the (present) proper distance and z is
cosmological redshift, holds exactly for all z?


This holds for all z: the velocity, defined as the derivative of the
proper distance (which has a very precise meaning in GR and cosmology)
with respect to time, evaluated now, is proportional to the proper
distance. Whether or not this is called "Hubble's Law" depends on the
author. Note that this statement contains no physics: it is the only
velocity-distance relation compatible with a homogeneous and isotropic
universe.

One needs a quantitative comparison of goodness-of-fit.


Can you please explain to me what "a quantitative comparison" means
relative to "goodness-of-fit"?


Calculate the probability that your model is correct vs. the probability
that the conventional model is correct, given the data. Alas, the
details are too involved for a newsgroup post, but this is really
standard stuff.
  #14  
Old March 27th 11, 08:09 PM posted to sci.astro.research
Dave Rutherford
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 10
Default A possible solution to the dark energy, cosmic acceleration and horizon problems

On Mar 27, 2:55 am, Phillip Helbig---undress to reply
wrote:
In article , Dave Rutherford

writes:
Are you claiming that Hubble's proper distance-redshift law c*z =
H_0*d_0, where d_0 is the (present) proper distance and z is
cosmological redshift, holds exactly for all z?


This holds for all z: the velocity, defined as the derivative of the
proper distance (which has a very precise meaning in GR and cosmology)
with respect to time, evaluated now, is proportional to the proper
distance. Whether or not this is called "Hubble's Law" depends on the
author. Note that this statement contains no physics: it is the only
velocity-distance relation compatible with a homogeneous and isotropic
universe.


The velocity-distance part of my velocity-redshift-distance law
(equation (14) in my article),

v = c*ln(1 + z) = H_0*d_0 (14)

is identical to the Hubble velocity-distance law

v = H_0*d_0
  #15  
Old March 28th 11, 08:33 AM posted to sci.astro.research
Nicolaas Vroom[_2_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 16
Default A possible solution to the dark energy, cosmic acceleration and horizon problems

"Jonathan Thornburg [remove -animal to reply]"
schreef in bericht
...
"Phillip Helbig---undress to reply"
wrote
Cosmology is now a data-driven science;


Nicolaas Vroom wrote:
I do not completely understand this sentence.
IMO Cosmology (Astronomy) was always a data-driven
science. IMO any science is data-driven i.e. is based
on observations.


Phillip's phrase is a commonly-used one today. The basic meaning is
this: 30 years ago (say) there was only a small amount of cosmological
data, and that data often had relatively large error bars.


In contrast, today there's a HUGE amount of cosmological data, with
big parts having quite small error bars. And more cosmological data
is arriving each year.

So, doing state-of-the-art cosmology today involves a lot of
sophisticated modelling of many disparate data sets. This is what's
being referred to in the phrase "data-driven science".

I fully agree that today cosmology is based on much more and
more accurate data (observations) than 30 years ago.
In fact much more visible data is available now.
Implying also that matter we could not detect 30 years ago
now can be detected. This means that galaxies are much
larger than previous thought. The same for the visible mass.
The two last remarks because this makes the necesity
of dark matter less obvious.
When galaxies are more massive as previous thought
also the amount of dark matter required to keep the
galaxies clustered is reduced. The same for the dark matter
to explain gravitational lenses.

On the other hand if there is cosmic acceleration and if
galaxies are more massive the amount of energy to
explain that increases.

Nicolaas Vroom
http://users.pandora.be/nicvroom/
  #16  
Old March 29th 11, 08:10 AM posted to sci.astro.research
Dave Rutherford
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 10
Default A possible solution to the dark energy, cosmic acceleration and horizon problems

On Mar 26, 3:08 pm, Phillip Helbig---undress to reply
wrote:
In article , Dave Rutherford

If you mean does my curve pass through every data point in the data
set, no. But the concordance model doesn't do that either. If you plot
my model's m-z curve and the concordance model's m-z curve (\Omega_m =
0.31, \Omega_\Lambda = 0.69) against the data, you'll see that they
almost exactly coincide.


One needs a quantitative comparison of goodness-of-fit.


Are you referring to the reduced chi-square goodness-of-fit test? If
so my reduced chi-square (according to Gnuplot) is 0.98, and the
reduced chi-square of the concordance model is 1.06. So mine is
magnitude 0.02 away from 1.0, and the concordance model's is magnitude
0.06 away from 1.0. If the best fitting model, between the two, is the
one with a reduced chi-square that's closest to 1.0, then I guess I
win that test.
  #17  
Old March 31st 11, 07:37 AM posted to sci.astro.research
Eric Gisse
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,465
Default A possible solution to the dark energy, cosmic acceleration and horizon problems

On Mar 25, 3:16*pm, Dave Rutherford wrote:

[...]

The relation between apparent magnitude and redshift
is linear only at low redshift.


The relation between the distance modulus (apparent magnitude minus
absolute magnitude) and redshift, in my model, is linear only at low
redshift. I don't see your point.


I'm going to pick this point to restart a discussion we were in the
middle of within sci.physics when you appear to have abandoned it to
go post in here.

You very much seem to be interested in straddling the line between
using your own manifold + coordinate system, and wholesale borrowing
of concepts that apply only on FRW manifolds.

For example, your usage of the scale factor is inconsistent with
homogeneity and isotropy of space which is explicit in the
construction of the FRW manifold. But then you assert the usage of the
factors of (1+z) that arise from the simultaneous time dilation and
physical expansion of the universe that are limited to FRW manifolds.


I showed in Figure 3 that my ideas match observation (Riess et al.
2007) very well.


Quantitatively? *Better than conventional cosmology?


If you mean does my curve pass through every data point in the data
set, no. But the concordance model doesn't do that either. If you plot
my model's m-z curve and the concordance model's m-z curve (\Omega_m =
0.31, \Omega_\Lambda = 0.69) against the data, you'll see that they
almost exactly coincide.


It helps a LOT when you borrow the exact (1+z)^2 proportionality
factor from the concordance model. Sure, your overall functional form
is different but the power series expansions match exactly (iirc) at
0th and 1st order, and reasonably close at 2nd order.

When the errors of your formula are well within the random errors of
observation, it undercuts the otherwise impressive looking picture's
significance.


[...]
  #18  
Old March 31st 11, 07:37 AM posted to sci.astro.research
Eric Gisse
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,465
Default A possible solution to the dark energy, cosmic acceleration and horizon problems

On Mar 27, 3:55*am, Phillip Helbig---undress to reply
wrote:
In article , Dave Rutherford

writes:
Are you claiming that Hubble's proper distance-redshift law c*z =
H_0*d_0, where d_0 is the (present) proper distance and z is
cosmological redshift, holds exactly for all z?


This holds for all z: the velocity, defined as the derivative of the
proper distance (which has a very precise meaning in GR and cosmology)
with respect to time, evaluated now, is proportional to the proper
distance. *Whether or not this is called "Hubble's Law" depends on the
author. *Note that this statement contains no physics: it is the only
velocity-distance relation compatible with a homogeneous and isotropic
universe.

One needs a quantitative comparison of goodness-of-fit.


Can you please explain to me what "a quantitative comparison" means
relative to "goodness-of-fit"?


Calculate the probability that your model is correct vs. the probability
that the conventional model is correct, given the data. *Alas, the
details are too involved for a newsgroup post, but this is really
standard stuff.


Put the nitty-gritty of the statistics aside for a moment.

Take the respective distance/luminosity formulas from his model and
the concordance model. Taylor expand about z=0, keeping terms to
O(z^2). Notice that they are rather similar.

Now recognize that the overwhelming majority of the cosmological data
relevant here is situated between z = 0 and z = 1.5.

That's why his plot is so close.
  #19  
Old April 1st 11, 08:04 AM posted to sci.astro.research
Dave Rutherford
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 10
Default A possible solution to the dark energy, cosmic acceleration and horizon problems

On Mar 30, 10:37 pm, Eric Gisse wrote:
On Mar 25, 3:16 pm, Dave Rutherford wrote:

The relation between the distance modulus (apparent magnitude minus
absolute magnitude) and redshift, in my model, is linear only at low
redshift. I don't see your point.


You very much seem to be interested in straddling the line between
using your own manifold + coordinate system, and wholesale borrowing
of concepts that apply only on FRW manifolds.


I'm using a Euclidean (flat) spacetime coordinate system.

For example, your usage of the scale factor


My r is really only related to the conventional (dimensionless) scale
factor S when used as a ratio, as in r_0/r = S_0/S = 1+z, where r_0
and
S_0 are the present values of r and S, respectively.

Quantitatively? Better than conventional cosmology?


If you mean does my curve pass through every data point in the data
set, no. But the concordance model doesn't do that either. If you plot
my model's m-z curve and the concordance model's m-z curve (\Omega_m =
0.31, \Omega_\Lambda = 0.69) against the data, you'll see that they
almost exactly coincide.


It helps a LOT when you borrow the exact (1+z)^2 proportionality
factor from the concordance model.


There's no (1+z)^2 in my article.

Sure, your overall functional form
is different but the power series expansions match exactly (iirc) at
0th and 1st order, and reasonably close at 2nd order.

When the errors of your formula are well within the random errors of
observation, it undercuts the otherwise impressive looking picture's
significance.


What errors?
  #20  
Old April 2nd 11, 10:33 AM posted to sci.astro.research
Eric Gisse
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,465
Default A possible solution to the dark energy, cosmic acceleration and horizon problems

On Apr 1, 12:04*am, Dave Rutherford wrote:
On Mar 30, 10:37 pm, Eric Gisse wrote:

On Mar 25, 3:16 pm, Dave Rutherford wrote:


The relation between the distance modulus (apparent magnitude minus
absolute magnitude) and redshift, in my model, is linear only at low
redshift. I don't see your point.


You very much seem to be interested in straddling the line between
using your own manifold + coordinate system, and wholesale borrowing
of concepts that apply only on FRW manifolds.


I'm using a Euclidean (flat) spacetime coordinate system.


Bad start, because the universe likes to behave as if it were
Lorentzian. But I'll ignore that and focus on my point : you are not
using a FRW manifold. Regardless, Euclidean spacetime is *static*. No
expansion, time dilation, or anything.

Ignoring that, and pretending space has a logarithmic spiral structure
(which negates your claim of Euclid...), you do not get to use the
same distance modulus from FRW manifolds that specifically takes into
account the fact that there are simultaneous time dilation and
expansion effects.

That's why the overall distance modulus has a factor of (1+z)^2, and
why yours can't have that. Its' what distinguishes big bang
cosmologies from the many other choices.


For example, your usage of the scale factor


My r is really only related to the conventional (dimensionless) scale
factor S when used as a ratio, as in r_0/r = S_0/S = 1+z, where r_0
and
S_0 are the present values of r and S, respectively.


Well you were calling it a 'scale factor' explicitly.


Quantitatively? *Better than conventional cosmology?


If you mean does my curve pass through every data point in the data
set, no. But the concordance model doesn't do that either. If you plot
my model's m-z curve and the concordance model's m-z curve (\Omega_m =
0.31, \Omega_\Lambda = 0.69) against the data, you'll see that they
almost exactly coincide.


It helps a LOT when you borrow the exact (1+z)^2 proportionality
factor from the concordance model.


There's no (1+z)^2 in my article.


Meant to say (1 + z^2), the power series expansion of your result is
pretty close to the concordance cosmology result.


Sure, your overall functional form
is different but the power series expansions match exactly (iirc) at
0th and 1st order, and reasonably close at 2nd order.


When the errors of your formula are well within the random errors of
observation, it undercuts the otherwise impressive looking picture's
significance.


What errors?


Your formula is indistinguishable from the concordance cosmology
result within the errors of the data.
 




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
Web page for first dark matter solution, solution made in June, 2007,3D wheels gb[_3_] Astronomy Misc 0 December 15th 08 12:01 AM
Hologram, Horizon & Dark Energy Jack Sarfatti Astronomy Misc 2 July 19th 07 05:50 PM
Dark Energy and history of cosmic expansion Webcast Ray Vingnutte Misc 0 May 27th 05 09:34 AM
Cosmic acceleration rediscovered greywolf42 Astronomy Misc 258 February 11th 05 02:21 PM
Cosmic acceleration rediscovered Lars Wahlin Research 36 January 22nd 05 12:39 PM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 12:08 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 SpaceBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.