Cont: Why James Webb Telescope rewrites/doesn't the laws of Physics/Redshifts (2)

hecd2 · Jun 23, 2023

Mike Helland said:
In de Sitter's closed coordinates there is a cosmological horizon.

(ETA: In other contexts, cosmological horizons have a temperature. such as: )

https://physics.stackexchange.com/q...-to-the-cosmological-horizon-during-inflation

It seems there is a "de Sitter temperature" (or "Gibbons-Hawking temperature"?), is "T=H/2pi".

Not sure how the units work on that... but a time dilated past with a cosmological horizon seems to predict a temperature.

First of all a de Sitter universe is an exponentially expanding universe, not a static one. Secondly, the cosmological horizon arises from the exponential expansion.

The full expression for the (hypothetical) Gibbons-Hawking temperature is T=(hbar H)/(2 pi kB), where hbar is the reduced Planck's constant, H is the Hubble parameter in inverse seconds, and kB is the Boltzmann constant. You will find that the dimensions work out just fine. That gives a temperature of ~2e-30K. That's not going to explain the CMB. Which is why no-one who knows what they are talking about suggests that it might. You are the only person I have ever known to be ignorant enough to do so.

hecd2 · Jun 23, 2023

Mike Helland said:
Well, if we say that the light from beyond c/H₀ can't reach us, that creates a cosmological horizon.

Would Hawking radiation happen there?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hawking_radiation

"Hawking radiation is the theoretical thermal black body radiation released outside a black hole's event horizon."

That would have the necessary spectrum.

And a temperature indistinguishable from absolute zero. Also the cosmological horizon is a result of exponential expansiion. See post above.

Mike Helland · Jun 23, 2023

hecd2 said:
First of all a de Sitter universe is an exponentially expanding universe, not a static one. Secondly, the cosmological horizon arises from the exponential expansion.

Unless you ask de Sitter:

The full expression for the (hypothetical) Gibbons-Hawking temperature is T=(hbar H)/(2 pi kB), where hbar is the reduced Planck's constant, H is the Hubble parameter in inverse seconds, and kB is the Boltzmann constant. You will find that the dimensions work out just fine. That gives a temperature of ~2e-30K. That's not going to explain the CMB. Which is why no-one who knows what they are talking about suggests that it might. You are the only person I have ever known to be ignorant enough to do so.

Well, the temperature isn't the important part. The spectrum is. Right?

So, just fiddle with it until you get the right number. That's how the expanding model does it.

W.D.Clinger · Jun 23, 2023

hecd2 said:
We disagree with you because you know absolutely no physics or maths and every statement you make is wrong. Every one.

Giving credit in the extremely rare instance it is due, these two words were correct:

Mike Helland said:
I dunno.

He supported that statement by giving specific examples of things he "dunno":

Mike Helland said:
Ok. Well about this "cosmic time". Do we need it?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cosmic_time

Why can't you just use the measured coordinates of the observer?

Mike Helland said:
Unless you ask de Sitter:

[qimg]https://mikehelland.github.io/hubbles-law/img/desitter.png[/qimg]

Is he unable to read the caption? Methinks he just has no clue as to the context or meaning of that caption.

With my highlighting:

Vertical timelike curves are obtained by intersecting the hyperboloid with parallel two-planes. Only the blue hyperbola is a geodesic because it is the only one lying on a plane that contains the origin of the ambient spacetime. The other timelike curves are accelerated trajectories. They have been colored in red because there is a redshift for light sources moving along these world lines; this effect was called the de Sitter effect and was thought to have some bearing on the redshift results obtained by Slipher.

He copied that diagram and caption from a paper where it appears in the following context:

Moschella said:
The simplest choice of time coordinate....describes a closed FRW model...

Another possible choice of time...is introduced by the relation x₀ + x₄ = R e^t/R; with this coordinate only one half of the manifold is covered....In these coordinates the de Sitter line element appears as a flat FRW model with exponentially grorwing scale factor...

....It is interesting to note that the first coordinate system used by de Sitter himself was a static coordinate system with closed spatial sections. De Sitter was following Einstein's cosmological idea of a static closed universe, the idea that led to the introduction of the cosmological term in Einstein's equations. A static coordinate system...is not the most natural way to describe an expanding universe...

So the simplest choice of time coordinate yields an FLRW metric form for a de Sitter universe.

Another choice of coordinates yields another variation of the FLRW metric form, but those coordinates cover only half of the manifold, just as the TDP coordinates of Helland physics cover only part of Minkowski spacetime.

The author and sole proponent of Helland physics was undoubtedly excited to find a published reference to a coordinate system having anything at all in common with his TDP coordinates. It seems he was so excited that he copy/pasted the paper's Figure 9 and caption, which represents yet a third choice of coordinates for the same FLRW model. It's the least natural of the three coordinate systems discussed in the quotation above, but once upon a time it "was thought to have some bearing on the redshift results obtained by Slipher."

We now know that it doesn't have any bearing on the redshift results, but the "We" that begins this sentence must be interpreted as excluding the author and sole proponent of Helland physics, because he "dunno" that.

Amusingly, the fellow who "dunno" that also cited and quoted from a historical paper devoted to the arcane history of why some people once thought de Sitter's static coordinate system might "have some bearing on the redshift results". That historical paper also explains why people were wrong to think that coordinate system might have anything to do with cosmological redshift, but I guess the author and sole proponent of Helland physics didn't read that far:

Peacock would have us believe that the de Sitter effect made a clear prediction of a linear D(z) relation, and that Hubble merely set out to prove it observationally. Unfortunately Peacock paints a far rosier picture of the "de Sitter Effect" than it warrants....

Soon after Hubble's paper appeared, both Tolman and de Sitter admitted that a de Sitter universe could not account for Hubble's relation....

Ziggurat · Jun 23, 2023

Mike Helland said:
Well, if we say that the light from beyond c/H₀ can't reach us, that creates a cosmological horizon.

Would Hawking radiation happen there?

In your bull **** made up cosmology, who the hell knows? You've thrown quantum mechanics AND relativity out the window, and I still don't know how you get your "time dilation" since every attempt you've made to actually describe the mechanics of it are wrong.

Mike Helland · Jun 23, 2023

W.D.Clinger said:
So the simplest choice of time coordinate yields an FLRW metric form for a de Sitter universe.

It seems a better choice would not be the simplest choice, but one that reflects the time dilation we observe in reality.

It seems he was so excited that he copy/pasted the paper's Figure 9 and caption, which represents yet a third choice of coordinates for the same FLRW model. It's the least natural of the three coordinate systems discussed in the quotation above, but once upon a time it "was thought to have some bearing on the redshift results obtained by Slipher."

The open, flat, and closed FLRW models can be set upon de Sitter space:

(click to enlarge)

Figure 9 appears to be a fourth choice of coordinates, which isn't the same as an FLRW model.

(ETA: http://latex.codecogs.com/gif.latex?ds^2 = -\left(1-\frac{r^2}{\alpha^2}\right)dt^2 + \left(1-\frac{r^2}{\alpha^2}\right)^{-1}dr^2 + r^2 d\Omega_{2}^2.)

Isn't a cosmic time antithetical to relativity itself? It seems like "oh hey, everything is relative, except like, we need this absolute notion of time."

It seems FLRW needs that, but the TDP version of de Sitter space doesn't.

Speaking of which, what's up with this:

Problem 8: ΛCDM is inconsistent with Einstein’s equivalence principle

As his grand finale, Melia presents a fundamental inconsistency in ΛCDM: its choice to use the Friedmann equations in the first place to describe the universe during periods of exponential expansion. In standard use, the Friedmann equations arise by assuming isotropy and homogeneity for the universe, and are then derivable from the Einstein field equations, where the time-time component of the metric (g_tt) is related to the overall Einstein stress-energy tensor. In particular, the second Friedmann equation, which describes how the expansion rate changes with time, is derived after already assuming the validity of the cosmological principle, and therefore: after assuming isotropy and homogeneity. While this simplifies the metric coefficients greatly, it ignores the important fact that the metric coefficients depend on the chosen stress-energy tensor, which changes as the universe evolves through phases of deceleration (when matter and radiation dominate) and acceleration (when dominated by inflation and dark energy).

And yet, in ΛCDM the time-time component of the metric, g_tt, is set at 1 at all times and stages of cosmic evolution, even under conditions where it may not be mathematically robust to do so. Given that the Hubble flow – the motion of galaxies due to the universe’s expansion – is not inertial in ΛCDM, i.e., the galaxies don’t experience “freefall,” why should we be comfortable applying free-fall conditions during phases of accelerated expansion? Melia then goes on to prove that when the universe accelerates, an observer must see their time being dilated relative to local free-falling frames, so that gtt can by no means be 1. And yet, because the condition g_tt = 1 is always imposed, we arrive at an inherent inconsistency: ΛCDM is inconsistent with Einstein’s equivalence principle.

https://new-ground.com/en/articles/...dard-model-of-cosmology/new-ground.2023.77033

So LCDM isn't even compatible with the Einstein’s equivalence principle?

Because the time component is basically static? Cuz it's cosmic time?

Seems like de Sitter's original relativity avoids such issues.

Mike Helland · Jun 23, 2023

Ziggurat said:
In your bull **** made up cosmology, who the hell knows? You've thrown quantum mechanics AND relativity out the window, and I still don't know how you get your "time dilation" since every attempt you've made to actually describe the mechanics of it are wrong.

It appears that cosmic time and LCDM throw relativity out the window.

de Sitter's original model does not.

hecd2 · Jun 23, 2023

Mike Helland said:
Unless you ask de Sitter:

[qimg]https://mikehelland.github.io/hubbles-law/img/desitter.png[/qimg]

Well, the temperature isn't the important part. The spectrum is. Right?

The temperature matters when it’s 30 orders of magnitude wrong. We observe 2.7K The Gibbons Hawking radiation would be about 2e-30K. Your suggestion is pathetically wrong.

Mike Helland · Jun 23, 2023

hecd2 said:
The temperature matters when it’s 30 orders of magnitude wrong. We observe 2.7K The Gibbons Hawking radiation would be about 2e-30K. Your suggestion is pathetically wrong.

That's the temperature, assuming an exponentially expanding model, correct?

https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/92808/what-is-the-de-sitter-temperature-as-of-now

In the time dilated de Sitter model, the horizons would be much closer (13.8 billion light years). That seems relevant. But of course, not significant enough.

It seems like 30 orders of magnitude is a rather insurmountable deficit.

So, you're probably right.

On the other hand, in context, we're talking about the surface area of the observable universe. That's got to be high up there on the list of biggest things ever.

So, what if we assume, that given the homogeneity of the universe, 100% of the universe's mass is outside the observable universe.

That's why the vacuum solutions work. That also means that 100% of the universe's mass is beyond the cosmological horizon.

30 orders of magnitude doesn't really seem like much in the light of the subject matter.

Again, you're probably right, and I'm probably wrong. But it's more interesting (to me) to explore it than to not.

W.D.Clinger · Jun 23, 2023

The author and sole proponent of Helland physics continues to talk about things he "dunno".

Mike Helland said:
Figure 9 appears to be a fourth choice of coordinates,

No. This is just another example of the author and sole proponent of Helland physics failing to understand papers he cites and quotes.

Mike Helland said:
Isn't a cosmic time antithetical to relativity itself? It seems like "oh hey, everything is relative, except like, we need this absolute notion of time."

No. The author and sole proponent of Helland physics doesn't understand what the phrase "cosmic time" means, even though he had quoted an explanation of what that phrase means.

Mike Helland said:
It seems FLRW needs that, but the TDP version of de Sitter space doesn't.

In that sentence, the author and sole proponent of Helland physics reminds us once again that he consistently confuses map with territory. Amusingly, the Figure 9 he copy/pasted was part of an extremely clear explanation that exactly the same territory (a de Sitter universe) can be described by three distinct maps (two of which are consistent with an FLRW metric form, while the third is not because its coordinates are neither homogeneous nor isotropic).

Even more amusingly, he speaks of "the TDP version of de Sitter space" as though his stupid TDP coordinates for Minkowski spacetime were directly related to the so-called de Sitter effect (based upon misinterpretation of de Sitter's static coordinates), which (as de Sitter himself has stated) has nothing to do with cosmological redshift.

Mike Helland said:
Speaking of which, what's up with this:

Although a nonzero cosmological constant is compatible with FLRW models, FLRW models are not compatible with a time-varying value for the cosmological constant (or with any other time-varying dark energy). If someone interprets "ΛCDM" to mean a constant value for Λ combined with rigid insistence upon pure FLRW models, then "ΛCDM" is not fully consistent with cosmic inflation.

To restate that paragraph more dramatically:

Siegal said:
As his grand finale, Melia presents a fundamental inconsistency in ΛCDM: its choice to use the Friedmann equations in the first place to describe the universe during periods of exponential expansion.

Someone who "dunno" what he's talking about might restate the above more stupidly:

Mike Helland said:
So LCDM isn't even compatible with the Einstein’s equivalence principle?

Because the time component is basically static? Cuz it's cosmic time?

Seems like de Sitter's original relativity avoids such issues.

No. As was clearly explained by two of the papers Helland cited, quoted, and copy/pasted, de Sitter's original coordinates fail to reconcile cosmological redshift with a static (non-expanding) universe. Amusingly, the incorrect idea that de Sitter's coordinates might reconcile cosmological redshift with a static universe came about because those coordinates present a misleading map of the expanding de Sitter universe, much as the TDP coordinates of Helland physics present a misleading map of the static Minkowski universe in which cosmological redshift cannot possibly occur.

Even more amusingly, the author and sole proponent of Helland physics has begun to cite a criticism of ΛCDM that is based upon the fact that FLRW models with a constant Λ are insufficiently non-static. He "dunno" that such criticism is an even more damning criticism of the static universe postulated by Helland physics.

Mike Helland · Jun 23, 2023

W.D.Clinger said:
No. The author and sole proponent of Helland physics doesn't understand what the phrase "cosmic time" means, even though he had quoted an explanation of what that phrase means.

That's what you claim.

How about you explain why cosmic time is necessary and compatible with relativity.

In that sentence, the author and sole proponent of Helland physics reminds us once again that he consistently confuses map with territory. Amusingly, the Figure 9 he copy/pasted was part of an extremely clear explanation that exactly the same territory (a de Sitter universe) can be described by three distinct maps (two of which are consistent with an FLRW metric form, while the third is not because its coordinates are neither homogeneous nor isotropic).

The spatial coordinates are static. How is that not spatially homogeneous and isotropic?

No. As was clearly explained by two of the papers Helland cited, quoted, and copy/pasted, de Sitter's original coordinates fail to reconcile cosmological redshift with a static (non-expanding) universe.

That's what you claim.

How about you explain why?

From my limited background, the reasoning given seems to be along whether or not the relationship with redshift and distance is linear.

But that was 100 years ago. We have better data now.

Mike Helland · Jun 23, 2023

It might be of some interest that the author of the 8 cracks in LCDM

https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1538-3873/aca51f

Is also the proponent of a cosmology he calls R_h=ct:

https://arxiv.org/abs/1804.09906

which I'm pretty sure is still an expanding model, but uses the same equation for luminosity distance as my model. Page 5, equation 13.

Since they make identical predictions in that respect, these two models fit the supernovae data better than LCDM.

W.D.Clinger · Jun 23, 2023

Not only does the author and sole proponent of Helland physics "dunno" what he's talking about, he still "dunno" even after his errors have been explained to him. What's more, he still "dunno" even after those explanations take the form of quotations from the very same papers he has cited.

Mike Helland said:
W.D.Clinger said:

No. The author and sole proponent of Helland physics doesn't understand what the phrase "cosmic time" means, even though he had quoted an explanation of what that phrase means.

Click to expand...

That's what you claim.

How about you explain why cosmic time is necessary and compatible with relativity.

How about you take the time and trouble to read sources you cite?

Mike Helland said:
In that sentence, the author and sole proponent of Helland physics reminds us once again that he consistently confuses map with territory. Amusingly, the Figure 9 he copy/pasted was part of an extremely clear explanation that exactly the same territory (a de Sitter universe) can be described by three distinct maps (two of which are consistent with an FLRW metric form, while the third is not because its coordinates are neither homogeneous nor isotropic).

Click to expand...

The spatial coordinates are static. How is that not spatially homogeneous and isotropic?

How about you take the time and trouble to read sources you cite and quote?

Mike Helland said:
http://www.bourbaphy.fr/moschella.pdf

Quoting the caption he copy/pasted later within that same post:

Moschella said:
Figure9: A chart representing static closed coordinates.This is the coordinate system originally used by W. de Sitter in 1917. Vertical timelike curves are obtained by intersecting the hyperboloid with parallel two-planes. Only the blue hyperbola is a geodesic because it is the only one lying on a plane that contains the origin of the ambient spacetime. The other timelike curves are accelerated trajectories.

It seems the author and sole proponent of Helland physics "dunno" that a physically meaningful difference (e.g. accleration) between world lines that go through the origin and world lines that do not go through the origin indicate that the coordinate system (i.e. the map, not the territory) is not isotropic.

To put it even more plainly:

Mike Helland said:
https://astro.uchicago.edu/~kent/fnal/effect.html

Quoting that historical paper:

....Today we would say that the problem with de Sitter's metric as he wrote it originally is that it was not in proper Robertson-Walker form, and in particular does not have a universal cosmic time....

As originally shown by de Sitter (1917, MNRAS, 78, 2), there are actually two effects at work in his metric. The first effect is that time seems to run slower at large r, causing distant objects to appear redshifted. However, this effect is only meaningful for objects at fixed coordinate distance, which are not on geodesics...

It seems the author and sole proponent of Helland physics "dunno" that location-dependent effects (e.g. dependence upon r) indicate that the coordinate system (i.e. the map, not the territory) is not homogeneous.

In those examples, however, it is the map (coordinate system) that is inhomogeneous and anisotropic, not the territory itself.

For an example in which the map is static but the territory is inhomogeneous, consider the model that explains cosmological redshifts by saying we are at the center of a static universe, but all the distant light sources we see just happen to be moving away from us at rates that just happen to increase with distance.

Mike Helland said:
No. As was clearly explained by two of the papers Helland cited, quoted, and copy/pasted, de Sitter's original coordinates fail to reconcile cosmological redshift with a static (non-expanding) universe.

Click to expand...

That's what you claim.

How about you explain why?

How about you take the time and trouble to read sources you cite and quote?

catsmate · Jun 23, 2023

Darat said:
And how does that relate to your ideas and claims in this thread?

The IOP piece? Absolutely no connection.

Mike Helland · Jun 23, 2023

W.D.Clinger said:
"
....Today we would say that the problem with de Sitter's metric as he wrote it originally is that it was not in proper Robertson-Walker form, and in particular does not have a universal cosmic time...
"

The problem with de Sitter's metric is that it's not FLRW.

That's only a problem is FLRW is right.

That's circular reasoning.

It also seems the author and sole proponent of Helland physics "dunno" why "was thought to have some bearing" means something different from "actually had some bearing".

Quoting that historical paper:

Tolman: "The conclusion is drawn that the de Sitter line element does not afford a simple and unmistakably evident explanation of our present knowledge of the distribution, distances, and Doppler effects for the extra-galactic nebulae."
de Sitter (1930, Observatory, 53, 37): "The question now arises - how can we account for the linear connection between the velocities and the distances? I am not sure that I can ... why are all the spirals on the receding branch of the hyperbola?"

Again, that's 100 year old data.

Today's data show's a better fit than all flat FLRW models.

W.D.Clinger · Jun 23, 2023

Readers should understand that the quotation attributed to me in the following quotation is actually a quotation from a paper Mike Helland had cited. In my quotation from that paper, I attributed the quotation properly and gave a link to the paper.

Mike Helland said:
W.D.Clinger said:

"
....Today we would say that the problem with de Sitter's metric as he wrote it originally is that it was not in proper Robertson-Walker form, and in particular does not have a universal cosmic time...
"

Click to expand...

The problem with de Sitter's metric is that it's not FLRW.

That's only a problem is FLRW is right.

That's circular reasoning.

No. In the above, the author and sole proponent of Helland physics is once again conflating map with territory. In "de Sitter's metric as he wrote it originally", the author of that phrase is referring to de Sitter's original metric form. The metric described by that metric form is exactly the same metric that is described by the FLRW metric forms, as was clearly explained by that author in the prose he wrote surrounding the Figure 9 and its caption that Mike Helland has been quoting.

The real problem with de Sitter's metric form is that it uses static coordinates to paint a non-homogeneous picture of a homogeneous and expanding universe. That's misleading in pretty much the same way that the stupid TDP coordinates of Helland physics paint a misleading picture of a portion of Minkowski spacetime in which cosmological redshift is not possible.

ETA: Furthermore, because de Sitter's original metric form describes exactly the same metric as the FLRW metric forms, it is simply not possible for de Sitter's metric form to be correct unless the FLRW metric forms are also correct. But the author and sole proponent of Helland physics "dunno" that, because he consistently fails to distinguish map from territory.

Mike Helland said:
It also seems the author and sole proponent of Helland physics "dunno" why "was thought to have some bearing" means something different from "actually had some bearing".

Quoting that historical paper:

Tolman: "The conclusion is drawn that the de Sitter line element does not afford a simple and unmistakably evident explanation of our present knowledge of the distribution, distances, and Doppler effects for the extra-galactic nebulae."
de Sitter (1930, Observatory, 53, 37): "The question now arises - how can we account for the linear connection between the velocities and the distances? I am not sure that I can ... why are all the spirals on the receding branch of the hyperbola?"

Click to expand...

Again, that's 100 year old data.

Today's data show's a better fit than all flat FLRW models.

No.

Once again, the author and sole proponent of Helland physics isn't bothering to read the papers he cites.

If he had read the paper I quoted above, he'd know that "de Sitter, Silberstein (1924, Nature, 113, 350), and Tolman (1929, ApJ, 69, 245) all effectively presumed that objects are distributed uniformly in all parameters, and thus blue-shifted and red-shifted objects would appear with equal frequency."

But he "dunno" that. Or maybe he "dunno" that "today's data" do not actually show blue-shifted and red-shifted objects appearing with equal frequency.

Mike Helland · Jun 23, 2023

W.D.Clinger said:
No. In the above, the author and sole proponent of Helland physics is once again conflating map with territory. In "de Sitter's metric as he wrote it originally", the author of that phrase is referring to de Sitter's original metric form. The metric described by that metric form is exactly the same metric that is described by the FLRW metric forms, as was clearly explained by that author in the prose he wrote surrounding the Figure 9 and its caption that Mike Helland has been quoting.

Well, we can go right to the source. In de Sitter's 1917 paper:

https://mikehelland.github.io/hubbles-law/papers/desitter1917.pdf

he gives three line elements, equations 8A, 8B, and 8C.

Are they all equivalent to FLRW?

8B, which he refers to as system B, does not seem to be.

(ETA, check out page 18 in particular to compare and contrast the systems)

If he had read the paper I quoted above, he'd know that "de Sitter, Silberstein (1924, Nature, 113, 350), and Tolman (1929, ApJ, 69, 245) all effectively presumed that objects are distributed uniformly in all parameters, and thus blue-shifted and red-shifted objects would appear with equal frequency."

But he "dunno" that. Or maybe he "dunno" that "today's data" do not actually show blue-shifted and red-shifted objects appearing with equal frequency.

In my model (which is I think similar to system B, although maybe a variation of the theme), the times in the universe include the present (t=0) and the past (t<0). I think that enforces the "receding branch of the hyperbola".

Steve · Jun 23, 2023

The sole proponent of Helland physics gets his ass handed to him on a plate by those who actually understand the topic every time he posts. And still he persists. Is scientific masochism a recogized ailment?

W.D.Clinger · Jun 23, 2023

Mike Helland said:
W.D.Clinger said:

No. In the above, the author and sole proponent of Helland physics is once again conflating map with territory. In "de Sitter's metric as he wrote it originally", the author of that phrase is referring to de Sitter's original metric form. The metric described by that metric form is exactly the same metric that is described by the FLRW metric forms, as was clearly explained by that author in the prose he wrote surrounding the Figure 9 and its caption that Mike Helland has been quoting.

Click to expand...

Well, we can go right to the source. In de Sitter's 1917 paper:

https://mikehelland.github.io/hubbles-law/papers/desitter1917.pdf

he gives three line elements, equations 8A, 8B, and 8C.

Are they all equivalent to FLRW?

It should be obvious that 8A and 8C are equivalent to an FLRW metric form.

Mike Helland said:
8B, which he refers to as system B, does not seem to be.

It looks to me as though 8B describes de Sitter space, which is an FLRW model.

Mike Helland said:
If he had read the paper I quoted above, he'd know that "de Sitter, Silberstein (1924, Nature, 113, 350), and Tolman (1929, ApJ, 69, 245) all effectively presumed that objects are distributed uniformly in all parameters, and thus blue-shifted and red-shifted objects would appear with equal frequency."

But he "dunno" that. Or maybe he "dunno" that "today's data" do not actually show blue-shifted and red-shifted objects appearing with equal frequency.

Click to expand...

In my model (which is I think similar to system B, although maybe a variation of the theme), the times in the universe include the present (t=0) and the past (t<0). I think that enforces the "receding branch of the hyperbola".

Helland physics postulates a non-expanding universe, whereas de Sitter space is expanding exponentially.

Apparently the author and sole proponent of Helland physics "dunno" whether the non-expanding universe postulated by Helland physics is compatible with an exponentially expanding universe.

Mike Helland · Jun 23, 2023

W.D.Clinger said:
It should be obvious that 8A and 8C are equivalent to an FLRW metric form.

Because 8A is said to describe Einstein's static universe, which is an FLRW model, and 8C is said to describe Minkowski spacetime, which is an FLRW model.

It looks to me as though 8B describes de Sitter space, which is an FLRW model.

Helland physics postulates a non-expanding universe, whereas de Sitter space is expanding exponentially.

Apparently the author and sole proponent of Helland physics "dunno" whether the non-expanding universe postulated by Helland physics is compatible with an exponentially expanding universe.

I said that "I dunno" in response to whether or not we actually need cosmic time.

de Sitter says system B does not:

The system A satisfies the "material postulate of relativity of inertia," but it restricts the admissible transformation to those for which at infinity t' = t, and thus introduces a quasi-absolute time, as has been explained in art. 2. In B and C the time is entirely relative, and completely equivalent to the other three co-ordinates. In A there is a world-matter, with which the whole world is filled, and this can be in a state of equilibrium without any internal stresses or pressures, if it is entirely homogeneous and at rest. In B there may, or may not, be matter, but if there is more than one material particle these can be at rest, and if the world were filled homogeneously with matter this could be at rest without internal pressure or stress; for if it were, we would have the system A, with g₄₄ = 1 for all values of the four co-ordinates. The system B satisfies the "mathematical postulate" of relativity of inertia, which does not appear to admit of a simple physical interpretation.

It was originally claimed my idea is not compatible with relativity.

It turns out to be "more" relativistic than LCDM.

Ziggurat · Jun 23, 2023

W.D.Clinger said:
If he had read the paper I quoted above, he'd know

"Apes don't read philosophy."
"Yes they do, Otto, they just don't understand it."

catsmate · Jun 23, 2023

Mike Helland said:
The microwave radiation exists.

Is it the signature of an ancient fireball?
It could just be waste heat of the solar system or something much more mundane. .

Let's see you model and numbers.

catsmate · Jun 23, 2023

Mike Helland said:
The CMB's standard interpretation is as the remnants of a primordial fireball.

Wrong. But typical of your utterances.

catsmate · Jun 23, 2023

Mike Helland said:
It appears that cosmic time and LCDM throw relativity out the window.

de Sitter's original model does not.

No.

Mike Helland · Jun 23, 2023

Here's a thought.

What percentage of the universe's mass lies inside the observable region, and what percentage lies outside?

50% / 50%?

Not very likely, right?

1% in, 99% out?

How about 99.999...% outside? That's just 100% right?

It seems that, statistically, the right answer would be there is 0% of the universe's mass in the observable region.

So, on the other side of the cosmological horizon, is 100% of the universe's mass.

Sound reasonable?

catsmate · Jun 23, 2023

Mike Helland said:
Here's a thought.

What percentage of the universe's mass lies inside the observable region, and what percentage lies outside?

50% / 50%?

Not very likely, right?

1% in, 99% out?

How about 99.999...% outside? That's just 100% right?

It seems that, statistically, the right answer would be there is 0% of the universe's mass in the observable region.

So, on the other side of the cosmological horizon, is 100% of the universe's mass.

Sound reasonable?

No.

Steve · Jun 23, 2023

Mike Helland said:
Here's a thought.

What percentage of the universe's mass lies inside the observable region, and what percentage lies outside?

50% / 50%?

Not very likely, right?

1% in, 99% out?

How about 99.999...% outside? That's just 100% right?

It seems that, statistically, the right answer would be there is 0% of the universe's mass in the observable region.

So, on the other side of the cosmological horizon, is 100% of the universe's mass.

Sound reasonable?

Has the JWST re-written the laws of physics?

Mike Helland · Jun 23, 2023

Steve said:
Has the JWST re-written the laws of physics?

I hope nobody is actually expecting a telescope to rewrite the laws of physics.

It's a pretty fancy machine, but it won't ever do that.

Steve · Jun 23, 2023

Mike Helland said:
I hope nobody is actually expecting a telescope to rewrite the laws of physics.

It's a pretty fancy machine, but it won't ever do that.

Then it seems that the creator of the thread and original thread headline mistitled the thread? As it has developed the thread has little to do with the JWST. So was it just a ruse to get people discussing (and rightfully ridiculing

) Helland physics?

Mike Helland · Jun 23, 2023

Steve said:
Then it seems that the creator of the thread and original thread headline mistitled the thread? As it has developed the thread has little to do with the JWST. So was it just a ruse to get people discussing (and rightfully ridiculing ) Helland physics?

I didn't pick the title.

There have been plenty of headlines about universe breakers and such.

It's not like people aren't coming up with alternatives.

The one posted the other day said the universe was heavier in the past.

theprestige · Jun 23, 2023

Mike Helland said:
It appears that cosmic time and LCDM throw relativity out the window.

de Sitter's original model does not.

Sometimes I need someone more knowledgeable to explain the technical nature of the nonsense you're spouting.

Mike Helland said:
Here's a thought.

What percentage of the universe's mass lies inside the observable region, and what percentage lies outside?

50% / 50%?

Not very likely, right?

1% in, 99% out?

How about 99.999...% outside? That's just 100% right?

It seems that, statistically, the right answer would be there is 0% of the universe's mass in the observable region.

So, on the other side of the cosmological horizon, is 100% of the universe's mass.

Sound reasonable?

Other times it's just obvious.

jonesdave116 · Jun 24, 2023

Mike Helland said:
The microwave radiation exists.

Is it the signature of an ancient fireball?

It could just be waste heat of the solar system or something much more mundane.

Only if you have a mechanism that not only produces the most perfect BB spectrum ever observed, but can also explain how it manages to be lensed by distant large-scale structure (LSS)? And how that same distant LSS manages to cause the CMB photons to exhibit the Sunyaev-Zel'dovich effect? Or how the accelerated expansion of space causes said CMB photons to also exhibit the integrated Sachs-Wolfe effect?

The CMB is quite obviously not a local effect.

steenkh · Jun 24, 2023

Mike Helland said:
I didn't pick the title.

Who did, then?

Mike Helland · Jun 24, 2023

steenkh said:
Who did, then?

A couple clicks reveals "jimbob".

Mike Helland · Jun 24, 2023

jonesdave116 said:
Only if you have a mechanism that not only produces the most perfect BB spectrum ever observed, but can also explain how it manages to be lensed by distant large-scale structure (LSS)? And how that same distant LSS manages to cause the CMB photons to exhibit the Sunyaev-Zel'dovich effect? Or how the accelerated expansion of space causes said CMB photons to also exhibit the integrated Sachs-Wolfe effect?

The CMB is quite obviously not a local effect.

Well, there are three ways it could go.

1. the CMB is what we think it is, a baby picture of the expanding universe
2. the CMB is the cosmological horizon in a non-expanding universe
3. the CMB isn't cosmic or background, it's the temperature of space around us

The SZ effect says that if there is a galaxy cluster in some direction, the CMB will be distorted there.

Aren't there galaxy clusters in every direction?

In any case, if the CMB was coming the past (1 and 2) they would be effected the same way.

If the CMB were actually local, does it have exclusive rights from the FCC to broadcast in its frequency? Or would other photons from deep space be mixed in?

It seems microwave contributions from all directions and distances would be occurring. Any it would seem reasonable to expect extra photons from the direction of nearby galaxy clusters (significant sources of light).

So, I suppose my question to you is, what, to you, would be some criteria against we could judge whether or not the effect is accounted for by a theory?

Maybe something specific. The SZ effect says if there is any galaxy clusters in a particular direction, the CMB will be distorted in that direction. Maybe an example of a direction , an expected observation with the effect, and without for comparison.

jonesdave116 · Jun 24, 2023

Mike Helland said:
Well, there are three ways it could go.

1. the CMB is what we think it is, a baby picture of the expanding universe
2. the CMB is the cosmological horizon in a non-expanding universe
3. the CMB isn't cosmic or background, it's the temperature of space around us

1. Is correct. It was the prediction thereof that caused the vast majority of former SS theory believers to jump ship, even before COBE, WMAP and Planck.

2. For which there is zero mechanism. Brilliant scientists such as Fred Hoyle went to their graves never having been able to explain the CMB in an SS or QSS universe. And, to the best of my knowledge, never even attempted to explain the ISW effect which says the universe is not only expanding, but doing so in an accelerated fashion. Then again, he died in 2001, and the best data on the ISW effect comes from WMAP and Planck, which post-dated his death. Again, to the best on my knowledge, no alternative model can explain the ISW effect in a non-expanding universe.

3. Errrr, no. As mentioned, it is cosmological beyond doubt. As the three effects mentioned prove. There is no explanation for those effects in any model which invokes a local source for the CMB. And there are no such models to start with. Unless you want to dive into the world of pseudoscience and crackpottery, such as the 'models' proposed by the likes of Lerner and Pierre-Marie Robitaille. Both of which fail horribly.

As for 'the temperature of space around us'! Well, why would it emit at 2.7 K in the microwave? At every distance? At that temperature everything would be neutrals. It quite obviously isn't.

And not to forget that any 'model' that does not invoke the BBT, must explain the light element abundance. Furthermore, any alternative 'model' will need to explain the predicted increase in the CMB temperature with distance, which is observed to fit the LCDM model. For instance;

Microwave background temperature at a redshift of 6.34 from H2O absorption
Riechers, D. A. et al (2022)
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-021-04294-5

If the CMB were actually local, does it have exclusive rights from the FCC to broadcast in its frequency? Or would other photons from deep space be mixed in?

That somehow shows a near-perfect BB spectrum? I think not!

And, lest we forget, you are ignoring (deliberately?) the integrated Sachs-Wolfe effect. That shows that the universe is not only expanding, but must be doing so in an accelerated fashion. Allied to SN 1a time-dilation measurements, and the BAO observations, that rather puts paid to any non-expanding and/or non-accelerating expanding universe. I have not seen any alternatives put forward to those combined observations, even from crackpots.

Mike Helland · Jun 24, 2023

jonesdave116 said:
1. Is correct.

Good news.

Steve · Jun 24, 2023

Mike Helland said:
Good news.

Not for Helland physics.

hecd2 · Jun 24, 2023

Mike Helland said:
That's the temperature, assuming an exponentially expanding model, correct?

https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/92808/what-is-the-de-sitter-temperature-as-of-now

In the time dilated de Sitter model, the horizons would be much closer (13.8 billion light years). That seems relevant. But of course, not significant enough.

I have no idea what you mean by a “time dilated” de Sitter model (is this the Helland disaster which has no expansion? - de Sitter universes are exponentially expanding). But in any case the temperature is the temperature of the radiation from the event horizon postulated by the Gibbons Hawking effect. That’s what you suggested and the effect predicts a temperature 30 orders of magnitude too low to explain the observed CMB. You will note that the distance to the horizon is not a variable in the expression for the temperature.

It seems like 30 orders of magnitude is a rather insurmountable deficit.

So, you're probably right.

Yes.

On the other hand, in context, we're talking about the surface area of the observable universe. That's got to be high up there on the list of biggest things ever.

The surface area does not enter into the expression for the temperature of the Gibbon Hawking radiation.

So, what if we assume, that given the homogeneity of the universe, 100% of the universe's mass is outside the observable universe.

Yes, what if?

That's why the vacuum solutions work. That also means that 100% of the universe's mass is beyond the cosmological horizon.

So what?

30 orders of magnitude doesn't really seem like much in the light of the subject matter.

I can’t believe you wrote that. Have you any idea how big a discrepancy of 30 orders of magnitude is?

Again, you're probably right, and I'm probably wrong. But it's more interesting (to me) to explore it than to not.

But if you knew what you were talking about, then seven milliseconds of exploration would have told you that the idea is absurdly wrong.

hecd2 · Jun 24, 2023

Mike Helland said:
Here's a thought.

What percentage of the universe's mass lies inside the observable region, and what percentage lies outside?

50% / 50%?

Not very likely, right?

1% in, 99% out?

How about 99.999...% outside? That's just 100% right?

It seems that, statistically, the right answer would be there is 0% of the universe's mass in the observable region.

So, on the other side of the cosmological horizon, is 100% of the universe's mass.

Sound reasonable?

We don’t know how much of the Universe lies beyond the observable region, but let’s say it’s 99.99 recurring percent. So what?

Cont: Why James Webb Telescope rewrites/doesn't the laws of Physics/Redshifts (2)

Master Poster

Master Poster

Philosopher

Philosopher

Penultimate Amazing

Philosopher

Philosopher

Master Poster

Philosopher

Philosopher

Philosopher

Philosopher

Philosopher

No longer the 1

Philosopher

Philosopher

Philosopher

Penultimate Amazing

Philosopher

Philosopher

Penultimate Amazing

No longer the 1

No longer the 1

No longer the 1

Philosopher

No longer the 1

Penultimate Amazing

Philosopher

Penultimate Amazing

Philosopher

Penultimate Amazing

Philosopher

Philosopher

Philosopher

Philosopher

Philosopher

Philosopher

Penultimate Amazing

Master Poster

Master Poster