We almost certainly live in a static universe.

[Aseyesee]

It's not necessarily a form of contraction so much as it's simply an example of change/time. The movement of planet around our sun keeps the whole system relatively "stable over time". Planets don't fly away from the sun, nor do their orbits spiral into the sun. The objects tend to stay in motion, and that process basically applies to everything in a static universe.

So is my take correct ... on an elementary level, the universe can be static and non-static at the same time?

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

It doesn't necessarily have to either be homogeneous everywhere, nor isotropic actually. It simply has to have an "average" density over distance.

The expansion appears isotropic (that's a key falsifiable feature), so any substitute would need to be equally isotropic. From what I've seen, the error bars for the red shift observations are isotropic and fairly consistent with distance - allowing for known gas & dust clouds, which requires a degree of homogeneity for alternative explanations. An alternative would presumably also need to show different gas and dust distributions to compensate for those subtracted in the expansion model.

 

[Michael]

So is my take correct ... on an elementary level, the universe can be static and non-static at the same time?

I would say that the universe can be relatively static, and still experience "motion" at the same time.

 

[Michael]

The expansion appears isotropic (that's a key falsifiable feature), so any substitute would need to be equally isotropic.

Actually Planck sees hemispheric variations that defy inflation theory, as well as "holes" that are larger than expected. I don't think *anything* can be used to falsify LCDM, nor do I believe that LCDM has any falsifiable features. If so, exotic matter theory would be dead by now.

You're right though that the universe does appear to be mostly homogeneous at the larger scales, and that would have to be a 'prediction' of any model.

From what I've seen, the error bars for the red shift observations are isotropic and fairly consistent with distance - allowing for known gas & dust clouds, which requires a degree of homogeneity for alternative explanations. An alternative would presumably also need to show different gas and dust distributions to compensate for those subtracted in the expansion model.

Agreed. Any alternative cosmology theory will have to include a basic distance/redshift relationship. It doesn't have to be a rigidly defined however as LCDM.

 

[Michael]

In which case you are right beck with your original problem.

The only "problem" that I seem to have is getting you to accept the role of momentum at the largest scales. Everywhere up to the scale of galaxy superclusters you seem to accept the fact that momentum of objects creates stable structures. Somewhere after that scaling point however, you simply toss up your hands and act like momentum of objects plays no role in the stabilization process. That's the only problem I have.

FYI, here's a nice Youtube video which is based on their modeling of light propagating through different mediums.

In the case of thin plasma, I'd have to assume that the "lattice" is probably composed of EM fields as well as particles, but I'd assume it's pretty much the same in every other respect.

It's certainly a creative, and logical way to solve the momentum paradox of light, and their explanation is entirely consistent with special relativity. It's a very elegant physical solution to that paradox, and it's implications for cosmology pretty much eliminates any need for 'space expansion", "dark energy" and "inflation". In short, one experimental validation of their theory could/would eliminate the need for three metaphysical constructs of "big bang" theory in one fell swoop. Very nice.

*These* are the kinds of lab experiments that we *should* be doing instead of ignoring billions of dollars worth of NULL results from dark matter experiments.

 

[Tanj]

Irony alert...

It's really only a matter of time before empirical physics triumphs over metaphysical creationist nonsense.

Since our work is theoretical and computational it must be still verified experimentally

 

[Michael]

Irony alert...

I fail to see the irony. Unlike the "space expansion", "inflation", and "dark energy" claims which it could/would replace, *this* is an empirically "testable" theory which can be put to the test in the lab, and it should be put to the test in the lab.

It's not as though it's the *only* type of photon momentum loss that takes place in a medium, it's just another theoretical form of "tired light" that deserves to be tried out in a lab. It also happens to elegantly explain a known discrepancy in physics that has existed for more than a century, and it's compatible with special relativity.

 

[lesliedellow]

The only "problem" that I seem to have is getting you to accept the role of momentum at the largest scales.

So Justatruthseeker thinks electromagnetism can magically switch off gravity, and you think angular momentum can do so. Well, that doesn't seem to have worked with the Milky Way and Andromeda galaxies, does it?

 

[Aseyesee]

I would say that the universe can be relatively static, and still experience "motion" at the same time.

So "static" as your using it is not an absolute, sort of like the name of the thread, "we almost certainly" which sounds very quantum to me.

Wouldn't the fluctuations (within the static universe) of gravity due to entropy cause the expanding and contracting of the universe even on the most fundamental of levels in regards to relativity?

Also, would an emergent universe have a supporting application to a static universe?

 

[Michael]

So "static" as your using it is not an absolute, sort of like the name of the thread, "we almost certainly" which sounds very quantum to me.

Wouldn't the fluctuations (within the static universe) of gravity due to entropy cause the expanding and contracting of the universe even on the most fundamental of levels in regards to relativity?

Not necessarily. Our solar system is quite stable thanks to the momentum of objects. GR can be tailored to fit any cosmology model, including a static universe model. In fact Einstein first proposed the addition of a non-zero constant to help explain a static universe scenario.

Also, would an emergent universe have a supporting application to a static universe?

I'm not sure what you mean by "emergent universe". AFAIK, the universe is eternal and infinite.

 

[Michael]

So Justatruthseeker thinks electromagnetism can magically switch off gravity, and you think angular momentum can do so.

Huh? No! Gravity isn't "switched off" inside of our solar system. The momentum of objects *counters* gravity and various objects simply follow the curvature that is created by the sun and various planets. The momentum of objects keeps everything stable over time. Nothing is necessarily 'switching off' gravity however.

Well, that doesn't seem to have worked with the Milky Way and Andromeda galaxies, does it?

The fact that "stuff happens" at relatively small scales (a couple of galaxies merge together) doesn't really detract from the fact that the motion of objects tends to stabilize the process and helps to order the layout of mass. One exception doesn't change the rule. Asteroids slam into the sun all the time, but that doesn't mean that the Earth is necessarily going to follow suit.

 

[sjastro]

Not necessarily. Our solar system is quite stable thanks to the momentum of objects. GR can be tailored to fit any cosmology model, including a static universe model. In fact Einstein first proposed the addition of a non-zero constant to help explain a static universe scenario.

I’m staggered Michael that Albert didn’t have your foresight.
Why on Earth did he introduce an early 20th century version of dark energy in order to explain how a static universe didn’t collapse when accordingly to you it's all done by “rotation” and “momentum”.

Amazing how the finest minds in physics have struggled to make a static universe stable yet you seem to have solved this vexing issue.
Now that the stability of a static universe has been solved and you are a leading expert in the field, I’d like to pick your brains by asking the following questions.

(1) How is the linear relationship between measured redshift and distance preserved when all galaxies are now moving in space due to rotation and have a Doppler shift component (both longititudinal and SR transverse components) in the measurement?

(2) How does the n-body problem of massive objects such as galaxies in a cluster orbiting about a barycentre result in near concentric orbits like the planetary orbits in our solar system?

(3) Explain the mechanisms of the following 2-body systems given that mass transfer and mergers are not going to occur due to “rotation” and “momentum”.
The optical light curves of objects such X-ray binaries and type 1A supernovae.
Gravitational waves for BH-BH, NS-NS and NS-BH mergers.

 

[lesliedellow]

The fact that "stuff happens" at relatively small scales (a couple of galaxies merge together) doesn't really detract from the fact that the motion of objects tends to stabilize the process and helps to order the layout of mass. One exception doesn't change the rule. Asteroids slam into the sun all the time, but that doesn't mean that the Earth is necessarily going to follow suit.

It is no exception. For heaven sake go back to school, and do some elementary physics.

 

[Noxot]

 

[Michael]

It is no exception. For heaven sake go back to school, and do some elementary physics.

You're just tilting at windmills of your own creation at this point. The fact that asteroids crash into various objects in the solar system, including the sun, is not automatically evidence that all planets will eventually get sucked up by the sun in the core of the solar system.

You're equating things that are not equal.

You seem to accept the fact that everything up to and including galaxy superclusters can remain stable without anything other than kinetic energy, so why on *Earth* would you assume it works differently at larger scales?

Whatever chip you have on your shoulder related to a static universe theory, it's neither logical nor logically consistent. You'll accept that moons stay in their orbit due to momentum, planets stay in an ordered pattern due to momentum, suns stay in ordered patterns in galaxies due to moment, galaxies stay in organized patterns in clusters due to gravity, and clusters stay in stable, organized patterns due to momentum. Suddenly you do an about face when we increase the scale one more time? Why? It's a purely arbitrary choice on your part.

 

[Michael]

I’m staggered Michael that Albert didn’t have your foresight.

He certainly did have such forsight, hence the introduction of a non-zero constant in GR by his own hand. Static universe theory was in fact first "explained" (mathematically) by Einstein himself. It's not like I added a non-zero constant first.

Why on Earth did he introduce an early 20th century version of dark energy in order to explain how a static universe didn’t collapse when accordingly to you it's all done by “rotation” and “momentum”.

I didn't suggest that it was *all* done by momentum alone, I just pointed out that the EM could be a *relatively small* influence all things considered.

Amazing how the finest minds in physics have struggled to make a static universe stable yet you seem to have solved this vexing issue.

The only "idea" I even proposed is that if Birkeland's cathode solar model is correct, there may indeed be a small charge repulsion process going on between stars and potentially between galaxies. I have no need however for "space expansion", 'dark energy", "dark matter", "inflation" or any of the other junk you're adding to GR. Pure EM field effects are probably all I'd ever require.

Now that the stability of a static universe has been solved and you are a leading expert in the field,

Er, since when? You act like I'm the first and only person in history to suggest that we live inside of a static universe. That's obviously not the case.

I’d like to pick your brains by asking the following questions.

For what purpose really? Do you really care how I answer any of your questions?

(1) How is the linear relationship between measured redshift and distance preserved when all galaxies are now moving in space due to rotation and have a Doppler shift component (both longititudinal and SR transverse components) in the measurement?

The doppler shift component is likely to be quite small compared to the tired light component for starters. The overall density and "clouds of dust" components would probably have a greater overall influence in the redshift relationship than the relative motion of objects in very distant clusters. I'm also leery of the claim that there is always likely to be (going to be) a smooth distance/redshift relationship because that would preclude the the existence of cloudier areas and clearer areas of spacetime. I doubt that space is so highly accommodating to our oversimplification requirements related to math.

(2) How does the n-body problem of massive objects such as galaxies in a cluster orbiting about a barycentre result in near concentric orbits like the planetary orbits in our solar system?

It doesn't. Gravity isn't the only force of nature that is acting on everything as you seem to imagine. There's also an *electrical* component.

(3) Explain the mechanisms of the following 2-body systems given that mass transfer and mergers are not going to occur due to “rotation” and “momentum”.
The optical light curves of objects such X-ray binaries and type 1A supernovae.
Gravitational waves for BH-BH, NS-NS and NS-BH mergers.

This is just a strawman argument, and an irrelevant question from the standpoint of cosmology. There's always the potential for objects to slam into each other and to merge with one another in *any* cosmological configuration. None of this has anything at all do to with cosmology theory in the first place. Supernovae are an example of things "blowing apart" too under the correct circumstances.

The one forbidden topic you won't touch is the fact that electricity, electric fields and current play a larger role in astronomy than the mainstream wants to admit.

Birkeland wasn't mystified by simple stuff like the heat source of the sun's corona, or the *physical cause* of the Earth's aurora. He physically replicated the process in his lab in fact. The moment one starts to apply that model to the universe on larger scales, the likelihood of EM charge repulsion and attraction becomes llikely. There's a natural explanation for Einstein's non-zero constant in EM fields. Nothing more is necessary to explain a static universe, and Einstein himself first proposed a static universe based on GR, not yours truly. Get real.

 

[lesliedellow]

You seem to accept the fact that everything up to and including galaxy superclusters can remain stable without anything other than kinetic energy, so why on *Earth* would you assume it works differently at larger scales?

Either you are just being obtuse, or a fifteen year old schoolboy could better your knowledge of physics. Stars orbiting a galatic centre are not going to get you a static universe - period.

 

[lesliedellow]

He certainly did have such forsight, hence the introduction of a non-zero constant in GR by his own hand. Static universe theory was in fact first "explained" (mathematically) by Einstein himself. It's not like I added a non-zero constant first.

Oh jolly good, so you are a fan of the Cosmological Constant now - you just want it to have an impossibly precise value. So we can forget about angular momentum saving the static universe, can't we? You truly are a fit companion for Justatruthseeker.

 

[Aseyesee]

I'm not sure what you mean by "emergent universe". AFAIK, the universe is eternal and infinite.

(Loosley put) something begotten out of something else (organic, or inorganic), like consciousness ...

 

[Michael]

Either you are just being obtuse, or a fifteen year old schoolboy could better your knowledge of physics. Stars orbiting a galatic centre are not going to get you a static universe - period.

It does give us a static/stable galaxy however. You still haven't explained your "about face" as it relates to momentum as it applies to something larger than a supercluster. Everything up to and including superclusters remains stable without evoking anything more than momentum, yet for some inexplicable reason, you simply "assume' everything somehow works differently beyond the size of superclusters. Why?