Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
To the rest of us who read the article for what it is instead reading our own bias into it, the "catastrophic" failures are due to the low S/N ratio of the X-ray spectra and systematic errors associated with the Fe blind search due to varying Fe abundance, ICM temperature gradients and instrumental characteristics.Thanks again for the link. It's a very interesting paper. One part that got my attention was figure 4. Apparently about 17 percent of the clusters produce "catastrophic" failures, probably as a result of the variations in scattering/absorption processes in space. That's pretty much par for the course with any tired light model.
To the rest of us who read the article for what it is instead reading our own bias into it, the "catastrophic" failures are due to the low S/N ratio of the X-ray spectra and systematic errors associated with the Fe blind search due to varying Fe abundance, ICM temperature gradients and instrumental characteristics.
Strictly speaking, energy conservation is a local phenomenon, depending on time-translation symmetry, which isn't preserved at the largest cosmological scales or in exotic regimes such as the big bang. Nevertheless, there are energy conserving models that involve the balance of matter & energy with the gravitational distortion of spacetime they produce, giving a net-zero energy balance - this is one basis for a 'universe from nothing'.If energy and matter can neither be destroyed, nor created, then logically there could be no big bang. Since all the energy and matter in the universe can only transform into something else, there couldn't be a beginning or end.
Ever.
Strictly speaking, energy conservation is a local phenomenon, depending on time-translation symmetry, which isn't preserved at the largest cosmological scales or in exotic regimes such as the big bang.
When the space through which particles move is changing, the total energy of those particles is not conserved.
Not sure what point you're making with Carroll's blog post about General Relativity, but your paragraph following shows you either didn't read it or didn't comprehend it.Energy Is Not Conserved
Even before we look at "dark energy", the LCDM model is problematic in terms of violating conservation of energy laws, and dark energy supposedly retains a constant density over multiple exponential increases in volume, *grossly* violating conservation of energy laws and constantly adding more energy into the system. Worse yet, the LCDM model "assumes" that the standard model of particle physics is wrong, or at least incomplete, in spite of zero laboratory evidence to support such a conclusion.
Not sure what point you're making with Carroll's blog post about General Relativity, but your paragraph following shows you either didn't read it or didn't comprehend it.
As for the Standard Model being considered incomplete, the people at CERN can explain: ...So although the Standard Model accurately describes the phenomena within its domain, it is still incomplete.
The blog post you linked explains why there's no energy conservation problem with LCDM and the conservation of energy laws aren't violated because they aren't relevant in that regime. We've been over this already - remember time-translation invariance symmetry and Noether's theorem?The energy conservation problems of the LCDM cosmology model make it undesirable IMO, and there are alternative explanations for redshift that do not require one to toss out the laws of physics on a whim. A static universe, tired light GR oriented cosmology model violates no conservation of energy laws since there is no need for either space expansion, or dark energy.
The blog post you linked explains why there's no energy conservation problem with LCDM and the conservation of energy laws aren't violated because they aren't relevant in that regime. We've been over this already - remember time-translation invariance symmetry and Noether's theorem?
In GR a static universe is metastable, i.e. it predicts either an expanding or a contracting spacetime. What we see is consistent with the former.GR theory doesn't *require* either space expansion...
I'm sorry you can't or won't accept the physics of General Relativity. Newtonian physics is only workable as a classical limit of GR, i.e. flat spacetime.Insisting that the laws of physics don't apply to the LCDM cosmology model simply sounds like a bad case of special pleading from my skeptical vantage point.
In GR a static universe is metastable, i.e. it predicts either an expanding or a contracting spacetime. What we see is consistent with the former.
I'm sorry you can't or won't accept the physics of General Relativity.
In GR it's spacetime that expands or contracts. Matter only influences the curvature of spacetime.It would be more correct to say that in GR, *if gravity is the only force at work*, then it predicts either an expanding or contracting universe, but alternative cosmology models rarely suggest that only gravity acts on objects in space.
Furthermore, "spacetime" contraction/expansion is possible without "space expansion" if objects themselves move (expand or contract) so even the the concept of "space expansion/contraction" isn't a requirement in a gravity only scenario.
Unfortunately, you can't cherry-pick which bits of GR you accept. The physics of GR has certain implications and you either accept them or come up with a different theory.I accept GR theory, and prefer it to explain gravity, without the metaphysical add-ons like space expansion, or exotic forms of matter/energy. It's only when optional elements are evoked that I tend to balk.
In GR it's spacetime that expands or contracts. Matter only influences the curvature of spacetime.
Unfortunately, you can't cherry-pick which bits of GR you accept.
The physics of GR has certain implications and you either accept them or come up with a different theory.
I'm afraid that we're never likely to agree that the conservation laws are not being violated, or that it's not relevant to GR theory and/or cosmology. GR theory doesn't *require* either space expansion, or dark energy, so only LCDM cosmology model proponents have to claim that energy conservation "doesn't matter/doesn't apply" to their model. It sounds like pure special pleading from my perspective. I find that to be simply too far fetched and too "convenient".
GR theory doesn't *require* either space expansion………….
I don't have any problem with Einstein's static universe models based on GR because I have no doubt that other influence *besides* gravity are also involved in the movements of plasma in the universe.
Worse yet, the LCDM model "assumes" that the standard model of particle physics is wrong......
Strictly, it's the metric of the geometry of spacetime that is changing scale.Well, objects can certainly move around in GR, and various objects can expand or contract in relationship to each other. I have no problem with the type of "spacetime" expansion or contraction. It's only the concept of 'space' expansion that I'm skeptical of.
There we have it - for some, belief trumps science; it's the same mistake you describe Einstein making below.I understand it's mathematically acceptable, I simply lack belief that it actually happens in nature.
Memorably, Einstein later had the sense to realise he was mistaken to trust his instincts in that, and the grace to admit it... Even Einstein originally rejected Lemaitre's space expansion ideas, saying "Your math is correct, but your physics is abominable". I still think the physics aspect of space expansion is abominable. That is where the whole energy conservation conflict comes from.
Michael, correct me if I'm wrong, but have you changed from an EU supporter to another form of plasma cosmology?
Strictly, it's the metric of the geometry of spacetime that is changing scale.
There we have it - for some, belief trumps science; it's the same mistake you describe Einstein making below.
Memorably, Einstein later had the sense to realise he was mistaken to trust his instincts in that, and the grace to admit it.
Incorrect.
LCDM is not the only cosmological model where energy conservation doesn’t apply.
Incorrect.
Gravitational waves come directly from the field equations as a perturbation of the Lorentz metric for flat spacetime.
In this case spacetime undergoes expansion/contraction in a quadrupole symmetry.
Indeed it does such as a cosmological constant or a form of dark energy to prevent matter from collapsing under gravity; the very thing you reject as a metaphysical “add on”.
Totally incorrect.
As mentioned in another post the history of the LCDM from the hot Big Bang to nucleosynthesis is the standard model of particle physics...
....which is incomplete.
Neutrinos,.....
dark matter and dark energy goes beyond the standard model.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?