dark energy,acceleration and redshift [Archive]

alistair

Nov19-04, 01:30 PM

<jabberwocky><div class="vbmenu_control"><a href="jabberwocky:;" onClick="newWindow=window.open('','usenetCode','toolbar=no, location=no,scrollbars=yes,resizable=yes,status=no ,width=650,height=400'); newWindow.document.write('<HTML><HEAD><TITLE>Usenet ASCII</TITLE></HEAD><BODY topmargin=0 leftmargin=0 BGCOLOR=#F1F1F1><table border=0 width=625><td bgcolor=midnightblue><font color=#F1F1F1>This Usenet message\'s original ASCII form: </font></td></tr><tr><td width=449><br><br><font face=courier><UL><PRE>Does dark energy exist or is the part of the universe we inhabit\ndeccelerating\nfaster than more distant parts of the universe, giving the illusion of\na universe being accelerated by a negative pressure? Can a\ndecceleration gradient of the kind I have described account for the\nredshift of cosmic microwave background photons?\n\n</UL></PRE></font></td></tr></table></BODY><HTML>');"> <IMG SRC=/images/buttons/ip.gif BORDER=0 ALIGN=CENTER ALT="View this Usenet post in original ASCII form">  View this Usenet post in original ASCII form </a></div><P></jabberwocky>Does dark energy exist or is the part of the universe we inhabit
deccelerating
faster than more distant parts of the universe, giving the illusion of
a universe being accelerated by a negative pressure? Can a
decceleration gradient of the kind I have described account for the
redshift of cosmic microwave background photons?

Phillip Helbig---remove CLOTHES to reply

Nov21-04, 02:50 AM

<jabberwocky><div class="vbmenu_control"><a href="jabberwocky:;" onClick="newWindow=window.open('','usenetCode','toolbar=no, location=no,scrollbars=yes,resizable=yes,status=no ,width=650,height=400'); newWindow.document.write('<HTML><HEAD><TITLE>Usenet ASCII</TITLE></HEAD><BODY topmargin=0 leftmargin=0 BGCOLOR=#F1F1F1><table border=0 width=625><td bgcolor=midnightblue><font color=#F1F1F1>This Usenet message\'s original ASCII form: </font></td></tr><tr><td width=449><br><br><font face=courier><UL><PRE>In article <861c1b21.0411180930.5a61cb2b@posting.google.com>, \nalistair@goforit64.fsnet.co.uk (alistair) writes:\n\n> Does dark energy exist or is the part of the universe we inhabit\n> deccelerating\n> faster than more distant parts of the universe, giving the illusion of\n> a universe being accelerated by a negative pressure?\n\nDo you have any evidence at all that our local universe could be\ndecelerating? Keep in mind that the evidence for expansion is seen from\nrelatively nearby ((e.g. the original stuff found by Hubble) out to much\nlarger distances. Also, your idea would imply that we inhabit the\ncenter of a decelerating region. While not impossible, it goes against\nthe Copernican Principle.\n\n> Can a\n> decceleration gradient of the kind I have described account for the\n> redshift of cosmic microwave background photons?\n\nNo. The cosmological redshift tells us the ratio of the scale factor of\nthe universe between now and when the radiation was emitted. It has\nnothing to do with acceleration, nor even with motion, just with the\nrelative size. You seem to think that the redshift is caused by distant\nacceleration, hence that it could be mimicked by local deceleration.\n\n</UL></PRE></font></td></tr></table></BODY><HTML>');"> <IMG SRC=/images/buttons/ip.gif BORDER=0 ALIGN=CENTER ALT="View this Usenet post in original ASCII form">  View this Usenet post in original ASCII form </a></div><P></jabberwocky>In article <861c1b21.0411180930.5a61cb2b@posting.google.com>,
alistair@goforit64.fsnet.co.uk (alistair) writes:

> Does dark energy exist or is the part of the universe we inhabit
> deccelerating
> faster than more distant parts of the universe, giving the illusion of
> a universe being accelerated by a negative pressure?

Do you have any evidence at all that our local universe could be
decelerating? Keep in mind that the evidence for expansion is seen from
relatively nearby ((e.g. the original stuff found by Hubble) out to much
larger distances. Also, your idea would imply that we inhabit the
center of a decelerating region. While not impossible, it goes against
the Copernican Principle.

> Can a
> decceleration gradient of the kind I have described account for the
> redshift of cosmic microwave background photons?

No. The cosmological redshift tells us the ratio of the scale factor of
the universe between now and when the radiation was emitted. It has
nothing to do with acceleration, nor even with motion, just with the
relative size. You seem to think that the redshift is caused by distant
acceleration, hence that it could be mimicked by local deceleration.

alistair

Nov22-04, 05:40 PM

<jabberwocky><div class="vbmenu_control"><a href="jabberwocky:;" onClick="newWindow=window.open('','usenetCode','toolbar=no, location=no,scrollbars=yes,resizable=yes,status=no ,width=650,height=400'); newWindow.document.write('<HTML><HEAD><TITLE>Usenet ASCII</TITLE></HEAD><BODY topmargin=0 leftmargin=0 BGCOLOR=#F1F1F1><table border=0 width=625><td bgcolor=midnightblue><font color=#F1F1F1>This Usenet message\'s original ASCII form: </font></td></tr><tr><td width=449><br><br><font face=courier><UL><PRE>helbig@astro.multiCLOTHESvax.de (Phillip Helbig---remove CLOTHES to reply) wrote in message news:<cnliic\\$i8o\\$1@online.de>...\n> In article <861c1b21.0411180930.5a61cb2b@posting.google.com>, \n> alistair@goforit64.fsnet.co.uk (alistair) writes:\n>\n> > Does dark energy exist or is the part of the universe we inhabit\n> > deccelerating\n> > faster than more distant parts of the universe, giving the illusion of\n> > a universe being accelerated by a negative pressure?\n>\n> Do you have any evidence at all that our local universe could be\n> decelerating? Keep in mind that the evidence for expansion is seen from\n> relatively nearby ((e.g. the original stuff found by Hubble) out to much\n> larger distances. Also, your idea would imply that we inhabit the\n> center of a decelerating region. While not impossible, it goes against\n> the Copernican Principle.\n\nI have no evidence for this.But,using a similar line of thought,is it\npossible that accelerating expansion coud be due to matter beyond the\nvisible horizon pulling the galaxies towards it (this would have to be\na non-relativistic model of expansion in which one sphere of matter is\ninside another sphere of matter)? Would the experimental data from\nsupernovae rule this out? Is the acceleration of expansion the same at\nall distances\nfrom the Earth?\n\n</UL></PRE></font></td></tr></table></BODY><HTML>');"> <IMG SRC=/images/buttons/ip.gif BORDER=0 ALIGN=CENTER ALT="View this Usenet post in original ASCII form">  View this Usenet post in original ASCII form </a></div><P></jabberwocky>helbig@astro.multiCLOTHESvax.de (Phillip Helbig---remove CLOTHES to reply) wrote in message news:<cnliic$i8o$1@online.de>...
> In article <861c1b21.0411180930.5a61cb2b@posting.google.com>,
> alistair@goforit64.fsnet.co.uk (alistair) writes:
>
> > Does dark energy exist or is the part of the universe we inhabit
> > deccelerating
> > faster than more distant parts of the universe, giving the illusion of
> > a universe being accelerated by a negative pressure?
>
> Do you have any evidence at all that our local universe could be
> decelerating? Keep in mind that the evidence for expansion is seen from
> relatively nearby ((e.g. the original stuff found by Hubble) out to much
> larger distances. Also, your idea would imply that we inhabit the
> center of a decelerating region. While not impossible, it goes against
> the Copernican Principle.

I have no evidence for this.But,using a similar line of thought,is it
possible that accelerating expansion coud be due to matter beyond the
visible horizon pulling the galaxies towards it (this would have to be
a non-relativistic model of expansion in which one sphere of matter is
inside another sphere of matter)? Would the experimental data from
supernovae rule this out? Is the acceleration of expansion the same at
all distances
from the Earth?

Phillip Helbig---remove CLOTHES to reply

Nov23-04, 03:08 AM

<jabberwocky><div class="vbmenu_control"><a href="jabberwocky:;" onClick="newWindow=window.open('','usenetCode','toolbar=no, location=no,scrollbars=yes,resizable=yes,status=no ,width=650,height=400'); newWindow.document.write('<HTML><HEAD><TITLE>Usenet ASCII</TITLE></HEAD><BODY topmargin=0 leftmargin=0 BGCOLOR=#F1F1F1><table border=0 width=625><td bgcolor=midnightblue><font color=#F1F1F1>This Usenet message\'s original ASCII form: </font></td></tr><tr><td width=449><br><br><font face=courier><UL><PRE>\nIn article <861c1b21.0411220305.2b95957e@posting.google.com>, \nalistair@goforit64.fsnet.co.uk (alistair) writes:\n\n> > Do you have any evidence at all that our local universe could be\n> > decelerating? Keep in mind that the evidence for expansion is seen from\n> > relatively nearby ((e.g. the original stuff found by Hubble) out to much\n> > larger distances. Also, your idea would imply that we inhabit the\n> > center of a decelerating region. While not impossible, it goes against\n> > the Copernican Principle.\n>\n> I have no evidence for this.But,using a similar line of thought,is it\n> possible that accelerating expansion coud be due to matter beyond the\n> visible horizon pulling the galaxies towards it (this would have to be\n> a non-relativistic model of expansion in which one sphere of matter is\n> inside another sphere of matter)? Would the experimental data from\n> supernovae rule this out? Is the acceleration of expansion the same at\n> all distances\n> from the Earth?\n\nIt is possible. It is also possible that there are no forces in the\nuniverse and all motions is due to invisible angels (or demons) pushing\nstuff around. Both ideas, however, are not scientific. Your new idea\nviolates the Copernican Principle on an even larger scale than the\nprevious one. It also violates Occam\'s Razor, which says that it is\nusually best to stick with the SIMPLEST hypothesis which explains the\ndata. Also, the idea is ad hoc: there is no evidence for it; it was\njust invented to explain something already known.\n\nPerhaps if you told us what you are trying to achieve with all these\nquestions, then the readers here could come up with better answers.\nWhat are your reasons for doubting, apparently, straightforward 1920s\ncosmology, together with independently confirmed recent observations?\n\n</UL></PRE></font></td></tr></table></BODY><HTML>');"> <IMG SRC=/images/buttons/ip.gif BORDER=0 ALIGN=CENTER ALT="View this Usenet post in original ASCII form">  View this Usenet post in original ASCII form </a></div><P></jabberwocky>In article <861c1b21.0411220305.2b95957e@posting.google.com>,
alistair@goforit64.fsnet.co.uk (alistair) writes:

> > Do you have any evidence at all that our local universe could be
> > decelerating? Keep in mind that the evidence for expansion is seen from
> > relatively nearby ((e.g. the original stuff found by Hubble) out to much
> > larger distances. Also, your idea would imply that we inhabit the
> > center of a decelerating region. While not impossible, it goes against
> > the Copernican Principle.
>
> I have no evidence for this.But,using a similar line of thought,is it
> possible that accelerating expansion coud be due to matter beyond the
> visible horizon pulling the galaxies towards it (this would have to be
> a non-relativistic model of expansion in which one sphere of matter is
> inside another sphere of matter)? Would the experimental data from
> supernovae rule this out? Is the acceleration of expansion the same at
> all distances
> from the Earth?

It is possible. It is also possible that there are no forces in the
universe and all motions is due to invisible angels (or demons) pushing
stuff around. Both ideas, however, are not scientific. Your new idea
violates the Copernican Principle on an even larger scale than the
previous one. It also violates Occam's Razor, which says that it is
usually best to stick with the SIMPLEST hypothesis which explains the
data. Also, the idea is ad hoc: there is no evidence for it; it was
just invented to explain something already known.

Perhaps if you told us what you are trying to achieve with all these
questions, then the readers here could come up with better answers.
What are your reasons for doubting, apparently, straightforward 1920s
cosmology, together with independently confirmed recent observations?

alistair

Nov24-04, 01:48 AM

<jabberwocky><div class="vbmenu_control"><a href="jabberwocky:;" onClick="newWindow=window.open('','usenetCode','toolbar=no, location=no,scrollbars=yes,resizable=yes,status=no ,width=650,height=400'); newWindow.document.write('<HTML><HEAD><TITLE>Usenet ASCII</TITLE></HEAD><BODY topmargin=0 leftmargin=0 BGCOLOR=#F1F1F1><table border=0 width=625><td bgcolor=midnightblue><font color=#F1F1F1>This Usenet message\'s original ASCII form: </font></td></tr><tr><td width=449><br><br><font face=courier><UL><PRE>helbig@astro.multiCLOTHESvax.de (Phillip Helbig---remove CLOTHES to reply) wrote in message news:<cntts4\\$sd7\\$2@online.de>...\n> In article <861c1b21.0411220305.2b95957e@posting.google.com>, \n> alistair@goforit64.fsnet.co.uk (alistair) writes:\n>\n> > > Do you have any evidence at all that our local universe could be\n> > > decelerating? Keep in mind that the evidence for expansion is seen from\n> > > relatively nearby ((e.g. the original stuff found by Hubble) out to much\n> > > larger distances. Also, your idea would imply that we inhabit the\n> > > center of a decelerating region. While not impossible, it goes against\n> > > the Copernican Principle.\n> >\n> > I have no evidence for this.But,using a similar line of thought,is it\n> > possible that accelerating expansion coud be due to matter beyond the\n> > visible horizon pulling the galaxies towards it (this would have to be\n> > a non-relativistic model of expansion in which one sphere of matter is\n> > inside another sphere of matter)? Would the experimental data from\n> > supernovae rule this out? Is the acceleration of expansion the same at\n> > all distances\n> > from the Earth?\n>\n> It is possible. It is also possible that there are no forces in the\n> universe and all motions is due to invisible angels (or demons) pushing\n> stuff around. Both ideas, however, are not scientific. Your new idea\n> violates the Copernican Principle on an even larger scale than the\n> previous one. It also violates Occam\'s Razor, which says that it is\n> usually best to stick with the SIMPLEST hypothesis which explains the\n> data. Also, the idea is ad hoc: there is no evidence for it; it was\n> just invented to explain something already known.\n>\n> Perhaps if you told us what you are trying to achieve with all these\n> questions\n\nMy motivation for asking is as follows:\nDark energy is energy i.e it can be measured in Joules.\nEvery kind of energy measured in Joules, for which experimental\nevidence exists, has positive pressure in general relativity\ntheory.Also every kind of energy apart from dark energy exists in a\nregion of space - it is particulate in nature.Since there is no\nevidence that space is filled with particles carrying "dark energy"\nand there is no way of explaining how any form of energy with negative\npressure has the opposite effect to the other well-known forms of\nenergy with positive pressure,isn\'t it simpler to assume that dark\nenergy does not exist,and that the expansion of the universe is\naccelerating because there is a gravitational pull from matter which\npossesses positive pressure, and which is beyond the detected\ngalaxies? From my point of view,assuming dark energy exists is like\nassuming that kaons decay preferentially in one direction because of\nsome mysterious and unusual difference between matter and antimatter -\nit is easier to assume that more matter exists than we know of, and\nthat new particles will be discovered in accelerators, and these\nparticles will account for what is,at present,a mysterious asymmetry.\n\n</UL></PRE></font></td></tr></table></BODY><HTML>');"> <IMG SRC=/images/buttons/ip.gif BORDER=0 ALIGN=CENTER ALT="View this Usenet post in original ASCII form">  View this Usenet post in original ASCII form </a></div><P></jabberwocky>helbig@astro.multiCLOTHESvax.de (Phillip Helbig---remove CLOTHES to reply) wrote in message news:<cntts4$sd7$2@online.de>...
> In article <861c1b21.0411220305.2b95957e@posting.google.com>,
> alistair@goforit64.fsnet.co.uk (alistair) writes:
>
> > > Do you have any evidence at all that our local universe could be
> > > decelerating? Keep in mind that the evidence for expansion is seen from
> > > relatively nearby ((e.g. the original stuff found by Hubble) out to much
> > > larger distances. Also, your idea would imply that we inhabit the
> > > center of a decelerating region. While not impossible, it goes against
> > > the Copernican Principle.
> >
> > I have no evidence for this.But,using a similar line of thought,is it
> > possible that accelerating expansion coud be due to matter beyond the
> > visible horizon pulling the galaxies towards it (this would have to be
> > a non-relativistic model of expansion in which one sphere of matter is
> > inside another sphere of matter)? Would the experimental data from
> > supernovae rule this out? Is the acceleration of expansion the same at
> > all distances
> > from the Earth?
>
> It is possible. It is also possible that there are no forces in the
> universe and all motions is due to invisible angels (or demons) pushing
> stuff around. Both ideas, however, are not scientific. Your new idea
> violates the Copernican Principle on an even larger scale than the
> previous one. It also violates Occam's Razor, which says that it is
> usually best to stick with the SIMPLEST hypothesis which explains the
> data. Also, the idea is ad hoc: there is no evidence for it; it was
> just invented to explain something already known.
>
> Perhaps if you told us what you are trying to achieve with all these
> questions

My motivation for asking is as follows:
Dark energy is energy i.e it can be measured in Joules.
Every kind of energy measured in Joules, for which experimental
evidence exists, has positive pressure in general relativity
theory.Also every kind of energy apart from dark energy exists in a
region of space - it is particulate in nature.Since there is no
evidence that space is filled with particles carrying "dark energy"
and there is no way of explaining how any form of energy with negative
pressure has the opposite effect to the other well-known forms of
energy with positive pressure,isn't it simpler to assume that dark
energy does not exist,and that the expansion of the universe is
accelerating because there is a gravitational pull from matter which
possesses positive pressure, and which is beyond the detected
galaxies? From my point of view,assuming dark energy exists is like
assuming that kaons decay preferentially in one direction because of
some mysterious and unusual difference between matter and antimatter -
it is easier to assume that more matter exists than we know of, and
that new particles will be discovered in accelerators, and these
particles will account for what is,at present,a mysterious asymmetry.

Phillip Helbig---remove CLOTHES to reply

Nov24-04, 09:26 AM

<jabberwocky><div class="vbmenu_control"><a href="jabberwocky:;" onClick="newWindow=window.open('','usenetCode','toolbar=no, location=no,scrollbars=yes,resizable=yes,status=no ,width=650,height=400'); newWindow.document.write('<HTML><HEAD><TITLE>Usenet ASCII</TITLE></HEAD><BODY topmargin=0 leftmargin=0 BGCOLOR=#F1F1F1><table border=0 width=625><td bgcolor=midnightblue><font color=#F1F1F1>This Usenet message\'s original ASCII form: </font></td></tr><tr><td width=449><br><br><font face=courier><UL><PRE>\nIn article <861c1b21.0411231303.53b914a8@posting.google.com>, \nalistair@goforit64.fsnet.co.uk (alistair) writes:\n\n> My motivation for asking is as follows:\n> Dark energy is energy i.e it can be measured in Joules.\n> Every kind of energy measured in Joules, for which experimental\n> evidence exists, has positive pressure in general relativity\n> theory.Also every kind of energy apart from dark energy exists in a\n> region of space - it is particulate in nature.\n\nDark energy also exists in "regions of space". In fact, the amount per\nregion of space is the same everywhere and at all times, hence the name\n"cosmological constant". (There is no evidence that some more bizarre\nform of dark energy than the cosmological constant is needed to explain\nthe observations.\n\n> Since there is no\n> evidence that space is filled with particles carrying "dark energy"\n\nNo one has "detected it directly". On the other hand, this isn\'t to be\nexpected. The effects show up on large scales, where they are observed.\n\n> and there is no way of explaining how any form of energy with negative\n> pressure has the opposite effect to the other well-known forms of\n> energy with positive pressure,\n\nWhat do you mean by "there is no way of explaining"?\n\n> isn\'t it simpler to assume that dark\n> energy does not exist,and that the expansion of the universe is\n> accelerating because there is a gravitational pull from matter which\n> possesses positive pressure, and which is beyond the detected\n> galaxies?\n\nNo, because this idea, as you outlined it, would imply that we are\nlocated at a preferred position in the universe. This is extremely\nunlikely.\n\n> From my point of view,assuming dark energy exists is like\n> assuming that kaons decay preferentially in one direction because of\n> some mysterious and unusual difference between matter and antimatter -\n> it is easier to assume that more matter exists than we know of, and\n> that new particles will be discovered in accelerators, and these\n> particles will account for what is,at present,a mysterious asymmetry.\n\nPlease don\'t attempt to provide evidence for one speculative hypothesis\nby mentioning another speculative hypothesis.\n\n</UL></PRE></font></td></tr></table></BODY><HTML>');"> <IMG SRC=/images/buttons/ip.gif BORDER=0 ALIGN=CENTER ALT="View this Usenet post in original ASCII form">  View this Usenet post in original ASCII form </a></div><P></jabberwocky>In article <861c1b21.0411231303.53b914a8@posting.google.com>,
alistair@goforit64.fsnet.co.uk (alistair) writes:

> My motivation for asking is as follows:
> Dark energy is energy i.e it can be measured in Joules.
> Every kind of energy measured in Joules, for which experimental
> evidence exists, has positive pressure in general relativity
> theory.Also every kind of energy apart from dark energy exists in a
> region of space - it is particulate in nature.

Dark energy also exists in "regions of space". In fact, the amount per
region of space is the same everywhere and at all times, hence the name
"cosmological constant". (There is no evidence that some more bizarre
form of dark energy than the cosmological constant is needed to explain
the observations.

> Since there is no
> evidence that space is filled with particles carrying "dark energy"

No one has "detected it directly". On the other hand, this isn't to be
expected. The effects show up on large scales, where they are observed.

> and there is no way of explaining how any form of energy with negative
> pressure has the opposite effect to the other well-known forms of
> energy with positive pressure,

What do you mean by "there is no way of explaining"?

> isn't it simpler to assume that dark
> energy does not exist,and that the expansion of the universe is
> accelerating because there is a gravitational pull from matter which
> possesses positive pressure, and which is beyond the detected
> galaxies?

No, because this idea, as you outlined it, would imply that we are
located at a preferred position in the universe. This is extremely
unlikely.

> From my point of view,assuming dark energy exists is like
> assuming that kaons decay preferentially in one direction because of
> some mysterious and unusual difference between matter and antimatter -
> it is easier to assume that more matter exists than we know of, and
> that new particles will be discovered in accelerators, and these
> particles will account for what is,at present,a mysterious asymmetry.

Please don't attempt to provide evidence for one speculative hypothesis
by mentioning another speculative hypothesis.

alistair

Nov25-04, 03:37 AM

<jabberwocky><div class="vbmenu_control"><a href="jabberwocky:;" onClick="newWindow=window.open('','usenetCode','toolbar=no, location=no,scrollbars=yes,resizable=yes,status=no ,width=650,height=400'); newWindow.document.write('<HTML><HEAD><TITLE>Usenet ASCII</TITLE></HEAD><BODY topmargin=0 leftmargin=0 BGCOLOR=#F1F1F1><table border=0 width=625><td bgcolor=midnightblue><font color=#F1F1F1>This Usenet message\'s original ASCII form: </font></td></tr><tr><td width=449><br><br><font face=courier><UL><PRE>helbig@astro.multiCLOTHESvax.de (Phillip Helbig---remove CLOTHES to reply) wrote in message news:<cnliic\\$i8o\\$1@online.de>...\n> In article <861c1b21.0411180930.5a61cb2b@posting.google.com>, \n> alistair@goforit64.fsnet.co.uk (alistair) writes:\n>\n> > Does dark energy exist or is the part of the universe we inhabit\n> > deccelerating\n> > faster than more distant parts of the universe, giving the illusion of\n> > a universe being accelerated by a negative pressure?\n\n>your idea would imply that we inhabit the\n> center of a decelerating region. While not impossible, it goes against\n> the Copernican Principle.\n\nHow central would we have to be?\nFor example,if we inhabited any part of a sphere with a radius of\n10^24 metres\nwe would still be close to the centre of a surrounding sphere of\nradius 10^26 metres.\n\n</UL></PRE></font></td></tr></table></BODY><HTML>');"> <IMG SRC=/images/buttons/ip.gif BORDER=0 ALIGN=CENTER ALT="View this Usenet post in original ASCII form">  View this Usenet post in original ASCII form </a></div><P></jabberwocky>helbig@astro.multiCLOTHESvax.de (Phillip Helbig---remove CLOTHES to reply) wrote in message news:<cnliic$i8o$1@online.de>...
> In article <861c1b21.0411180930.5a61cb2b@posting.google.com>,
> alistair@goforit64.fsnet.co.uk (alistair) writes:
>
> > Does dark energy exist or is the part of the universe we inhabit
> > deccelerating
> > faster than more distant parts of the universe, giving the illusion of
> > a universe being accelerated by a negative pressure?

>your idea would imply that we inhabit the
> center of a decelerating region. While not impossible, it goes against
> the Copernican Principle.

How central would we have to be?
For example,if we inhabited any part of a sphere with a radius of
10^24 metres
we would still be close to the centre of a surrounding sphere of
radius 10^26 metres.

alistair

Nov25-04, 03:37 AM

<jabberwocky><div class="vbmenu_control"><a href="jabberwocky:;" onClick="newWindow=window.open('','usenetCode','toolbar=no, location=no,scrollbars=yes,resizable=yes,status=no ,width=650,height=400'); newWindow.document.write('<HTML><HEAD><TITLE>Usenet ASCII</TITLE></HEAD><BODY topmargin=0 leftmargin=0 BGCOLOR=#F1F1F1><table border=0 width=625><td bgcolor=midnightblue><font color=#F1F1F1>This Usenet message\'s original ASCII form: </font></td></tr><tr><td width=449><br><br><font face=courier><UL><PRE>alistair@goforit64.fsnet.co.uk (alistair) wrote in message news:<861c1b21.0411231303.53b914a8@posting.google. com>...\n> helbig@astro.multiCLOTHESvax.de (Phillip Helbig---remove CLOTHES to reply) wrote in message news:<cntts4\\$sd7\\$2@online.de>...\n> > In article <861c1b21.0411220305.2b95957e@posting.google.com>, \n> > alistair@goforit64.fsnet.co.uk (alistair) writes:\n> >\n> > > > Do you have any evidence at all that our local universe could be\n> > > > decelerating?\n\nNo, but here is an interesting thought:\nThe units of lambda - the cosmological constant - are (second)^-2.\nDoes lambda have a corresponding squared Compton frequency associated\nwith it (obtained from E=hf and E=mc^2)- see\nhttp://posting.google.com/post?cmd=post&enc=ISO-8859-1&group=sci.physics.research&gs=/groups%3Fhl%3Den%26lr%3D%26ie%3DUTF-8%26group%3Dsci.physics.research?\n\nThis would be interesting because the compton frequency is associated\nwith electrons,protons etc.So a compton frequency associated with\nlambda would suggest that vacuum energy does not cause the negative\npressure in the universe and that leptons and quarks do.\n\n</UL></PRE></font></td></tr></table></BODY><HTML>');"> <IMG SRC=/images/buttons/ip.gif BORDER=0 ALIGN=CENTER ALT="View this Usenet post in original ASCII form">  View this Usenet post in original ASCII form </a></div><P></jabberwocky>alistair@goforit64.fsnet.co.uk (alistair) wrote in message news:<861c1b21.0411231303.53b914a8@posting.google.com>...
> helbig@astro.multiCLOTHESvax.de (Phillip Helbig---remove CLOTHES to reply) wrote in message news:<cntts4$sd7$2@online.de>...
> > In article <861c1b21.0411220305.2b95957e@posting.google.com>,
> > alistair@goforit64.fsnet.co.uk (alistair) writes:
> >
> > > > Do you have any evidence at all that our local universe could be
> > > > decelerating?

No, but here is an interesting thought:
The units of \lambda - the cosmological constant - are (second)^-2.
Does \lambda have a corresponding squared Compton frequency associated
with it (obtained from E=hf and E=mc^2)- see
http://posting.google.com/post?cmd=post&enc=ISO-8859-1&group=sci.physics.research&gs=/groups%3Fhl%3Den%26lr%3D%26ie%3DUTF-8%26group%3Dsci.physics.research?

This would be interesting because the compton frequency is associated
with electrons,protons etc.So a compton frequency associated with
\lambda would suggest that vacuum energy does not cause the negative
pressure in the universe and that leptons and quarks do.

alistair

Nov25-04, 03:37 AM

<jabberwocky><div class="vbmenu_control"><a href="jabberwocky:;" onClick="newWindow=window.open('','usenetCode','toolbar=no, location=no,scrollbars=yes,resizable=yes,status=no ,width=650,height=400'); newWindow.document.write('<HTML><HEAD><TITLE>Usenet ASCII</TITLE></HEAD><BODY topmargin=0 leftmargin=0 BGCOLOR=#F1F1F1><table border=0 width=625><td bgcolor=midnightblue><font color=#F1F1F1>This Usenet message\'s original ASCII form: </font></td></tr><tr><td width=449><br><br><font face=courier><UL><PRE>helbig@astro.multiCLOTHESvax.de (Phillip Helbig---remove CLOTHES to reply) wrote in message news:<co1ene\\$b3l\\$1@online.de>...\n\n> > and there is no way of explaining how any form of energy with negative\n> > pressure has the opposite effect to the other well-known forms of\n> > energy with positive pressure,\n>\n> What do you mean by "there is no way of explaining"?\n\nA proton repels another proton with virtual photons.\nA mass attracts another mass with gravitons (in principle).\nWhat does dark energy use to repel galaxies?\n\n>\n> > isn\'t it simpler to assume that dark\n> > energy does not exist,and that the expansion of the universe is\n> > accelerating because there is a gravitational pull from matter which\n> > possesses positive pressure, and which is beyond the detected\n> > galaxies?\n>\n> No, because this idea, as you outlined it, would imply that we are\n> located at a preferred position in the universe. This is extremely\n> unlikely.\n>\nA sphere of radius 3 x 10^26 metres could have a sphere of radius 1 x\n10^26 metres inside it.Since there can be 9 spheres of radius 1 x\n10^26 metres inside a larger sphere of radius 3 x 10^26 metres,the\nprobability of us existing anywhere in the sphere at the centre (\nwhich accounts for only 0.11 of the volume of the universe)is 1 in\n9.Can observational evidence rule this out?\n\n</UL></PRE></font></td></tr></table></BODY><HTML>');"> <IMG SRC=/images/buttons/ip.gif BORDER=0 ALIGN=CENTER ALT="View this Usenet post in original ASCII form">  View this Usenet post in original ASCII form </a></div><P></jabberwocky>helbig@astro.multiCLOTHESvax.de (Phillip Helbig---remove CLOTHES to reply) wrote in message news:<co1ene$b3l$1@online.de>...

> > and there is no way of explaining how any form of energy with negative
> > pressure has the opposite effect to the other well-known forms of
> > energy with positive pressure,
>
> What do you mean by "there is no way of explaining"?

A proton repels another proton with virtual photons.
A mass attracts another mass with gravitons (in principle).
What does dark energy use to repel galaxies?

>
> > isn't it simpler to assume that dark
> > energy does not exist,and that the expansion of the universe is
> > accelerating because there is a gravitational pull from matter which
> > possesses positive pressure, and which is beyond the detected
> > galaxies?
>
> No, because this idea, as you outlined it, would imply that we are
> located at a preferred position in the universe. This is extremely
> unlikely.
>
A sphere of radius 3 x 10^26 metres could have a sphere of radius 1 x
10^26 metres inside it.Since there can be 9 spheres of radius 1 x
10^26 metres inside a larger sphere of radius 3 x 10^26 metres,the
probability of us existing anywhere in the sphere at the centre (
which accounts for only .11 of the volume of the universe)is 1 in
9.Can observational evidence rule this out?

Phillip Helbig---remove CLOTHES to reply

Nov26-04, 01:16 AM

<jabberwocky><div class="vbmenu_control"><a href="jabberwocky:;" onClick="newWindow=window.open('','usenetCode','toolbar=no, location=no,scrollbars=yes,resizable=yes,status=no ,width=650,height=400'); newWindow.document.write('<HTML><HEAD><TITLE>Usenet ASCII</TITLE></HEAD><BODY topmargin=0 leftmargin=0 BGCOLOR=#F1F1F1><table border=0 width=625><td bgcolor=midnightblue><font color=#F1F1F1>This Usenet message\'s original ASCII form: </font></td></tr><tr><td width=449><br><br><font face=courier><UL><PRE>In article <861c1b21.0411240932.74bda68@posting.google.com>,\ nalistair@goforit64.fsnet.co.uk (alistair) writes:\n\n> alistair@goforit64.fsnet.co.uk (alistair) wrote in message news:<861c1b21.0411231303.53b914a8@posting.google. com>...\n> > helbig@astro.multiCLOTHESvax.de (Phillip Helbig---remove CLOTHES to reply) wrote in message news:<cntts4\\$sd7\\$2@online.de>...\n> > > In article <861c1b21.0411220305.2b95957e@posting.google.com>, \n> > > alistair@goforit64.fsnet.co.uk (alistair) writes:\n> > >\n> > > > > Do you have any evidence at all that our local universe could be\n> > > > > decelerating?\n>\n> No, but here is an interesting thought:\n> The units of lambda - the cosmological constant - are (second)^-2.\n> Does lambda have a corresponding squared Compton frequency associated\n> with it (obtained from E=hf and E=mc^2)- see\n> http://posting.google.com/post?cmd=post&enc=ISO-8859-1&group=sci.physics.research&gs=/groups%3Fhl%3Den%26lr%3D%26ie%3DUTF-8%26group%3Dsci.physics.research?\n>\n> This would be interesting because the compton frequency is associated\n> with electrons,protons etc.So a compton frequency associated with\n> lambda would suggest that vacuum energy does not cause the negative\n> pressure in the universe and that leptons and quarks do.\n\nThis seems to be a complete non sequitur. Also, do you have ANY\nevidence at all how "leptons and quarks" could cause negative pressure?\n\n</UL></PRE></font></td></tr></table></BODY><HTML>');"> <IMG SRC=/images/buttons/ip.gif BORDER=0 ALIGN=CENTER ALT="View this Usenet post in original ASCII form">  View this Usenet post in original ASCII form </a></div><P></jabberwocky>In article <861c1b21.0411240932.74bda68@posting.google.com>,
alistair@goforit64.fsnet.co.uk (alistair) writes:

> alistair@goforit64.fsnet.co.uk (alistair) wrote in message news:<861c1b21.0411231303.53b914a8@posting.google.com>...
> > helbig@astro.multiCLOTHESvax.de (Phillip Helbig---remove CLOTHES to reply) wrote in message news:<cntts4$sd7$2@online.de>...
> > > In article <861c1b21.0411220305.2b95957e@posting.google.com>,
> > > alistair@goforit64.fsnet.co.uk (alistair) writes:
> > >
> > > > > Do you have any evidence at all that our local universe could be
> > > > > decelerating?
>
> No, but here is an interesting thought:
> The units of \lambda - the cosmological constant - are (second)^-2.
> Does \lambda have a corresponding squared Compton frequency associated
> with it (obtained from E=hf and E=mc^2)- see
> http://posting.google.com/post?cmd=post&enc=ISO-8859-1&group=sci.physics.research&gs=/groups%3Fhl%3Den%26lr%3D%26ie%3DUTF-8%26group%3Dsci.physics.research?
>
> This would be interesting because the compton frequency is associated
> with electrons,protons etc.So a compton frequency associated with
> \lambda would suggest that vacuum energy does not cause the negative
> pressure in the universe and that leptons and quarks do.

This seems to be a complete non sequitur. Also, do you have ANY
evidence at all how "leptons and quarks" could cause negative pressure?

Phillip Helbig---remove CLOTHES to reply

Nov26-04, 01:16 AM

<jabberwocky><div class="vbmenu_control"><a href="jabberwocky:;" onClick="newWindow=window.open('','usenetCode','toolbar=no, location=no,scrollbars=yes,resizable=yes,status=no ,width=650,height=400'); newWindow.document.write('<HTML><HEAD><TITLE>Usenet ASCII</TITLE></HEAD><BODY topmargin=0 leftmargin=0 BGCOLOR=#F1F1F1><table border=0 width=625><td bgcolor=midnightblue><font color=#F1F1F1>This Usenet message\'s original ASCII form: </font></td></tr><tr><td width=449><br><br><font face=courier><UL><PRE>In article <861c1b21.0411241215.59feeb1d@posting.google.com>, \nalistair@goforit64.fsnet.co.uk (alistair) writes:\n\n> helbig@astro.multiCLOTHESvax.de (Phillip Helbig---remove CLOTHES to reply) wrote in message news:<co1ene\\$b3l\\$1@online.de>...\n>\n> > > and there is no way of explaining how any form of energy with negative\n> > > pressure has the opposite effect to the other well-known forms of\n> > > energy with positive pressure,\n> >\n> > What do you mean by "there is no way of explaining"?\n>\n> A proton repels another proton with virtual photons.\n> A mass attracts another mass with gravitons (in principle).\n> What does dark energy use to repel galaxies?\n\nNothing. You misunderstand the concept. The cosmological constant (or\ndark energy, if you insist) affects the expansion of space. Galaxies\nare embedded in space.\n\n> > > isn\'t it simpler to assume that dark\n> > > energy does not exist,and that the expansion of the universe is\n> > > accelerating because there is a gravitational pull from matter which\n> > > possesses positive pressure, and which is beyond the detected\n> > > galaxies?\n> >\n> > No, because this idea, as you outlined it, would imply that we are\n> > located at a preferred position in the universe. This is extremely\n> > unlikely.\n> >\n> A sphere of radius 3 x 10^26 metres could have a sphere of radius 1 x\n> 10^26 metres inside it.Since there can be 9 spheres of radius 1 x\n> 10^26 metres inside a larger sphere of radius 3 x 10^26 metres,\n\n27.\n\n> the\n> probability of us existing anywhere in the sphere at the centre (\n> which accounts for only 0.11 of the volume of the universe)is 1 in\n> 9.Can observational evidence rule this out?\n\nThe whole point of your construction is to explain observational data.\nSo, no, observational evidence can\'t rule out that we are at the center.\nOn the other hand (see my previous post), it can\'t rule out that angels\nand demons move all objects and there are no forces. Your idea is, by\nits very construction, unscientific.\n\n</UL></PRE></font></td></tr></table></BODY><HTML>');"> <IMG SRC=/images/buttons/ip.gif BORDER=0 ALIGN=CENTER ALT="View this Usenet post in original ASCII form">  View this Usenet post in original ASCII form </a></div><P></jabberwocky>In article <861c1b21.0411241215.59feeb1d@posting.google.com>,
alistair@goforit64.fsnet.co.uk (alistair) writes:

> helbig@astro.multiCLOTHESvax.de (Phillip Helbig---remove CLOTHES to reply) wrote in message news:<co1ene$b3l$1@online.de>...
>
> > > and there is no way of explaining how any form of energy with negative
> > > pressure has the opposite effect to the other well-known forms of
> > > energy with positive pressure,
> >
> > What do you mean by "there is no way of explaining"?
>
> A proton repels another proton with virtual photons.
> A mass attracts another mass with gravitons (in principle).
> What does dark energy use to repel galaxies?

Nothing. You misunderstand the concept. The cosmological constant (or
dark energy, if you insist) affects the expansion of space. Galaxies
are embedded in space.

> > > isn't it simpler to assume that dark
> > > energy does not exist,and that the expansion of the universe is
> > > accelerating because there is a gravitational pull from matter which
> > > possesses positive pressure, and which is beyond the detected
> > > galaxies?
> >
> > No, because this idea, as you outlined it, would imply that we are
> > located at a preferred position in the universe. This is extremely
> > unlikely.
> >
> A sphere of radius 3 x 10^26 metres could have a sphere of radius 1 x
> 10^26 metres inside it.Since there can be 9 spheres of radius 1 x
> 10^26 metres inside a larger sphere of radius 3 x 10^26 metres,

27.

> the
> probability of us existing anywhere in the sphere at the centre (
> which accounts for only .11 of the volume of the universe)is 1 in
> 9.Can observational evidence rule this out?

The whole point of your construction is to explain observational data.
So, no, observational evidence can't rule out that we are at the center.
On the other hand (see my previous post), it can't rule out that angels
and demons move all objects and there are no forces. Your idea is, by
its very construction, unscientific.

Phillip Helbig---remove CLOTHES to reply

Nov26-04, 01:24 AM

<jabberwocky><div class="vbmenu_control"><a href="jabberwocky:;" onClick="newWindow=window.open('','usenetCode','toolbar=no, location=no,scrollbars=yes,resizable=yes,status=no ,width=650,height=400'); newWindow.document.write('<HTML><HEAD><TITLE>Usenet ASCII</TITLE></HEAD><BODY topmargin=0 leftmargin=0 BGCOLOR=#F1F1F1><table border=0 width=625><td bgcolor=midnightblue><font color=#F1F1F1>This Usenet message\'s original ASCII form: </font></td></tr><tr><td width=449><br><br><font face=courier><UL><PRE>In article <861c1b21.0411240722.6348ce8@posting.google.com>,\ nalistair@goforit64.fsnet.co.uk (alistair) writes:\n\n> helbig@astro.multiCLOTHESvax.de (Phillip Helbig---remove CLOTHES to reply) wrote in message news:<cnliic\\$i8o\\$1@online.de>...\n> > In article <861c1b21.0411180930.5a61cb2b@posting.google.com>, \n> > alistair@goforit64.fsnet.co.uk (alistair) writes:\n> >\n> > > Does dark energy exist or is the part of the universe we inhabit\n> > > deccelerating\n> > > faster than more distant parts of the universe, giving the illusion of\n> > > a universe being accelerated by a negative pressure?\n>\n> >your idea would imply that we inhabit the\n> > center of a decelerating region. While not impossible, it goes against\n> > the Copernican Principle.\n>\n> How central would we have to be?\n> For example,if we inhabited any part of a sphere with a radius of\n> 10^24 metres\n> we would still be close to the centre of a surrounding sphere of\n> radius 10^26 metres.\n\nSo we are in the center to an accuracy of 1 part in 1 million.\n\nIf we are close enough to the center to make your idea work, it is\nextremely unlikely and violates the Copernican Principle.\n\n</UL></PRE></font></td></tr></table></BODY><HTML>');"> <IMG SRC=/images/buttons/ip.gif BORDER=0 ALIGN=CENTER ALT="View this Usenet post in original ASCII form">  View this Usenet post in original ASCII form </a></div><P></jabberwocky>In article <861c1b21.0411240722.6348ce8@posting.google.com>,
alistair@goforit64.fsnet.co.uk (alistair) writes:

> helbig@astro.multiCLOTHESvax.de (Phillip Helbig---remove CLOTHES to reply) wrote in message news:<cnliic$i8o$1@online.de>...
> > In article <861c1b21.0411180930.5a61cb2b@posting.google.com>,
> > alistair@goforit64.fsnet.co.uk (alistair) writes:
> >
> > > Does dark energy exist or is the part of the universe we inhabit
> > > deccelerating
> > > faster than more distant parts of the universe, giving the illusion of
> > > a universe being accelerated by a negative pressure?
>
> >your idea would imply that we inhabit the
> > center of a decelerating region. While not impossible, it goes against
> > the Copernican Principle.
>
> How central would we have to be?
> For example,if we inhabited any part of a sphere with a radius of
> 10^24 metres
> we would still be close to the centre of a surrounding sphere of
> radius 10^26 metres.

So we are in the center to an accuracy of 1 part in 1 million.

If we are close enough to the center to make your idea work, it is
extremely unlikely and violates the Copernican Principle.