Is the H.U.D.F. view in excess of 13 bly's. or not.

[marcus]

Re casting off excess baggage; I did that and it was due to the February or March '04 issue of Scientific America.

Peter I'd say you have not begun casting out popular misconceptions about cosmology until you've read the March '05 SciAm article I linked to called Misconceptions about the Big Bang, by Lineweaver. It's the princeton.edu link in my sig.

It specifically addresses the misconception of the BB as an explosion and the wacky idea of the expansion as ballistic. You evidently have not read Lineweaver. You cite something from 2004, if you give a link I will check it out and see if there are any misleading statements or dangerous oversimplifications in the 2004 article.

The only information I used was Newtons laws on gravity, (which is the last wholly accurate statement concerning large scale movements of the universe), and the red-shift observations of the late 1920's, which was incorrectly reported as seeing that, with rare exception, galaxies in all directions moving away from us.

Newton's laws are not accurate even in the solar system. They don't fit reality. GR is considerably more precise.

The Friedmann model expanding universe was already on the table by 1923, it predicted the redshift that was later observed.
The Friedmann model does not say that distant galaxies are moving away from is (that is the popularized report) it says that the distances to them are increasing.

It does not describe ballistic motion. Indeed distances to most known galaxies are increasing at rates faster than c. It wouldn't make sense to picture that as ballistic motion resulting from some fantasized 'explosion'. What we are seeing exactly fits what one expects to see from the best-tested most accurate and thoroughly tested theory of gravity we have so far (which in contrast to Newton's is a law of dynamic geometry).

Separately, when, and why, was first thought that the movement described above was not ballistic,

.

As I said the cosmo model was on the table as of 1923.

It was independently derived from 1915 General Relativity by a Russian, Alex Friedmann, and later by a Belgian, Georges LeMaître.

You ask "why". The theory does not lead one to expect ballistic motion or any sort of motion outwards from a point. There were later attempts, which failed, to interpret the data as ballistic motion. That was mainly in the 1930s and they have largely been forgotten.
From the outset, and now, over 80 years later, the redshift has been interpreted not as ballistic motion but as evidence of the dynamic changing geometry predicted by the law of gravity.

The 'explosion' picture has almost exclusively been a phantom creature of the pop-sci realm. I think it is because the public has been considered incapable of accepting the idea of dynamic geometry---the idea that spacetime could be curved and therefore distances change independently of motion---and so the public has always been fed the oversimplified and essentially misleading 'explosion' picture.

Maybe in the end there will have to be a campaign of scientists, writing open letters to media people like Discovery Channel executives and producers urging them to stop the pap and get it right.
There are posts right here at Cosmo forum which could serve as horrible examples of how damaging this oversimplification has been to the public mind.

 

[Peter Watkins]

The Friedmann model did not need to predict red-shift, it was reported by Slipher in 1914. What was not known is that the nebulea that were exhibiting the red-shift, were in fact island universes, or galaxies. Lemaitre it was who first suggested that there must have been a time when all matter must have been together. The "Primeval Atom". A perceptive man. The only thing he didn't figure out was how it all came to be moving outwards, but then neither have most people. It was also predicted by a well known person that the universe was static. When expansion, or at least, movement, could no longer be denied, a surplus curvature theory was wrapped around it thus enabling a universe that could be seen to be moving, was actually going nowhere. Most of this "not expanding from anyone point" or "the universe has no limits or edge" stem from the notion that the universe is the creation of a benign God, and to question that it has a beginning, or a centre is heresy. It sounds strange today, but that's how it was.
I have at last visited your much vaunted balloon analogy and found our old friend, the loaf of raisin bread. The only difference is that the dough, which has a sufficient degree of viscosity to transport the raisins outward, has been replaced with a form of expanding space. I assume that what I was looking at was the "outside", and not a section through a spherical universe? On a different page, (I forget which one, I've clicked on so many links), was a regular arrangement of dots, each representing a galaxy. Two adjacent dots were surrounded by a halo of light. These dots then moved apart, as did all the other dots, in order to show how much further light would travel in an expanding universe. There was however, a glaring error in that as the dots moved apart, the halo of light remained concentric to the dot, it's galaxy of origin, but not it's point of origin. This point of origin should become a set of co-ordinates to signify the place of origin. If light were emitted at regular intervals, perhaps every 1/2 a billion years, there would be a series of halos, each with a different centre, by the time that the original light beam reached us.
By the way, your theory will never catch on, it's far too populist!

 

[Chronos]

I concur with marcus on this point.

 

[Peter Watkins]

OK. I'll give up. I've worked with scientists and I know how it is; never admit that you don't know and disregard any information that contradicts your own theory. I did visit the website that Marcus recommended, (excellent in it's lack of maths), but I had read all that stuff years ago, including, I'm fairly sure, that very article. At the time of originally reading it, I thought of it as the "bypass theory" as it very neatly bypasses Einstein's law that states that the speed of light cannot be exceeded. This is a law that provides considerable difficulty for those who would construct a theory to describe the universe using only the four forces, three dimensions and ballistic motion, for all of which the evidence can be seen. As it happens, there is no need to sidestep this law as it is becoming ever more widely accepted that the Lorenz equations upon which Einstein based this law apply only to radiant, and not ballistic, motion.
This theory also bypasses the need to explain the mechanism behind the movement, saying only that the expanding universe is taking the galaxies out with itself, from which it would seem that the universe that most people think of as being composed of stars, galaxies and assorted bric-a-brac, is also being bypassed. Instead, the universe is simply expanding space and galaxies are unwitting passengers being dragged out by, and with it This is how it can be stated that galaxies are moving apart without moving!
Strangely enough, although cosmologists fiercely deny that the outward movement is ballistic, they themselves provide a theory that states positively that it is. And the same theory states positively that collapse is inevitable, although that is already self-evident.
It is, of course, the inflation theory. This states that when the universe was tiny, gravity reversed for a short while and started the expansion. This states that the energy content of gravity is greater than the inertia of the universe. This is further proven by the fact that when gravity reverted to it's more normal form of attactive energy, this headlong outward flight was halted, or at least reduced, to the level that we see today. Sceptics of this theory might point out that for inflation to work, gravity had not only to reverse but to also increase in order to overcome the inertia of what was presumably a static universe. This increased level of energy would also be needed to overcome the kinetic energy that the newly expanding universe now possessed. In order not to halt the expansion completely, gravity would then need to revert to it's original strength. So, either this whole theory, (with it's reverse, increase, revert, decrease of the strength of gravity), is nonsense, or it provided the motive power behind the expansion.

"The more bizarre a thing is, the less mysterious it usually proves to be". Sir Arthur Conan Doyle. (Sherlock Holmes).

 

[Hurkyl]

I've worked with scientists and I know how it is; never admit that you don't know and disregard any information that contradicts your own theory.

Regarding this theory of yours, I wonder how much contradictory information you've disregarded...

 

[Peter Watkins]

None

 

[Chronos]

Peter, please provide a reference, or propose an experiment, that affirms or refutes your hypothesis. At the moment, I perceive it as a backdoor ATM argument.

 

[Peter Watkins]

Not quite sure how to respond to this. As far as I can tell, all observed phenomena are taken account of; the fact that, (virtually), all galaxies are moving apart at a rate that increases with distance, (whilst clusters and super-clusters are still forming), and that this rate is increasing, the fact that the C.M.B.R. is arriving from all directions and not from what might be described as a single point of origin, and, (and you may well argue this point), the fact that some four decades of study did not produce a universally accepted Hubble constant. Different directions of view produced different rates of recession.

 

[Peter Watkins]

Cont., These replies sometimes disappear before posting hence the two parts. Additionally it explains why the, (visible to us), universe can be seen to have been at least 24 billion light years across, 12 billion years ago, (we can see 12 billion light years in most, though not all, directions). Also, Quasars are widely accepted as being the forerunners of stable galaxies, and hence should be the most distant objects, but they are not. It also explains the most distant objects seen in the H.U.D.F. and why these are close together and exhibiting red-shift at an exponential rate, whilst what we see in the opposite direction are huge voids with galaxies "strung out" resembling strings of beads. What also become self-evident, if you follow the reasoning, is our origin and what the event was that led to the circumstance that resulted in the big bang. I dare say that there is more stuff but I've been trying to rid my brain of this wretched universe. I could describe the thought process step by step, or, using one of Marcus's favourite website, give you a pictorial description. Best of all, I could produce a private publication. But I won't. I'm too lazy. Doubtless you will by now have me earmarked as a nut-case, but believe me, the universe is simplicity itself.
With regard to water, fish and comprehension, I believe that there is nothing that can be created by baryons and forces that is beyond the comprehension of the human brain

 

[Peter Watkins]

Just been looking back over this thread. Seems I've said it all before so disregard the above. Have to say though, I'd love to spend an evening arguing with you lot and set you on the right track.

 

[cristo]

...I'd love to spend an evening arguing with you lot and set you on the right track.

Unfortunately, not here. The PF rules state that discussions must be on mainstream, published theories. Whilst this thread started with questions about misconceptions, it has now become a discussion of a personal theory and, as such, is not permitted here. Thus I am closing the thread now.