The 2011 of the Nobel Prize for physics is a mistake

Discussions on astrology, homeopathy and superstition etc.

Moderators: Calilasseia, DarthHelmet86, Onyx8

Is Universe expansion in Euclidean space or not expansion in hyperbolic space?

Universe is expansion in Euclidean space
4
67%
Universe is not expansion in hyperbolic space
2
33%
 
Total votes : 6

The 2011 of the Nobel Prize for physics is a mistake

#1  Postby allenliou » Oct 17, 2011 4:25 pm

The 2011 of the Nobel Prize for physics is a mistake

It is surprised to hear that the three U.S. physicists had won the Nobel Prize in physics for discovering through the study of supernovae that the universe is accelerating expansion.
The Hubble’s redshift and the Doppler Effect are the facts. It doesn’t mean the universe is expansion or universe is accelerating expansion.
The expansion of the universe is based on the true of the Big Bang theory. If the Big Bang theory is not true. Even though the Hubble’s redshift, and the Doppler Effect is the facts. The expansion or accelerating expansion of the universe is not supported.
The Big Bang theory and “dark energy” are not just a crazy idea, it is nonsense. Is anyone believe the “dark energy” able to create the real energy to push the supernovae accelerating expansion? If you do believe it. You may believe “dark human” can turn spirit to a real person.
In Scientific community , the Big Bang and ”dark energy” issue had been argue for so many year, And now act rashly to award the Nobel Prize in physics for the universe is accelerating expansion .I believe that someday will be proved the 2011 of the Nobel Prize for physics turn out to be a joke.
The expansion of Universe should not true. If it is true, the Big Bang theory and “dark energy” will be true.
Now raise a big question. If he Big Bang theory and “dark energy” are not true. Also the Hubble redshift, and the Doppler Effect is the facts, How could be proved the universe is not expansion or not accelerating expansion?
The space of the universe has only three kind of possibility. One is Euclidean space, one is elliptical space and the other is hyperbolic space. These three kinds of space can only be hypnosis to be one of the three only, And, it cannot be identify by proved.

1. If the universe is a Euclidean space, due to the Hubble redshift, and the facts of the Doppler Effect, There must be the expansion of the universe and the Big Bang also true. This is contradiction to the Big Bang is not true. So, the space of the universe may not be a Euclidean space

2. The space of the universe will never be an Elliptical space. If the space of the Universe is an Elliptical space. When we see anything from the east, can be seen from the west too. Obviously, it is not so

3. Remaining space is The Hyperbolic space.

Let analyze, if supernovae happen in Hyperbolic space.

Hubble’s laws are derived from Euclidean rules and Euclidean formulas. However, assume the Universe is in Hyperbolic space. Very logically, we must derive its rules and formulas from Hyperbolic rules and non-Euclidean formulas.

The rules and formulas of Hyperbolic space are quite different from Euclidean space. Hence, the results derived from utilizing these two systems must be different. These differences may be the keys to unveil the mystery of the Universe.
“Now we try to prove, the universe is not expansion or not accelerating expansion. Even though Hubble’s redshift and the Doppler effect are the facts”

A. LIGHT SPHERICAL WAVE FRONTS

When photon travel a distance of r. The equation of a light spherical front in Euclidean space is

x2 + y2 + z2 = r2 -------------- (1)

From Hyperbolic geometry, the equation of the light spherical front is

tanh2 x/k + tanh2 y/k + tanh2 z/k = tanh2 r/k ------ (2)

Where k is the constant of the space curvature. (cosmological constant)
(From page 298 of non-Euclidean Geometry by Allen Liou, 1964.)

Comparing equations (1) and (2), we can see very obviously that the area of the light spherical fronts is very much different. Even though they have the same radius. Therefore, the Doppler Effect should not be the same between Euclidean space and Hyperbolic space.

The area of the Light Spherical Front in Euclidean space is 4πr2.
What is the area of the Light Spherical Front in Hyperbolic space?

Let us determine the circumference of a circle in Hyperbolic space first:

Let PQ be the chord of a circle of radius r, which subtends an angleθ, M be the midpoint of the chord, and O be the center of the circle.
See

fig 1.

From the formula of the right-angle in Hyperbolic trigonometry, we have (page 143 of non-Euclidean Geometry by Allen Liou, 1964.)

sinh PQ/2k = sinh r/k sin∠POQ/2

If angle θ -> 0
We have ds/2k = sinh r/k dθ/2
or ds = k sinh r/k dθ

Integrating both sides, we have

Circumference = 2πk sinh r/k

Then, let ds are the length of the arc of the spherical circle, and r be the radius.
By same formula, we have, see

fig 2.

ds = k sinh r/k dθ


The area of the circle strip is
d (area of circle strip) = 2πk sinh AM/k ds

But
sinh AM/k = sinh r/k sinθ

Therefore
d(area of circle strip)=2πk[sinh r/k sinθ][k sinh r/k dθ]
= 2πk2 sinh2 r/k dθ

Integrating both sides, we have
area of sphere = 4πk2 sinh2 r/k


B. DOPPLER EFFECT OR “LIOU’S STRETCH EFFECT”

When a photon travels a distance r, the area of the Light Spherical Front in Euclidean space is 4πr2.

area of sphere = 4πr2

But the area of the Light Spherical Front in Hperbolic space is

area of sphere = 4πk2 sinh2 r/k

Compare the two Spherical Areas in the two different spaces with the same r. We easily to see that, if we are in Hyperbolic universe, Light Spherical Front stretch from 4πr 2 to 4πk 2 sinh2 r/k. We temporary called this stretch by “Liou’s stretch effect”.

The Spherical Front of photon may only travel a distance r in Hyperbolic space. But in Euclidean space, it appears to travel a distance of k sinh r/k.

From the difference of r and k sinh r/k in Euclidean space, it looks like the object moves from point r to point k sinh r/k, but the object actually stays still in Hyperbolic universe.

When we use Redshift of Doppler Effect in Euclidean space to calculate velocity of galaxy from point r to point k sinh r/k. Actually, there is no movement from point r to point k sinh r/k. It only cause by the stretch of curvature of Hyperbolic space (“Liou’s stretch effect”).

I will use the velocity to calculate the space constant (cosmological constant). Use redshift of frequency the result is the same.

D. CALCULATION OF SPACE CURVATURE (OR COSMOLOGICAL CONSTANT) IN HYPERBOLIC UNIVERSE

Let s = k sinh r/k - r

Where s is the distant of galaxy moving from position r to the position k sinh r/k.
Taking the derivative of both sides, we have

ds/dt = cosh r/k dr/dt - dr/dt

where ds/dt =v (the velocity of galaxies at the remote distance of r), and dr/dt is the speed of light c.

Therefore
v = cosh r/k c – c

v = c[cosh r/k - 1] = 2c sinh2 r/2k ---------- (3)

There are several versions of the Hubble's constant. We will select the one most popular one. In which, the velocity of galaxies at a distance of six billion light-years move away at a velocity of roughly 90,000 kilometers/sec.
Hence v=90,000 kilometers/sec and r=6 bly.

Hence we have

v = 90,000 kilometers/sec and r = 6 bly.

Therefore
90,000 = 2c sinh2(6bly/2k )

∴ 0.3c = 2c sinh2(3bly/k )

∴ k = 3bly/ sinh-1√0.12

∴ k = 7.931965828 bly

Where bly is billion light-years.

C. DISCUSIONS

1. Hubble’s constant was not constant.

From equation (3), v = 2c sinh2 r/2k , the velocity of galaxies and the remote distance of r were not exactly linear proportions in Euclidean universe. The velocity is more likely in slightly acceleration observed in Euclidean universe.

Here, the cosmological constant, k = 7.931965828 bly was based on the Hubble’s Law at 6 bly. If we based on a difference distance, like one on a distance of 1 or 2 bly, the k value should be slightly different. If we use different versions of Hubble’s Law, the cosmological constant k will be even more different. We really need an accurate data to determine the constant k

Assuming k = 7.931965828 bly is correct; the Hubble's diagram in Euclidean space should look like the following diagram.

Fig 3

From this chart, we should call Hubble’s accelerator instead of Hubble’s constant.

2. Is Universe’s redshift cause by DOPPLER EFFECT or “LIOU’S STRETCH EFFECT”?

In recent year, astronomer's observed that Hubble’s constant is not constant. The galaxies actually moving away accelerated, like supernovae.

From this two facts, the Universe’s redshift is more likely to be caused by the “LIOU’S STRETCH EFFECT”. Therefor Doppler Effect caused by the STRETCH of the Hyperbolic space not by the speed of velocity in Euclidean space. The universe is neither expansion nor accelerating expansion. Even though Hubble’s redshift and the Doppler Effect are the facts.

In other words, the universe is still in Hyperbolic space. We can forget about Big Bang Theory, dark matter, dark energy, block hole, white hole, etc.

3.Hubble’s redshift can be proved the Universe is a Hyperbolic space. This is the new way of interpret the Universe. And everything is falling into the right place. If we can prove the sum of the angles of three galaxies are less than two right angles. With this second proved, Universe definitely is a Hyperbolic space.


By the way, if anyone can prove the sum of the angles of three galaxies are less than two right angles. I will award 100000 USD.
Attachments
The 2011 of the Nobel Prize for physics is a mistake-eq.pdf
(316.63 KiB) Downloaded 156 times
allenliou
THREAD STARTER
 
Name: Allen Liou
Posts: 32

Country: US
Print view this post

Ads by Google


Re: The 2011 of the Nobel Prize for physics is a mistake

#2  Postby z8000783 » Oct 17, 2011 4:53 pm

Was the Economics prize OK?

John
I don’t simply believe in miracles - I rely on them
z8000783
 
Name: WTF
Posts: 9324
Age: 66
Male

Greece (gr)
Print view this post

Re: The 2011 of the Nobel Prize for physics is a mistake

#3  Postby cavarka9 » Oct 17, 2011 5:05 pm

z8000783 wrote:Was the Economics prize OK?

John


no, definitely not :nono: , who won in economics? :shifty:
Every moment is a choice.Choices you make now determine your destiny.free yourself of old choices made. Success is a journey,not a destination.
User avatar
cavarka9
 
Name: prajna
Posts: 3256

Country: 21.0000° N, 78.0000° E
India (in)
Print view this post

Re: The 2011 of the Nobel Prize for physics is a mistake

#4  Postby z8000783 » Oct 17, 2011 5:06 pm

Wasn't it Russell Crowe?

John
I don’t simply believe in miracles - I rely on them
z8000783
 
Name: WTF
Posts: 9324
Age: 66
Male

Greece (gr)
Print view this post

Re: The 2011 of the Nobel Prize for physics is a mistake

#5  Postby theropod » Oct 17, 2011 5:10 pm

I always believe the random rants on the net hold more value than the selection committee for the Nobel Prize.

RS
Sleeping in the hen house doesn't make you a chicken.
User avatar
theropod
RS Donator
 
Name: Roger
Posts: 7451
Age: 65
Male

Country: USA
United States (us)
Print view this post

Re: The 2011 of the Nobel Prize for physics is a mistake

#6  Postby cavarka9 » Oct 17, 2011 5:11 pm

z8000783 wrote:Wasn't it Russell Crowe?

John

beautiful mind guy?. Huh, who would have guessed that!, anyway, did that game theorist also win fields medal?.
Every moment is a choice.Choices you make now determine your destiny.free yourself of old choices made. Success is a journey,not a destination.
User avatar
cavarka9
 
Name: prajna
Posts: 3256

Country: 21.0000° N, 78.0000° E
India (in)
Print view this post

Re: The 2011 of the Nobel Prize for physics is a mistake

#7  Postby orpheus » Oct 17, 2011 5:13 pm

:popcorn:

(Uncle Orph'sTM popcorn - "Gold Medal" )
Let's try for peace in 2018, shall we?
User avatar
orpheus
 
Posts: 7274
Age: 54
Male

Country: New York, USA
United States (us)
Print view this post

Ads by Google


Re: The 2011 of the Nobel Prize for physics is a mistake

#8  Postby Regina » Oct 17, 2011 6:42 pm

Hm, I don't understand the math in the OP. But if it's on par with the quality of the introductory remarks....
No, they ain't makin' Jews like Jesus anymore,
They don't turn the other cheek the way they done before.

Kinky Friedman
Regina
 
Posts: 15603
Male

Djibouti (dj)
Print view this post

Re: The 2011 of the Nobel Prize for physics is a mistake

#9  Postby chairman bill » Oct 17, 2011 6:51 pm

Is this OP's paper going to be published in Science or Nature?
Socialists: winning the fight against people-hating fascists of the right & (alleged) centre.
User avatar
chairman bill
RS Donator
 
Posts: 28091
Male

Country: UK: fucked since 2010
United Kingdom (uk)
Print view this post

Re: The 2011 of the Nobel Prize for physics is a mistake

#10  Postby Regina » Oct 17, 2011 6:54 pm

Oops, I just saw there's money to be gained there... :think:
No, they ain't makin' Jews like Jesus anymore,
They don't turn the other cheek the way they done before.

Kinky Friedman
Regina
 
Posts: 15603
Male

Djibouti (dj)
Print view this post

Re: The 2011 of the Nobel Prize for physics is a mistake

#11  Postby Jumbo » Oct 18, 2011 9:39 am

I think the massive problem with the OP is that cosmologists do not think the redshift is a doppler shift and do not model it as one. Its is a redshift due to the expansion of space-time which is rather different. The doppler shift confusion comes in because its a convenient analogy. It is not how its actually considered in GR. Thus any objections based on doppler shifts are irrelevant.

Pretty much the whole thing is based on the assumption that the big bang and expansion of the universe is not true. Thats a big assumption to begin with and its used to rule out the euclidean (or nearly so) spacetime. The curvature listed as 2 is dismissed arbitrarily without considering that there may not have been time for light to return or that there could be a redshift such that light returning is almost undetectable.

The hyperbolic geometry seems to be chosen simply because the others have been dismissed. The doppler mistake is made again in this section when its claimed that a doppler effect is how the redshift is obtained in GR rather than it being down to some kind of stretch. Of course a stretch of spacetime is exactly what mainstream cosmology describes the redshift as being down to and contrary to the claims made in the OP cosmologists do not claim the galaxies are in significant motion.


In other words, the universe is still in Hyperbolic space. We can forget about Big Bang Theory, dark matter, dark energy, block hole, white hole, etc.

Black holes are separate from the big bang theory. One does not require the other.

There are several versions of the Hubble's constant. We will select the one most popular one. In which, the velocity of galaxies at a distance of six billion light-years move away at a velocity of roughly 90,000 kilometers/sec.
Hence v=90,000 kilometers/sec and r=6 bly.

Ho is about 73.8 km/s/MPC 6 billion light years is 1839.6 MPC.

Thus at 6 billion light years v=1839.6*73.8 km/s = 135762.48 km/s
Thats 50% bigger than the figure you derive.

This hypothesis seems to require this constant k to not be constant but to be a function of distance. However GR does not really require that. A constant cosmological constant causes a negative pressure on space time in GR. That accelerates expansion. It seems rather simpler to me.

By the way, if anyone can prove the sum of the angles of three galaxies are less than two right angles. I will award 100000 USD.

If the angles are less than 180 degrees then thats a hyperbolic universe isn't it? Surely then the award is for proving your hypothesis. Couldn't you save yourself a lot of cash by 'proving' the hypothesis yourself? (Not that physics permits proof)

slightly OT:
Is anyone else automatically wary when someone posts a supposedly groundbreaking hypothesis which alledgedly demolishes all of modern physics and then names the effect after themselves? It seems to happen quite regularly on internet fora.
The Feynman Problem-Solving Algorithm

1. Write down the problem.
2. Think very hard.
3. Write down the answer.
User avatar
Jumbo
 
Posts: 3599
Age: 40
Male

United Kingdom (uk)
 
Birthday
Print view this post

Re: The 2011 of the Nobel Prize for physics is a mistake

#12  Postby chairman bill » Oct 18, 2011 9:44 am

Is that what 'cool' people call 'pwned'?
Socialists: winning the fight against people-hating fascists of the right & (alleged) centre.
User avatar
chairman bill
RS Donator
 
Posts: 28091
Male

Country: UK: fucked since 2010
United Kingdom (uk)
Print view this post

Re: The 2011 of the Nobel Prize for physics is a mistake

#13  Postby twistor59 » Oct 18, 2011 9:45 am

Jumbo wrote:
If the angles are less than 180 degrees then thats a hyperbolic universe isn't it?


OP wrote:These three kinds of space can only be hypnosis to be one of the three only


Look into my eyes, my eyes, don't look around the eyes.... You're under. There is no cosmological redshift, no cosmological redshift, it's all doppler. Three two one, you're back in the room.
A soul in tension that's learning to fly
Condition grounded but determined to try
Can't keep my eyes from the circling skies
Tongue-tied and twisted just an earthbound misfit, I
User avatar
twistor59
RS Donator
 
Posts: 4966
Male

United Kingdom (uk)
Print view this post

Re: The 2011 of the Nobel Prize for physics is a mistake

#14  Postby Jumbo » Oct 18, 2011 9:59 am

For some unknown reason i've changed my mind. Its all doppler there is no cosmological redshift. :whistle:

In other news i also have an uncontrollable urge to cluck like a chicken whenever anyone says hyperbolic.
:lol:
The Feynman Problem-Solving Algorithm

1. Write down the problem.
2. Think very hard.
3. Write down the answer.
User avatar
Jumbo
 
Posts: 3599
Age: 40
Male

United Kingdom (uk)
 
Birthday
Print view this post

Re: The 2011 of the Nobel Prize for physics is a mistake

#15  Postby Doubtdispelled » Oct 18, 2011 10:46 am

allenliou wrote:By the way, if anyone can prove the sum of the angles of three galaxies is are less than two right angles. I will award 100000 USD.


FIFY

If the galaxies are all in a line, there's no need to sum anything.

I'll pm you where to send the money.
Never argue with stupid people, they will drag you down to their level and then beat you with experience.

― Mark Twain
Doubtdispelled
 
Posts: 11765

Print view this post

Ads by Google


Re: The 2011 of the Nobel Prize for physics is a mistake

#16  Postby allenliou » Oct 18, 2011 12:23 pm

This is no joke. If you can proved it. I will send the money to you.
allenliou
THREAD STARTER
 
Name: Allen Liou
Posts: 32

Country: US
Print view this post

Re: The 2011 of the Nobel Prize for physics is a mistake

#17  Postby Doubtdispelled » Oct 18, 2011 12:30 pm

allenliou wrote:This is no joke. If you can proved it. I will send the money to you.


You aren't Nigerian by any chance, are you?
Never argue with stupid people, they will drag you down to their level and then beat you with experience.

― Mark Twain
Doubtdispelled
 
Posts: 11765

Print view this post

Re: The 2011 of the Nobel Prize for physics is a mistake

#18  Postby Jumbo » Oct 18, 2011 12:40 pm

allenliou wrote:This is no joke. If you can proved it. I will send the money to you.

You are the one putting forward the hypothesis so its really up to you to demonstrate its correct.
The Feynman Problem-Solving Algorithm

1. Write down the problem.
2. Think very hard.
3. Write down the answer.
User avatar
Jumbo
 
Posts: 3599
Age: 40
Male

United Kingdom (uk)
 
Birthday
Print view this post

Re: The 2011 of the Nobel Prize for physics is a mistake

#19  Postby theropod » Oct 18, 2011 12:48 pm

allenliou,

Define what you would accept as "proof". Since proof has no part in scientific investigations the word has no value in this context.

RS
Sleeping in the hen house doesn't make you a chicken.
User avatar
theropod
RS Donator
 
Name: Roger
Posts: 7451
Age: 65
Male

Country: USA
United States (us)
Print view this post

Re: The 2011 of the Nobel Prize for physics is a mistake

#20  Postby Jumbo » Oct 18, 2011 12:51 pm

Just to add :

Why would the spacetime of the universe being hyperbolic rule out the big bang? Isn't a hyperbolic spacetime predicted by most big bang cosmologies for an Omega of less than 1?

Also why are you using the term cosmological constant and curvature interchangably? The two are not the same. Your cosmological constant is not the same as the thing commonly given that name so its liable to cause confusion.
The Feynman Problem-Solving Algorithm

1. Write down the problem.
2. Think very hard.
3. Write down the answer.
User avatar
Jumbo
 
Posts: 3599
Age: 40
Male

United Kingdom (uk)
 
Birthday
Print view this post

Next

Return to Pseudoscience

Who is online

Users viewing this topic: No registered users and 1 guest