The Universe Is Not Expanding - Mass Density

[Allcanadian]

I was looking at some astronomy pictures the other day and had a thought.

If the universe is expanding (big bang theory) this would be considered radiant energy/matter. Radiant meaning to proceed or move from a center outward. If this were true then logically the density or distribution of matter in the universe should follow the inverse square law. That is the mass density nearest the center should be the most dense and becoming increasingly less dense as we move away from the center. However if we look at the mass distribution of the universe it is uniform which all but disqualifies the big bang expanding universe as a valid theory.

Apparently I'm not the only one who seems to think this...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y969fUR_Vtg
The Universe Is Not Expanding - Mass Density

https://www.sci.news/astronomy/science-universe-not-expanding-01940.html
Universe is Not Expanding After All, Controversial Study Suggests

I mean it's simple textbook physics, the area with the highest mass density/distribution must be in the direction of the source of said mass according to the inverse square law. Likewise any point furthest from the source must have the lowest mass density... so why is the mass density so uniform?.

AC

[F6FLT]

"Therefore if the Universe is not expanding, the redshift of light with increasing distance must be caused by some other phenomena – something that happens to the light itself as it travels through space."

It lacks the knowledge of the "some other phenomena – something", while the expansion of the universe explains it. We are still far from a solid theory of non-expansion.

[Allcanadian]

F6FLT

It lacks the knowledge of the "some other phenomena – something", while the expansion of the universe explains it. We are still far from a solid theory of non-expansion.

What is asserted without proof can be denied without proof...

The big bang expansion theory is false because...
1)It failed to explain how the universe could first become compressed in order to then go bang and expand. Logically the compression required before the big bang would violate the laws Entropy and the COE, or they believe the universe was just created from nothing, lol.

2)If there was a big bang/expansion then the inverse square law applies and we must see a change in mass distribution. The mass density must be greater in the direction of the source but it's not and we see a uniform distribution of mass.

Ergo, by your own reasoning the theory must be false and be denied...

AC

[Smudge]

"Therefore if the Universe is not expanding, the redshift of light with increasing distance must be caused by some other phenomena

Agreed

– something that happens to the light itself as it travels through space."

That is one explanation but there are others that do not require light to change frequency as it travels.

It lacks the knowledge of the "some other phenomena – something", while the expansion of the universe explains it. We are still far from a solid theory of non-expansion.

In my opinion there is ample evidence that inertia is not an internal property of a body (to resist change of motion) but is an external force acting on the body.  In EM we have an external force when a particle exhibiting charge moves in a magnetic field, we do not consider it an internal property of the particle.  We also have inertia when the particle accelerates/decelerates in the presence of a scalar electric potential due to the presence of other near and distant charges, again it is recognized as an external force, it is not an internal property of the particle.  The acceleration/deceleration "conjures up" (but it is not a con trick) an electric field.  Same with mass inertia, the acceleration/deceleration in the presence of a gravitational scalar potential due to the presence of other near and distant masses "conjures up" a gravitational field.  The recognized electron inertial mass of 9.10938356 × 10^-31 applies in our local part of the Universe.  That value can change if we move to another part of the universe where the gravitational potential has a different value.  Thus atomic oscillators there will vibrate at a different frequency.

Smudge   

[F6FLT]

F6FLT
What is asserted without proof can be denied without proof...

The big bang expansion theory is false because...
1)It failed to explain how the universe could first become compressed in order to then go bang and expand. Logically the compression required before the big bang would violate the laws Entropy and the COE, or they believe the universe was just created from nothing, lol.

2)If there was a big bang/expansion then the inverse square law applies and we must see a change in mass distribution. The mass density must be greater in the direction of the source but it's not and we see a uniform distribution of mass.

Ergo, by your own reasoning the theory must be false and be denied...

AC

The first point does not make sense, since it asserts the invalidity of expansion for the reason that it would not explain what it is not designed to explain. With this kind of "reasoning", no theory can be correct.

Point 2 is the result of a misunderstanding of expansion, since the expansion of the universe has nothing to do with the expansion of objects (stars, galaxies...) in a pre-existing universe.
The universe has no center, simply because it has no edge. In a finite universe, space is curved in such a way that if you could travel billions of light years in a straight line, you would end up back where you started.

Talking about academic science and condemning it on the basis of a clear misunderstanding is what I see from your post.

[F6FLT]

In my opinion there is ample evidence that inertia is not an internal property of a body (to resist change of motion) but is an external force acting on the body.  In EM we have an external force when a particle exhibiting charge moves in a magnetic field, we do not consider it an internal property of the particle.  We also have inertia when the particle accelerates/decelerates in the presence of a scalar electric potential due to the presence of other near and distant charges, again it is recognized as an external force, it is not an internal property of the particle.  The acceleration/deceleration "conjures up" (but it is not a con trick) an electric field.  Same with mass inertia, the acceleration/deceleration in the presence of a gravitational scalar potential due to the presence of other near and distant masses "conjures up" a gravitational field.  The recognized electron inertial mass of 9.10938356 × 10^-31 applies in our local part of the Universe.  That value can change if we move to another part of the universe where the gravitational potential has a different value.  Thus atomic oscillators there will vibrate at a different frequency.

Smudge   

That is one explanation but there are others that do not require an external force. For example, inertia could be an effect of the particle's own field on the particle, the attraction of its gravitational field tending to prevent it from escaping.

Your explanation may be valid but it drastically lacks predictions and observations that would allow to differentiate its effects from those of the academic theory.

[Allcanadian]

F6FLT

The first point does not make sense, since it asserts the invalidity of expansion for the reason that it would not explain what it is not designed to explain. With this kind of "reasoning", no theory can be correct.

It's not a difficult proposition and if the universe cannot be compressed then it could never have expanded. It's simple cause and effect and we cannot get something from nothing.

Point 2 is the result of a misunderstanding of expansion, since the expansion of the universe has nothing to do with the expansion of objects (stars, galaxies...) in a pre-existing universe.
The universe has no center, simply because it has no edge. In a finite universe, space is curved in such a way that if you could travel billions of light years in a straight line, you would end up back where you started.

Now your simply trying to justify one unproven theory with another equally unproven theory. Not only that but you have opened up countless other contradictions and violations to current laws. A circular universe with no center or edge?. A curved straight line?, you make the FE people seem mild by comparison. Do you have any first hand proof to back up all these wild claims which defy all logic and reason because it sounds nonsensical?.

AC

[F6FLT]

@AC

I have no qualifications in medicine, so it would not occur to me to claim that my little idea about viruses obtained from a popularization of the subject read here or there could invalidate the principle of vaccines. I find it hard to understand that this attitude is not adopted by those who are in physics, like me in medicine.

What you imagine of these scientific theories has nothing to do with science. The gibberish by which you claim to invalidate them only invalidates the batty representation you have of them. It's not even debatable because it's so incoherent and unrelated; impossible to answer until you know about them before you talk about them.

[Smudge]

That is one explanation but there are others that do not require an external force.

But why look for other explanations when it is so obvious that there is an external force applied there.  We can measure it, we can feel it, so why deny it?  If we wish to create a static simulation of the magical balancing effects of a gyroscope we can only do it by supplying an external force.  Why is academia brainwashed into Newton's view?  If Newton were alive today knowing how EM creates inertia I am sure he would alter his view.   

For example, inertia could be an effect of the particle's own field on the particle, the attraction of its gravitational field tending to prevent it from escaping.

That's as daft as trying to overcome gravity by pulling on your bootlaces.

Your explanation may be valid but it drastically lacks predictions and observations that would allow to differentiate its effects from those of the academic theory.

And while academia is brainwashed no one is seeking such predictions and observations.

Smudge

[Thaelin]

   I just have to say this. The more I read the posts of F6FLT, the more I get the feeling this is an AI of very high standing. 
Some years ago, I had the honor of being fooled by a bot. It took me 30 minutes to realize it. Had to contact the author and
congratulate him. Said it was a college project. In all, only one small mistake. Went on to commercialize it to.
  I realize this is most likely wrong in idea, but it is in how the responses are worded that intrigue me.
thay

[F6FLT]

@Smudge
Inertia according to academic science or Mach's principle is consistent with observations. As long as you don't provide experimental evidence to differentiate between them, claiming one as "obvious" is purely subjective and arbitrary. Academic science has a different conception of the obvious.

Newton's 1st law can also be seen as obvious. So if one opposes the natural state of an object by exerting a force on it, it can appear just as obvious that Nature will oppose it, which it does by inertia as a property of objects, an idea simpler than Mach's (and that can even be seen as a corollary of Newton's 1st law). The obvious of some is not the obvious of others. Nobody has the monopoly of the obvious.

[3D Magnetics]

The big bang theory is well portrayed by the vast intellect of many great minds  , but W.T.F. blew up in the first place?

[F6FLT]

   I just have to say this. The more I read the posts of F6FLT, the more I get the feeling this is an AI of very high standing. 
Some years ago, I had the honor of being fooled by a bot. It took me 30 minutes to realize it. Had to contact the author and
congratulate him. Said it was a college project. In all, only one small mistake. Went on to commercialize it to.
  I realize this is most likely wrong in idea, but it is in how the responses are worded that intrigue me.
thay

I consider that flattering!   AI is the future of man. The slowdown in scientific progress since the middle of the 20th century shows us that after its spectacular beginnings from the Renaissance onwards, because in physics we were starting from scratch, we could not continue at the same pace, the things still to be discovered being more complicated. As it will surely be easier to build artificial intelligence than to improve human intelligence (whose moreover IQ is deteriorating in some countries), this will be the only effective method of restarting scientific knowledge.

[Allcanadian]

F6FLT

What you imagine of these scientific theories has nothing to do with science. The gibberish by which you claim to invalidate them only invalidates the batty representation you have of them. It's not even debatable because it's so incoherent and unrelated; impossible to answer until you know about them before you talk about them.

As usual you have completely avoided the real questions and digressed to the status quo of implying others wouldn't understand the answer. It reminds me of Feynman's famous interview where he was asked what a magnetic field was. He hummed and hawed, tried to give multiple answers but ultimately failed miserably. It was embarrassing because Feynman was always the first to say if we don't know the answer we should just say we don't know.

So the most basic questions still stand,
1)How could the universe be expanding without first being compressed in violation of the COE?.
2)If the universe is expanding then some source of energy must be causing said expansion otherwise were in violation of cause/effect thus the COE again.

Personally, I don't know how this is possible and all the current explanations obviously fall short. In my opinion the only logical direction seems to be the one nobody is willing to entertain. If we keep looking inward into matter and outward to the universe and keep finding more and more stuff the evidence speaks for itself. We may not agree and I don't however my beliefs have little bearing on the facts we know.

In my opinion the real trick is not to get caught up in fallacies or circular reasoning. That is, supposing something was created from nothing or a curved space folding in on itself. It's obviously problematic because it only raises more and more complex questions. How do we get something from nothing?. If space is curved in on itself like a bubble what's outside the bubble and why a bubble?. As well, even if space did curve back to it's origin it still doesn't explain how it came to be in the first place digressing right back to creationism.

It's a real mind bender, I will give it that...

AC

[F6FLT]

@AC

The fact that the universe is expanding is the proof that in the past it was more "compressed", just replay the movie in reverse.
The expansion is done with conservation of energy but dilution, therefore with reduction of energy density, hence the hypothesis of "thermodynamic death" of the universe in billions of years.

I don't pretend to be a physicist but I have spent a lot of time trying to understand (incompletely of course) the validity of the great theories, notably electromagnetism, relativity, QM. I urge you to do the same. These theories are only common sense pushed to the extreme from observable facts. They have drastically reduced the unknown since 2 centuries. To contest them with arguments as light, incomplete, inconsistent, always against, as yours, imagined from the popularization of science which is far, very far from bringing a degree of knowledge of the academic science sufficient to dispute it, and without logical or even mathematical formalism, is vain, even harmful because it is a form of anti-science obscurantism.