Origin of the Universe,,,,Bang or no Bang

[Pluto]

G'day from the land of ozzzzzz

This is a recent paper and quite interesting.

[0811.2197] The galileon as a local modification of gravity
The galileon as a local modification of gravity

Authors: Alberto Nicolis, Riccardo Rattazzi, Enrico Trincherini
(Submitted on 13 Nov 2008)

Abstract: In the DGP model, the ``self-accelerating'' solution is plagued by a ghost instability, which makes the solution untenable. This fact as well as all interesting departures from GR are fully captured by a four-dimensional effective Lagrangian, valid at distances smaller than the present Hubble scale. The 4D effective theory involves a relativistic scalar \pi, universally coupled to matter and with peculiar derivative self-interactions. In this paper, we study the connection between self-acceleration and the presence of ghosts for a quite generic class of theories that modify gravity in the infrared. These theories are defined as those that at distances shorter than cosmological, reduce to a certain generalization of the DGP 4D effective theory. We argue that for infrared modifications of GR locally due to a universally coupled scalar, our generalization is the only one that allows for a robust implementation of the Vainshtein effect--the decoupling of the scalar from matter in gravitationally bound systems--necessary to recover agreement with solar system tests. Our generalization involves an internal ``galilean'' invariance, under which \pi's gradient shifts by a constant. This symmetry constrains the structure of the \pi Lagrangian so much so that in 4D there exist only five terms that can yield sizable non-linearities without introducing ghosts. We show that for such theories in fact there are ``self-accelerating'' deSitter solutions with no ghost-like instabilities. In the presence of compact sources, these solutions can support spherically symmetric, Vainshtein-like non-linear perturbations that are also stable against small fluctuations. [Short version for arxiv]

[Pluto]

G'day fripro

This may interest you

[astro-ph/0601659] The rotating and accelerating Universe
The rotating and accelerating Universe

Authors: Evangelos Chaliasos
(Submitted on 28 Jan 2006)

Abstract: An attempt is made to explain the spiral structure of spiral galaxies through a possible rotation of the Universe. To this end, we write down a possible form of the metric, and we calculate the necessary quantities (Rik, Tik, ...) in order to form the Einstein equations. We find the two Einstein equations pertaining to the Robertson-Walker metric and no rotation at all in this way. There are introduced then two suitable rotational motions in the universe, and we try to generalize again the Robertson-Walker metric in this way. The result is again null, since it is found that the corresponding angular velocities must vanish. A third attempt is finally done, without restricting ourselves to generalize any existing cosmological model. We introduce again two suitable rotational motions, and we form the appropriate Einstein equations. After solving them, we find that one of the rotations is a usual rotation, while, completely unexpectedly, the other one is interpreted as an acceleration. This acceleration may explain the lately observationally discovered acceleration of the Universe (1998) without a cosmological constant or the ambiguous dark energy.

[FRIPRO]

I thank you for the reference about the rotating Universe. I clicked there and was impressed;however, every time I leave the forum for a reference I can not get back in. Has anyone solved this earthly problem? FRIPRO

[Pluto]

G'day fripro

Copy the link to another window.

and keep this window open.

[maddog]

Originally Posted by FRIPRO

My friend...

A presidential candidate said that as he was about to lecture about the "error of our ways". He lost.

Originally Posted by FRIPRO

...uses a gyroscope to align itself--why would the Universe G' be any different. . .

An allegory in of itself does not constitute as evidence.

Originally Posted by FRIPRO

The question seem to be is the Universe rotating or expanding.

Not necessarily. Rotation does not depend on Expansion or visa versa.

Originally Posted by FRIPRO

What mass or radiations are rotating is another question?

nonsequitur. Que ?

Originally Posted by FRIPRO

Huble's latest deep space stereo photos express indirectly toward rotation rather then expansion--- less there would be no free fall within the INS, and the spherical clusters of galaxies (in spherical vortexs like huricanes on the earth) are easly seen in Huble's photos.

Please give a reference of such an example photo.

Originally Posted by FRIPRO

Free fall being a demonstration of the equivalence principal--the feather and the ball falling at the same rate from the leaning tower of Piza-etc

You have your facts wrong. Principle of Equivalence was Einstein's method of showing how a 1g gravity field was equivalent to acceleration at 1g (for example). You ball & feather example was attempted by Galileo. This was demonstrated effectively on the moon (without air resistance).

Originally Posted by FRIPRO

The rotating Universe could qualify as the source of the equivalence principal. Of course the big bang follows the same concept-- in fact millions of them do. So does the Earth.

Extrapolation and conjecture.

Originally Posted by FRIPRO

However the expansion or decay hypothesis--does not permit an equiivalence principal to exist on the space station.

Huh ???

Originally Posted by FRIPRO

This Univers's gravity G' is a complicated equation that no man will ever solve--it is a hypothesis only--not to be mistaken with the formula G on earth.

Predicting what will happen in the future is risky business. Who knows maybe a Quantum description of Gravity is possible (with string or without). I do suspect some assumption we have made in the last few hundred years so that we have taken to be sacred will have to be eliminated. Who is to say.

Originally Posted by FRIPRO

One's belief in a Big Bang that started it all--is ludicrous.

So you like Pluto here both seem to think the conventional wisdom about the BBT treat it like some explosion is what created the universe. Maybe go read that website alread listed here (TalkOrigin) in this thread somewehere above. The BBT is a description of the initial expansion to now.
Let us not become a Luddite.[/quote]
I don't think I have been called a "Luddite" before... I am honored to be considered an "old fuddy duddy".
Let's see - from Websters' the Definition for Luddite is

Luddite [n. LUH-dite] The noun Luddite specifically refers to one of a group of early 19th century English workmen who were campaigning against the automation of the power loom. Under cover of night and generally masked, the workers often destroyed the equipment that had displaced them. Today the word broadly refers to anyone who is opposed to technological change or new working methods.
The name Luddite is presumed to come from the leader of these angry workmen: Ned Ludd. The Leicestershire worker is said to have rushed into a stocking weaver's house and destroyed his equipment. More about Ned Ludd and the Luddites: http://www.bigeastern.com/ludd/nl_whats.htm and http://publish.uwo.ca/~nallen1/ludd.htm.

Now if I understand both and your and Pluto's objections about BBT and sincere nature of tearing down the scaffolding of workability to return to some pastoral earlier time of Steady State Theories by Fred Hoyle, et al.
I might from the above definition construe both of your fetal attempt to shoot it down as Luddite-like behavior.

As for the root idea you started with -- rotation of the universe. I might agree with you in principle (though for different reasons). I originally while in high school thought the universe could be with some initial rotation. I never figured a method to measure it. In those times the conventional wisdom had the universe as thought to be closed. Thus and such expansion would only slow down to a stop and turn around. I have conjectured if
Quasars were cosmological, and the universe were closed, and these events all seemed to be no more than light-days across that maybe they just copies of each other.

This was also before a Quasar spectrum could be resolved either. This turned out not to be the case nor now known the universe found now to be accelerating outware and not slowing down. Though I digress.

To be able to resolve a rotation of the whole universe -- you would need a background to measure against. Maybe another method can be done. This is open in my mind.

maddog

[maddog]

Originally Posted by Pluto

All observation do not show that the parts within the universe expand.

Huh ? Not sure the meaning of this remark ...

Originally Posted by Pluto

The parts that contract are those that matter we can see eg, towards a gravity sink such as a star, black hole , cluster of galaxies such as the great attractor.
The expanding parts are the jets that we see on Stars, Black holes and the intereatcion between stars and galaxies.

What a component does compared to whole is like have the 4 blind sufi's looking at the 4 different parts of the elephant to determine how old the elephant is. ??????

Originally Posted by Pluto

The expansion that people talk about is time/space and not actual distance.

In cosmology basically (at cosmological distances) Distance = Time.

Originally Posted by Pluto

I'm more interested in understanding what the hell is going on.

So am I. That is why if I thought like you I would not just Ignore Redshift and discount it. I would at least consider why it appears to be somewhat consistent. I will grant the Hubble constant still fluctuates a bit
due to the patchwork in the way it is put together across the cosmological scale. If it is flawed, it in these assumptions that this is OK (kinda' like the small angle approximation).

Originally Posted by Pluto

Too busy reading papers and papers to find out why the BBT become the standard model. Where did science go wrong and for what reason. I assume that most scientists have a head on their shoulders and yet there is a mountain of information that is in conflict with the BBT.

There is that myopic flaw in your thinking again. "Science didn't go Wrong ?!?!?

Originally Posted by Pluto

Just to support the BBT because its the standard is a great mistake.

This I do not do. I do support BBT over others as it is More Accurate at describing behavior in the universe.

maddog

[maddog]

Originally Posted by Pluto

[astro-ph/0601659] The rotating and accelerating Universe
The rotating and accelerating Universe

Authors: Evangelos Chaliasos
(Submitted on 28 Jan 2006)

I do find this interesting. Because this is the best example where rotation to the universe can be considered plausible by theory alone.

This does not provide evidence (observationally or otherwise).

maddog

[maddog]

Originally Posted by FRIPRO

I thank you for the reference about the rotating Universe. I clicked there and was impressed;however, every time I leave the forum for a reference I can not get back in. Has anyone solved this earthly problem? FRIPRO

As Pluto said copying is one method. Though it caused me to consider - what Browser are you using ?

If you have a multiple button mouse, and using Firefox, it should be easy.
Left Click are the normal (default) button action. Right-Click brings up a
context menu (Firefox) with one item being to display the links page address, another bookmark, another download the item at the link address.

So I do it all in one.

However, if you are using a Mac that only has one button on your mouse,
then hold down the 'Command' [Apple / Cloverleaf] key. You could also go buy a multi-button mouse. Mine is a Logitech (Optical / Wireless too !).

maddog

[FRIPRO]

Mad Dog
Thanks for the info to get back after leaving this very interesting thread. FRIPRO

[Pluto]

G'day from the land of ozzzzzz


Hello Maddog

What you say is main stream.

You said

Quote:
Originally Posted by Pluto
All observation do not show that the parts within the universe expand.

Huh ? Not sure the meaning of this remark

Observations do not show expansion in metric, but! clustering of matter.


I will expand on this.

Just dropped in for a sec.

Got to take the kids out.