Failed thread about expansion experiments

[Ciaolo]

The title is strange, isn't it?
This is what I wanted to be the OP:
---
Back in the days when we wanted to understand if the sun goes around the earth or the other way around, if I'm not mistaken, we used pendulum to clarify that.

We now must find some way to see if the expansion is real or its counterpart is. But first, we must define what this counterpart is.

Any ideas?
---

Then I wanted to be more precise about the heliocentric proving experiment and did some research.

Basically, physically, an heliocentric and geocentric model are equivalent. Also to be more precise, there are some observations that contradict the heliocentric model even.

The most important ones are that there is no apparent effect of spin on the atmosphere. We can say that the charge has a role there, but that's very vague. Actually charge is very different from location to location.

I give up. I don't really care what model is true and what isn't anymore. I can just see experiment results and continue to be curious about related phenomena.

What do you want to discuss here, the expansion experiment or the heliocentric/geocentric debate?

[Nevyn]

In one way, it's just a matter of perspective. If you choose to measure from the earth, then you are using a geocentric model. If you choose to measure with respect to the sun then it is heliocentric. However, neither of these include the actual motion of the solar system through the galaxy. Take a look at these videos.

Part 1:


Part 2:


In some ways, the solar system can be thought of like a neutron between 2 protons in an alpha. The galactic core emits charge most heavily at 30° N and S. The sun sort of bounces between the 2. I wonder if we could determine if the neutron moves the same way?

With respect to expansion, I'm not sure what you are asking. Expansion is one way of looking at it but there are others. There is no single counterpart but any number of them. If you want to delve into expansion, then just assume expansion and build a model from there. See where it leads. When you have a good model, then you can look at other models and try to find places where they differ so that you can test them.

Miles has used the bending of starlight as a test here, here and here. I suggest you read those very carefully to ensure you have all of the motions under control. Time is also a very important player and you must always remember the connection between time and expansion as you compare frames of your model.

[Ciaolo]

That helical model is wrong, the ecliptic of the solar system is the same of that of the galaxy, it's not orthogonal.

---

Anyway, can you tell me some of those expansion counterparts you talked about?

---

I will read those papers, thank you.

[Nevyn]

That helical model is wrong, the ecliptic of the solar system is the same of that of the galaxy, it's not orthogonal.

Yes, the helical model is probably wrong, I haven't looked into it at all, just thought it was interesting from a motion perspective. I don't usually think at those large scales and am usually more concerned with the very small.

Anyway, can you tell me some of those expansion counterparts you talked about?

I don't have any concrete examples, I was speaking more generically, implying there may be models we haven't thought of yet. I haven't really looked into gravity in years. I find that expansion works for me, at least as far as being able to see the motions and how they play out with respect to other entities in the field. It easily explains some of the basic properties of gravity such as why all objects are affected equally and why it can not be blocked. No other theory I have seen can explain those two properties at all. Curved space comes the closest but since it is a non-starter with respect to logic, I don't really count it as a viable theory of gravity. I do find it interesting that physicists accept curved space only because the math says so (even though that math is a choice, not a requirement) but won't accept expansion for the same reason. To be clear, I don't think that 'the math requires it' is a good reason to blindly accept anything, but it is important to match the math and it is even more important to explain the math.

[Ciaolo]

Does expansion explain gravitational lensing?

[Nevyn]

No, it refutes it. The apparent bending of light is caused by motion of the observer, not the light, and the observer can only move in 1 direction at a time. So you can not get multiple images of the same thing, you can only get images of things you don't expect to be able to see on one side and you will not see things you do expect to see on the other side of the gravitational object that is supposed to be bending the light.

The gravitational lensing examples can be explained by refraction much more easily than gravity. See this paper for more information.

[Sponsored content]