Steady State Universe

[Mike C]

Because of the violations of the laws of physics and proven experimental data by the ‘big bang’ supporters, I decided to promote the Steady State Universe that does not violate any laws or experimental data and also complies to the observational data.

 

To begin with, This Universe is infinitely old. There is no beginning or end.

However, the formed structures like galaxies, stars and photons, go through a recycling process. The matter content itself, does not because it complies with the 'Laws of Conservation of Matter and Energy’. It also complies with the other conservation laws.

 

It complies with all the problems the current ‘big bang universe’ does not explain like the Michelson-Morley Interferometer Experiments that refute the existence of a spatial ether as a carrier of the light waves. This then refutes space as the cause of the Cosmological redshift.

 

It portrays space as flat. No expansion or contraction. Hence no need for General Relativity.

The redshift of the current galactic observations is the product of the light waves expanding. This also complies with the Halton Arp redshift anomaly that the BB’ers refute.

 

The CMBR is the product of a state of 'thermal equilibrium’ of all the radiations and interstellar particle radiations. It complies with the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics that states that all closed systems will redistribute their heat from the hot to the cold areas until a uniform temperature is reached.

 

Although space is infinite, the matter content is finite. There is sufficient matter content to prevent the loss of heat energy (molecular) at its edges. This matter content then is a closed system.

 

Even though this is an everlasting Universe, there is no buildup of ‘heat energy’ by the high energy photons that the stars create. The reason for this is that the photons are expanding to create the Cosmological Redshift and continue to expand until they reach wavelengths beyond the radio waves and continue to oblivion and simply ending as regular negative electric field particles.

The ending of the photons then keeps the heat from increasing that would result from the new star creations and subsequent new photon creations.

 

New Science

[Tormod]

I must be dumb. What are we supposed to discuss? I see no theory, only assumptions which are put forth in order to avoid any other theories.

 

Or are you going to follow this up with any data, evidence, experiments, projects...anything?

[Mike C]

I must be dumb. What are we supposed to discuss? I see no theory, only assumptions which are put forth in order to avoid any other theories.

 

Or are you going to follow this up with any data, evidence, experiments, projects...anything?

 

My post points out the sources of what I say.

 

My SSU is based on the Laws of Conservation of Matter and Energy.

The way I interpret this is:

Matter cannot be created or destroyed, but only transformed.

 

The M-M interferometer experiments have proven that the light is not influenced by space since the carrier of these photons are the 'electric' fields that surround the electrons. These fields extend to infinity and thou they occupy space, space does not influence them because they are only affected by the electron motions and its resultant magnetic field.

 

If you are familiar with the Halton Arp redshift anomaly, the redshifts are a product of the source 'energy' radiations and not affected by the space.

The higher redshift objects that are the quasars, are radiating at higher temperatures than the accompaning galaxies. So that can be the only reason for the discordant redshifts.

 

NS

[Tormod]

It complies with all the problems the current ‘big bang universe’ does not explain like the Michelson-Morley Interferometer Experiments that refute the existence of a spatial ether as a carrier of the light waves. This then refutes space as the cause of the Cosmological redshift.

 

How do you reach this conclusion? Cosmic expansion does not happen around the earth, but in intergalactic space, so MM would not be able to measure it. I fail to see how the ether theory has any impact on cosmic expansion.

 

Although space is infinite, the matter content is finite. There is sufficient matter content to prevent the loss of heat energy (molecular) at its edges. This matter content then is a closed system.

 

The edges of what?

 

Even though this is an everlasting Universe, there is no buildup of ‘heat energy’ by the high energy photons that the stars create. The reason for this is that the photons are expanding to create the Cosmological Redshift and continue to expand until they reach wavelengths beyond the radio waves and continue to oblivion and simply ending as regular negative electric field particles. The ending of the photons then keeps the heat from increasing that would result from the new star creations and subsequent new photon creations.

 

How is this decay proven? If we live in an eternal universe, then this surely can be observed somewhere?

 

How does the Steady State theory explain the observed *acceleration* of the cosmic expansion?

[ronthepon]

The redshift of the current galactic observations is the product of the light waves expanding.

Light waves expanding? What does this mean?

 

The CMBR is the product of a state of 'thermal equilibrium’ of all the radiations and interstellar particle radiations. It complies with the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics that states that all closed systems will redistribute their heat from the hot to the cold areas until a uniform temperature is reached.

This bit is in disagreement of an earlier statement of your post:

To begin with, This Universe is infinitely old. There is no beginning or end.

Had the universe been infinitely old, the heat distribution would have been complete.

 

You could argue that this heat is a result of the equilibrium resulting from continuous radiation. (As Prevost's claims were in 1792) However, the presence of an infinite space would allow all the heat to be radiated into this infinite space, provided infinite time.

 

And then, the second law of thermodynamics comes here. Since it states that the entropy of a closed system can only increase, and given that the universe has no 'surrounding' to interact with (i.e. it's a closed system), it's entropy can only increase with time. Tis suggests that given infinite time, there should be infinite disorder.

 

How is it that we do not observe infinite disorder?

 

This should suggest strongly that the universe has not existed for an infinite amount of time.

[Mike C]

How do you reach this conclusion? MM would not be able to measure it. I fail to see how the ether theory has any impact on cosmic expansion.

 

In the earlier years before Planck, the existence of an ether was believed to be the carrier of the light waves. This ether permeated space and space was then considered to be the carrier of light waves.

Charged particles like the electron are surrounded by EM fields that carry the photons through space. Since these fields were moving with the M-M experiment, space had no effect regardless of which direction the Earth was moving.

 

The edges of what?

 

The edges of the matter universe. Space continues on to infinity.

 

How is this decay proven? If we live in an eternal universe, then this surely can be observed somewhere?

 

Since the expansion of the light waves takes billions of years to expand to oblivion, this would be difficult to prove.

The HDFN showed a deep penetration into space where redshifts of 6+ have been detected.

I measured those tiny 'specks' in that field and determined that they were about 25-30 billion light years deep beyond the BB age.

I figured that if M87 was reduced to the size of those specks at 'one are second', it would be at that distance.

Over that 30 billion ly stretch, you have a range of 6+, so this would the be a redshift of one over a stretch of about 4-5 billion lys.

 

 

How does the Steady State theory explain the observed *acceleration* of the cosmic expansion?

 

I do not give much credibility to those SN 1a's as distance candles.

Those SN 1as are supposed to be the result of white dwarf stars exploding after an accumulated mass of 1.44 SM's.

WDs come in a variety of sizes and temperatures. So they would accumulate different amounts of hydrogen gases and since they also are at temperatures that vary from 3000K to over 100,000K, they would also explode at different mass levels. That 1.44 SM level may be just an average for the explosions.

 

NS

[Tormod]

You fail to provide any sources we can use to check your assumptions.

 

Like this:

 

I measured those tiny 'specks' in that field and determined that they were about 25-30 billion light years deep beyond the BB age.

 

How?

 

And this:

 

Those SN 1as are supposed to be the result of white dwarf stars exploding after an accumulated mass of 1.44 SM's.

 

Fine. There is much more to be said about them.

 

Supernova - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[Mike C]

Light waves expanding? What does this mean?

 

The 'expansion of the lightwaves' as the cosmological redshift is more easily proven than the expansion of space' as the cause.

EM fields in laboratory experiments show expansion between the electric charges and the magnetic poles.

The M-M experiment proves that space cannot be the cause of the CRS.

The EM fields that carry the photons are moving with the experiment.

So no spatial influence was detected.

The Arp redshift aomaly is explained by the EoLW's whereas, the BBU just refutes it.

 

This bit is in disagreement of an earlier statement of your post:Had the universe been infinitely old, the heat distribution would have been complete.

 

The variation in temperature of the CMBR is just 7/100,000 of a Kelvin.

Seems to me like this is a very uniform temperature.

In a short lived BBU, this uniformity could not be that equal.

 

You could argue that this heat is a result of the equilibrium resulting from continuous radiation. (As Prevost's claims were in 1792) However, the presence of an infinite space would allow all the heat to be radiated into this infinite space, provided infinite time.

 

In a SSU, very little heat would be radiated into space . the creation of new stars and subsequent photons would be enough to balance this out.

 

And then, the second law of thermodynamics comes here. Since it states that the entropy of a closed system can only increase, and given that the universe has no 'surrounding' to interact with (i.e. it's a closed system), it's entropy can only increase with time. Tis suggests that given infinite time, there should be infinite disorder.

 

I do not know what kind of disorder you are talking about? Experiments have been done that works just the opposite. In a closed system, the temperatures and pressures will reach equalibrium as the law states.

Seems to me like this creates order rather than disorder.

 

Entropy is a complex system of different types and the 2nd law of thermal equalization is the easiest to understand.

 

How is it that we do not observe infinite disorder?

 

What kind of disorder are you referring to?

There are a variety of different structures and some rare collisions. Other than that, the universe seems to be orderly.

 

This should suggest strongly that the universe has not existed for an infinite amount of time.

 

I think otherwise.

 

NS

[coldcreation]

Hello New Science,

 

I'm a little confused. When you refer to Steady State Universe do you refer to the theory authored by Bondy, Hoyle and Gold? If so, do you adhere to the pre-QSSC version of it. If not why not simply call it QSSC (Quasi-Steady State Cosmology)? Note that the original Steady State theory was modified by Hoyle et al to include a new creation mechanism, along with several other features that were changed.

 

Or perhaps Steady State Universe is entierly something else, with no expansion or contractions. If that is the case why even call it Steady State? Why not just call it a stationary model, or static universe, one that is nonexpanding, or something else entirely?

 

 

Thanks in advance for a clarification.

 

CC

[Mike C]

Hello New Science,

 

I'm a little confused. When you refer to Steady State Universe do you refer to the theory authored by Bondy, Hoyle and Gold? If so, do you adhere to the pre-QSSC version of it. If not why not simply call it QSSC (Quasi-Steady State Cosmology)? Note that the original Steady State theory was modified by Hoyle et al to include a new creation mechanism, along with several other features that were changed.

 

Or perhaps Steady State Universe is entierly something else, with no expansion or contractions. If that is the case why even call it Steady State? Why not just call it a stationary model, or static universe, one that is nonexpanding, or something else entirely?

 

 

Thanks in advance for a clarification.

 

CC

 

My SSU is based on a Euclidean flat space that refutes the BBU.

 

The Hoyle, Gold and Bondy SS was partly right until they introduced the 'creation of matter' idea. They apparently accepted the 'expansion of space' that I completely refute.

 

Static universe makes a person think their is no movement that just is not definitive enough.

My SS is used that way because the internal components like galaxies, stars and photons are recycling to maintain and comply to the Conservation Laws and especially matter.

 

I will continue posting new data when questions arise.

 

NS

[Mike C]

You fail to provide any sources we can use to check your assumptions.

Like this:

 

How?

And this:

 

Fine. There is much more to be said about them.

 

Like this:

the source for this is the Sky & Telescope Mag, with the HDFN, dated May.1996, page 49. It is one and a half minutes of arc wide. So with that figure, I used a ruler to measure the tiny objects that were about 1 arc sec.

 

Then I used M87 in Virgo as a model that is 9 min of arc. So when reduced to one arc sec (540), and multiplied by the Virgo distance of 54 million light years, it would be at a distance of 29 billion lys deep.

Objects at that distance are reported to have redshifts of 6+.

 

So with that distance (Euclidean Geo) divided by 6 gives the redshift distance for single redshifts at about 4 billion lys.

 

And this:

SN1as are not credible IMO as distance candles. The reasons are that the WDs vary in mass and temperatures. The 'self distruct' WD mass # that is 1.44 SMs is probably an average of many other SNs.

Observations also question the amounts of hydrogen involved in these explosions that appear to be minimal.

 

NS

[coldcreation]

My SSU is based on a Euclidean flat space that refutes the BBU.

 

The Hoyle, Gold and Bondy SS was partly right until they introduced the 'creation of matter' idea. They apparently accepted the 'expansion of space' that I completely refute.

 

Static universe makes a person think their is no movement that just is not definitive enough.

My SS is used that way because the internal components like galaxies, stars and photons are recycling to maintain and comply to the Conservation Laws and especially matter.

...

NS

 

Ok, thank you for the answer. When I saw Steady State in the title off your thread I thought you brought back the old Steady State theory. Perhaps it would be better called a stationary model, to eliminate the direct relation (same name) as the original version. I know what you mean about the word static. I don't think it represents well a nonexpanding, non-collapsing universe, though that is what in means in this context. Obviously things move and evolve with time (in a static universe).

 

Question: How do you arrive at a geometrically Euclidean universe that nevertheless contains matter, energy and pressure, all of which gravitate, i.e., their presence induces a curvature (at least locally, and I suspect globally; of the de Sitter type, geometrically hyperbolic) of the spacetime metric.

 

Is it for convenience? Or, perhaps general relativity plays no role in your model (idea).

 

Could you clarify this point. Could you please explain, too, how you get a cosmological redshift (somewhat related to distance) that is independent of wavelength with minimal scattering in the lookback time: both of these observations rules out most 'tired light' effects as a cause of z).

 

 

Thanks

 

CC

[Mike C]

Is it for convenience? Or, perhaps general relativity plays no role in your model (idea).

 

Could you clarify this point. Could you please explain, too, how you get a cosmological redshift (somewhat related to distance) that is independent of wavelength with minimal scattering in the lookback time: both of these observations rules out most 'tired light' effects as a cause of z).

 

CC

 

Yes, Einsteins GR plays no role in a SSU because he himself thought that his universe would collapse.

However, he is wrong about a SSU collapsing. Newtons Laws say that every force is met with an equal and opposite force.

 

The hydrogen atom does not collapse because of the magnetic interactions between the proton spins and the electrons magnetic field.

Gravitational force is opposed by the inertial momentum of the orbitting bodies. The stronger the force, the greater the velocities to prevent collapse.

These are the characteristics of matter.

 

The scattering of light by particles is minimal since there is very little matter in the intergalactic space. From what I understand, there is only one HA per cubic meter. But this is an average. Since the particles are collected into clouds and gravitaional structures, most of the space would be completely empty of matter.

 

My concept of the light waves expanding, eliminates the BBU as a reality.

There is evidence for this while there is no evidence for the expansion of space since the Doppler observations were refuted and replaced by the 'subjective' idea of space expansion to explain the galactic redshifts and our 'one' central location.

 

NS

[coldcreation]

Yes, Einsteins GR plays no role in a SSU because he himself thought that his universe would collapse.

However, he is wrong about a SSU collapsing. Newtons Laws say that every force is met with an equal and opposite force.

 

The hydrogen atom does not collapse because of the magnetic interactions between the proton spins and the electrons magnetic field.

Gravitational force is opposed by the inertial momentum of the orbitting bodies. The stronger the force, the greater the velocities to prevent collapse.

These are the characteristics of matter.

 

The scattering of light by particles is minimal since there is very little matter in the intergalactic space. From what I understand, there is only one HA per cubic meter. But this is an average. Since the particles are collected into clouds and gravitaional structures, most of the space would be completely empty of matter.

 

My concept of the light waves expanding, eliminates the BBU as a reality.

There is evidence for this while there is no evidence for the expansion of space since the Doppler observations were refuted and replaced by the 'subjective' idea of space expansion to explain the galactic redshifts and our 'one' central location.

 

NS

 

 

Is that what causes redshift in your Steady State Universe? How do light waves expand? Why would such a thing happen? Why would they expand nonlinearly? Or do they expand linearly? If the latter is the case, how do you explain the SNe Ia data which shows time dilation. How do you get time dilation in a universe that is not accelerating, or where GR plays no role?

 

CC

[Mike C]

Is that what causes redshift in your Steady State Universe? How do light waves expand? Why would such a thing happen? Why would they expand nonlinearly? Or do they expand linearly? If the latter is the case, how do you explain the SNe Ia data which shows time dilation. How do you get time dilation in a universe that is not accelerating, or where GR plays no role?

 

CC

 

There is more evidence for the 'lightwaves expanding' (LWE) than the 'expansion of space' (EoS) that has NO supporting evidence.

 

In laboratory experiments, you will notice that the EM fields expand between the electric charges and the magnetic poles.

This indicates that the patterns composing these fields are repulsive in open space between the 'virtual charged electric field particles that are REAL and compose these fields because the fields are real.

In the magnetic component, when the fields are moving in the same direction, they also repel each other as proven in a bar magnet pattern..

But the photons travel through the ELECTRIC fields in their journey through space. These fields extend to infinity.

 

The next proof is that the M-M interferometry experiments have shown that these photons are NOT influenced by space since the fields are the carriers.

 

And thirdly, the Halton Arp Redshift Anomaly is true since he has presented several examples of objects at the same distance with different redshifts.

The best are NGC 7603 and AM 2054-2210. Check them out.

 

These LWs do expand 'non linearly' since the higher lyman Alpha waves will expand at a greater rate than the infrared waves. So the rate of expansion per unit distance would be different.

That is why the Quasars have higher rsahifts at tha same distance than the companion galaxies as Arp has shown because they radiate higher temperature waves.

 

However, the rate of expansion is greater than the variation per unit distance.

 

I do not give much credibility to the SN1a's as accurate distance candles because of the variations of the masses and especially the temperature differences.

 

NS

[Tormod]

There is more evidence for the 'lightwaves expanding' (LWE) than the 'expansion of space' (EoS) that has NO supporting evidence.

 

So to get this straight: You refuse to accept the existing body evidence for an expanding cosmos, so *therefore* you create a "lightwaves expanding" model?

 

Why?

 

These LWs do expand 'non linearly' since the higher lyman Alpha waves will expand at a greater rate than the infrared waves. So the rate of expansion per unit distance would be different.

 

You just wrote that there is no evidence for the expanding light waves, so I will assume that there are no observation of them either (since you have not yet backed up your claim with any evidence). Is there any way to observe or measure the predicted nonlinear expansion of them? If there is, can it not be explained by expanding space (and if so, why not?)

[Mike C]

The ‘expansion of the light waves has real evidence for its support as the Cosmological Redshift. Examples:

 

The magnetic field patterns where the central portion is expanded by an ‘intrinsic’ force between the magnetic poles and field lines.

This is also true of the electric fields between the opposite charges (by similar virtual charged particles) through mutual repulsion during their transition between the charges.

The electric motor makes use of these intrinsic forces within the EM fields to generate the power for its use.

 

The photons are primarily a compressed congregate of 'negatively charged virtual particles' that result from the magnetic pulses of radiation during the electron transitions in the hydrogen atoms. These magnetic pulses are directional and at maximum when the observer is perpendicular to the electrons orbital transitional movements and in line with the electrons plane of movement.

The electric fields surrounding the electrons are the carriers that transmit the photons.

The photon energy (momentum) uses this field for its transmission by the mutual repulsion between these virtual particles.

 

In a tranquil state, they disperse themselves equally around the electron and throughout the surrounding area and the spaces widen as the distances of the field increase from the electron.

 

The photon congregate pushes against the particles in front to transmit their momentum through this field as a line of dominos transfer their falls through the aligned dominos.

Naturally, this photon energy is transmitted at the velocity of light.

 

The Arp redshift anomalies show that these RS’s are temperature related and therefore intrinsic to the light being emitted by these objects and their radiating temperatures.

Quasars radiate at much higher temperatures than the nearby galaxies.

The intrinsic forces in these higher energy photons cause a greater expansion per unit distance. That is why they have higher redshifts at the same distance than the adjacent galaxies.

 

It takes billions of years for these photons to increase their wavelengths. My estimate is a length of about 4 - 5 billion light years for a photon to increase by one wavelength.

This expansion would also gradually decrease as the photons widen. However, this decreasing expansion per unit distance would be very small because at a RS of 6, the intrinsic force would be reduced by the inverse square law to 1/25th of its original strength.

 

The BB space expansion concept cannot expand the light pulses because they are not the transmitters of these pulses.

The Michelson - Morley interferometer experiment has refuted the idea of a spatial ether. So the cosmological redshift cannot be a product of the space expansion.

 

NS