Expansion of Light Waves verses Expansion of Space

[Tormod]

You would see no change because the signal does not weaken with time but only after a distance travelled fron the source. Besides, those distances in your basement cannot represent a spatial dimension of 5 billion light years for a redshift of one.

 

Well, "distance travelled" is closely related to "time passed" in our universe. Does this imply that there is no practical way to test your theory?

 

The problem with those light lasers is that they cannot be kept in alignment within the light tube projector to remain in perfect alighnment because of scattering within the short tube projector IMO.

 

So what source do you recommend?

 

Why? Are you familiar with the Halton Arp Redshift Anomalies? Quasars have higher RSs because they are radiating higher energy radiations that expand more per unit distance than the lower level radiations of light.

 

"expand more per unit distance" - why! What is the mechanism that makes this happen - that's what I'm interested in.

[Zythryn]

You would see no change because the signal does not weaken with time but only after a distance travelled fron the source.

 

So the distance can only be in a straight line? Light bouncing back and forth, yet covering the same distance doesn't count? Does a zig-zag path count?

 

What I am looking for is a prediction of an experiment. One of those 'you have a sphere on a wedge with no friction' type hypothetical tests.

 

Just so I understand you. Are you saying:

 

If you reflected light through a series of mirrors such that the light traveled 5 billion miles (back and forth 5 billions times for example), the light would not 'expand' because it did the start and end point are relatively close?

 

This 'one' expansion you mention, is that 'one wavelength'? What are the units please, I missed it.

[Mike C]

Sanctus

 

Einsteins Cosmological Constant was supposed to counter the effects of gravity in a static universe.

 

So it would have to be repulsive such as the BB is supposed to be.

 

Those formulations above were then refuted as his greatest blunder.

So the math above may not have any credibility?

 

Besides, I am not an expert mathematician.

 

I prefer to rely on 'visualizations' for solutions.

 

NS

[sanctus]

Sanctus

 

Einsteins Cosmological Constant was supposed to counter the effects of gravity in a static universe.

 

It depends on the sign...

 

Anyway, yes the have still some creditibility, mainly because with a non-zero cosmological constant you can fit better the CMB. It is widely used in cosmology, look into any cosmology book and they speak about it (and also the blunder).

[coldcreation]

snip....

 

Forget Einsteins formulas and think Euclidean.

 

...snip

 

The biggest problem I have with the expanding wave idea is quoted above. You see, New Science, Einstein did away with Euclidean geometry for good with his general theory, at least in circumstances where gravity play a role, however small, i.e., where ever there exists mass, energy and/or pressure, which, last time I checked, is everywhere.

 

How__and I asked you this in another thread, where this topic should have been discussed (now there are two threads for the same story, but if you would like to discuss it here I'll cancel my subscription to the Steady State thread)__can light be considered to propagate (expanding or not) in a Euclidean universe when mass, energy and pressure are present causing curvature of the spacetime manifold: gravity?

 

Why do you think Einstein's formulae should be forgotten and replaced with a concept (Euclidean geometry) that has shown observationally (at least since the 1990's SNe Ia data) untenable on cosmological scales (i.e., parallel lines diverge with increasing distance; see the fifth postulate)?

 

CC

[Tormod]

Those formulations above were then refuted as his greatest blunder.

 

I think you are misinterpreting this. Einstein himself called the introduction of a cosmological constant his biggest blunder. It was, however, later shown to be correct.

[Mike C]

It depends on the sign...

 

Anyway, yes the have still some creditibility, mainly because with a non-zero cosmological constant you can fit better the CMB. It is widely used in cosmology, look into any cosmology book and they speak about it (and also the blunder).

 

My interpretation of the CMBR is more realistic than the BB version.

And it complies with the laws of ohysics that the BB version does not.

 

The 2nd Law of thermodynamics says that heat energy or pressure will flow from 'hot to cold' or from high pressure to low pressure.

 

Only the 'heat' energy need be concerned here.

 

The heat will distribute itself from hot to cold until a 'thermal equalibrium' temperature is reached. That is the CMBR temperature that is just 7/100,000 of a Kelvin in variation. That is equal enough for me.

 

In 1940, Mckellar diccovered a molecule in interstellar space that was at a temperature of 2 K.

 

Estimates of the CMBR by the BB supporters predicted temperatures of 5 K and later to 10 K.

 

McKellars temperature was the most accurate and that was done decades earlier than the BB predictions.

 

It would also take much longer time scales to equalize the space temperature that the BB could no achieve in the short time of 14^9 years that an expanding space could not achieve.

 

NS

[Eclogite]

New Science, are you basically offering a 'tired light' model to account for the red shift?

If not would you clarify for me exactly how your model explains red shift.

 

If you are offering us 'tired light' how do you counter refutations of the tired light models, such as this one:

Lubin & Sandage The Tolman Surface Brightness Test for the Reality of the Expansion. IV. A Measurement of the Tolman Signal and the Luminosity Evolution of Early-Type GalaxiesAstrophysics, abstract astro-ph/0106566 June 2001

From the abstract "... We have also used the high-redshift HST data to test the ``tired light'' speculation for a non-expansion model for the redshift. The HST data rule out the ``tired light'' model at a significance level of better than 10 sigma."

 

Source: [astro-ph/0106566] The Tolman Surface Brightness Test for the Reality of the Expansion. IV. A Measurement of the Tolman Signal and the Luminosity Evolution of Early-Type Galaxies

[Mike C]

The biggest problem I have with the expanding wave idea is quoted above. You see, New Science, Einstein did away with Euclidean geometry for good with his general theory, at least in circumstances where gravity play a role, however small, i.e., where ever there exists mass, energy and/or pressure, which, last time I checked, is everywhere.

 

How__and I asked you this in another thread, where this topic should have been discussed (now there are two threads for the same story, but if you would like to discuss it here I'll cancel my subscription to the Steady State thread)__can light be considered to propagate (expanding or not) in a Euclidean universe when mass, energy and pressure are present causing curvature of the spacetime manifold: gravity?

 

Why do you think Einstein's formulae should be forgotten and replaced with a concept (Euclidean geometry) that has shown observationally (at least since the 1990's SNe Ia data) untenable on cosmological scales (i.e., parallel lines diverge with increasing distance; see the fifth postulate)?

 

CC

 

I will reply to you tomorrow. I spent about a half hour in answering your questions and when I attempted to post, the original copy by me was erased.

 

NS

[coldcreation]

I will reply to you tomorrow. I spent about a half hour in answering your questions and when I attempted to post, the original copy by me was erased.

 

NS

 

Sorry to here that. I used to write in a word document, then copy-paste it into the forum. The advantages are twofold:

 

(1) You won't make the kind of spelling errors seen several posts above: e.g., "the laws of ohisics." I make typos too but it is your thread and your idea to defend. You can edit your posts, by the way. And (2) you won't loose an entire post because it will be saved in your document. (3) If you have a laptop, you can write on the beach without being online, then send it when you get home, or by WiFi.

 

Back to business:

 

Where do you get your second factor of (1 + z) for time dilation in addition to the first factor of (1 + z).

 

Explain the observed time dilation of high-z SNe Ia. Also, why do SNe Ia seem further than expected according to the redshift-distance relation (the deviation from the so-called Hubble's law).

 

Tolman's test clearly states, and for good reason, that time dilation in a flat, Euclidean universe is very unlikely, if not impossible. (Obviously, if the manifold is non-Euclidean, with say, a hyperbolic de Sitter-type metric, the Tolman test is bypassed, i.e., general relativistic global time dilation is easy to explain). How do you bypass that problem with you flat geometry without introducing an ad hoc mechanism?

 

CC

[Mike C]

#26

The biggest problem I have with the expanding wave idea is quoted above. You see, New Science, Einstein did away with Euclidean geometry for good with his general theory, at least in circumstances where gravity play a role, however small, i.e., where ever there exists mass, energy and/or pressure, which, last time I checked, is everywhere.

 

I do not give much credibility to Einsteins math because his mass/energy formula is wrong. I could write another article on this subject if you like.

 

Regarding his ‘curvature of space’ (CoS) as was confirmed by the bending of starlight by the Sun is not due to the CoS but simply bent by ‘gravity’ alone.

 

How__and I asked you this in another thread, where this topic should have been discussed (now there are two threads for the same story, but if you would like to discuss it here I'll cancel my subscription to the Steady State thread)__can light be considered to propagate (expanding or not) in a Euclidean universe when mass, energy and pressure are present causing curvature of the spacetime manifold: gravity?

 

I refute ST just as I refute the BBU. The Laws of Conservation of Matter and Energy imply that matter always existed. Therefore, the universe always existed. This would then refute Einsteins GR.

 

The SSU and the ‘Expansion of the Light Waves (EoLW) are two distinct subjects and cannot be treated as one.

Are you implying ‘censorship’ here? The US promotion of the BB involves some censorship with Halton Arps Redshift Anomaly as the best example. I consider the BB to be false.

 

Why do you think Einstein's formulae should be forgotten and replaced with a concept (Euclidean geometry) that has shown observationally (at least since the 1990's SNe Ia data) untenable on cosmological scales (i.e., parallel lines diverge with increasing distance; see the fifth postulate)?

CC

 

His mass/energy formula is not in compliance with the causes of energy. FORCES create energies and the Magnetic Force that creates the photons is variable. So mass and energy are not convertible.

Any formula that deals with energy would have to include the forces and the wavelengths of light to represent the energy levels. Also, light is a ‘single line’ dimension and need not be squared.

 

The SN1a’s are not credible distance candles because the WD’s have a variable mass and the temperatures are also variable by a vary wide margin from 3000K to as high as 100,000K. So the mass content is variable and the mass trigger amount (1.44 SM’s) will vary with the temperatures.

 

Parallel line diversions apply only to an ‘open space’ concept like the BB.

 

NS

[Mike C]

#25

New Science, are you basically offering a 'tired light' model to account for the red shift?

If not would you clarify for me exactly how your model explains red shift.

 

My redshift for the Expansion of the Light Waves’ (EoLWs) is not based on the ‘tired light’ hypothesis.

It is based on the ‘intrinsic forces’ that are present in all charged particle interactions between similar charges.

That includes the electrons, protons, magnetic fields and the electric fields.

The proof of this is the laboratory field patterns where the fields that are composed of ‘virtual charged field particles’ (VCFP) are shown to be expanded in the central areas between the electric charges and the magnetic poles in the open spaces. My posted article on this subject has been removed(?)

Although these field particles are referred to as virtual, they are ‘real’ because of the fields ‘actions at a distance’.

I have written an article on ‘The creation of Photons’ that I can post separately if there is no objections.

 

Allan Santage is an ardent supporter of the BB and the SN1a’s as distance candles. I do not give him much credibility because of his bias and censoring Halton Arps research in Anomalous Redshifts (ARS) that refuted the credibility of the BB. He refused to allow Arp to do any more research on the Hale (200 inch) telescope. The Arp ARS’s are real and NOT chance alignments as the BB’s say.

 

So the below data on the ‘tired light hypothesis is irrelavent regarding my

data.

 

If you are offering us 'tired light' how do you counter refutations of the tired light models, such as this one:

Lubin & Sandage The Tolman Surface Brightness Test for the Reality of the Expansion. IV. A Measurement of the Tolman Signal and the Luminosity Evolution of Early-Type GalaxiesAstrophysics, abstract astro-ph/0106566 June 2001

From the abstract "... We have also used the high-redshift HST data to test the ``tired light'' speculation for a non-expansion model for the redshift. The HST data rule out the ``tired light'' model at a significance level of better than 10 sigma."

 

Source: [astro-ph/0106566] The Tolman Surface Brightness Test for the Reality of the Expansion. IV. A Measurement of the Tolman Signal and the Luminosity Evolution of Early-Type Galaxies <http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0106566>

 

NS

[Zythryn]

So mass and energy are not convertible.

 

Are you saying that as part of your theory/hypothesis, that matter can't be converted into energy and energy into matter?

 

If so, what mechanism is responsible for nuclear fission? Are we creating energy out of nothing, and coincidentally destroying some matter?

[coldcreation]

#26

I do not give much credibility to Einsteins math because his mass/energy formula is wrong. I could write another article on this subject if you like.

 

No thanks. His mass/energy formula is not wrong, however, perhaps it has its limitations in nature (an upperbound, i.e., somewhere along the line as it tends to infinity).

 

 

Regarding his ‘curvature of space’ (CoS) as was confirmed by the bending of starlight by the Sun is not due to the CoS but simply bent by ‘gravity’ alone.

 

The deflection of light was just one of many verification tests. GR passed them all (except for the gravity wave prediction which is pending). Gravity is curvature of space beyond any reasonable doubt.

 

What is still missing is the mechanism behind the gravitational interaction.

 

 

 

 

I refute ST just as I refute the BBU. The Laws of Conservation of Matter and Energy imply that matter always existed. Therefore, the universe always existed. This would then refute Einsteins GR.

 

Sorry, one does not follow from the other. The conservation laws do not imply (explicitly or implicitly) that matter always existed (since both mass and energy can be transformed). So your statements are most likely incorrect. Mass may not have always existed (it could have been transformed from energy), GR is not refuted. Einstein stated a possibility base on a Reimannian metric that universe in finite but without bounds, if my recollection is correct. De Sitter had another model, as did Friedmann, Lemaître and so on. Each predicted something different. GR is a theory of gravity, not a cosmology per say. Cosmology, of course, follows from interpretations of GR, since gravity is a long-range phenomenon resposible for structure formation, etc.

 

 

The SSU and the ‘Expansion of the Light Waves (EoLW) are two distinct subjects and cannot be treated as one.

Are you implying ‘censorship’ here? The US promotion of the BB involves some censorship with Halton Arps Redshift Anomaly as the best example. I consider the BB to be false.

 

Censorship? Your SSU idea and your redshift idea for part of the smae idea, do they not, just as the BB explains redshift, light element formation, and the CMB under one title.

 

 

 

 

His mass/energy formula is not in compliance with the causes of energy. FORCES create energies and the Magnetic Force that creates the photons is variable. So mass and energy are not convertible.

Any formula that deals with energy would have to include the forces and the wavelengths of light to represent the energy levels. Also, light is a ‘single line’ dimension and need not be squared.

 

Here we disagree. Perhaps you would care to convince me. If not that is ok too. Oh, by the way, to convince me, if that is what you choose, you will need to show experimental, quantitative (or observational) evidence. If not, show how, even in principle, one could determine the veracity of your contension or how it could be falsified.

 

 

The SN1a’s are not credible distance candles because the WD’s have a variable mass and the temperatures are also variable by a vary wide margin from 3000K to as high as 100,000K. So the mass content is variable and the mass trigger amount (1.44 SM’s) will vary with the temperatures.

 

If what you say is true, how do you explain the consistency with the data? Why is it that when plotted, the SNe Ia data does not show a shotgun-blast distribution (as would be the case if variability s you describe were operational) instead of a smooth curvature based on redshift and light curves.

 

 

Parallel line diversions apply only to an ‘open space’ concept like the BB.

 

NS

 

Where is Pyrotex when he's needed?

 

CC

[Mike C]

Where do you get your second factor of (1 + z) for time dilation in addition to the first factor of (1 + z).

 

Explain the observed time dilation of high-z SNe Ia. Also, why do SNe Ia seem further than expected according to the redshift-distance relation (the deviation from the so-called Hubble's law).

 

Tolman's test clearly states, and for good reason, that time dilation in a flat, Euclidean universe is very unlikely, if not impossible. (Obviously, if the manifold is non-Euclidean, with say, a hyperbolic de Sitter-type metric, the Tolman test is bypassed, i.e., general relativistic global time dilation is easy to explain). How do you bypass that problem with you flat geometry without introducing an ad hoc mechanism?

CC

 

When working with the Virgo Cluster, I used the available figures for that cluster from the 'Nearby Galaxies Catalog' by Brent Tully. This is the most 'complete catalog available.

The distance is 16.7 parsecs but I prefer the 'lightyear' distance use of

54^6 lys.

A sample of a large number of galaxies gave me a recessional velocity of 1060 kms/s to replace the M87 data. Transalating this to a redshift gives me a percentage of .00354 for a fractional redshift of one. Dividing this into one gives me a combined total of 282 for a redshift of one.

Multiply this by 54^6 lys = 1.5^10 lys.

I selected a wavelength of 5.56^-7 meters (yellow light(?) and divided that by !.5^10 lys and got 3.7^-17 meters as the redshift per light year.

 

The BB is touted as a UNIFORM expansion that implies a flat expansion.

So diveding the 75 kms HC by the mpc x 282 = 4^-17 meters per ly.

This expansion is less than the expansion of the lightwaves.

 

I do not need to add or subtract one because of the Virgo Cluster data.

The redshift for that cluster is .00353 percentage wise as determined by

the recessional velocity of 1060 kms/mpc/s.

 

Since the BB is touted as a uniforn expansion, time dilation does not apply.

If it does, than why is not the magnitude decreased as well.

When you stretch a waveforn, the magnitude should also be pulled down.

Anyway, the SN1a's are not credible distance candles IMO.

 

NS

[Tormod]

Since the BB is touted as a uniforn expansion, time dilation does not apply.

 

What do you base this assumption on? The BB is not synonymous with expansion, but expansion theory was both a precursor to the BB theory and is predicted by the BB theory.

 

I do wonder how your theory differs from that of, say, William J Mitchell? I assume you have read his books.

[coldcreation]

...

 

Since the BB is touted as a uniforn expansion, time dilation does not apply.

If it does, than why is not the magnitude decreased as well.

When you stretch a waveforn, the magnitude should also be pulled down.

Anyway, the SN1a's are not credible distance candles IMO.

 

NS

 

There are according the BB theory two factors of (1 + z). One is for the redshift itself, while the other factor is for time dilation, due also to the so-called expansion. There is an apparent magnitude decrease as well; obviously a galaxy located twice as far has a lower apparent magnitude, generally.

 

The expansion is non-uniform. The expansion is thought to be accelerating. I have no idea where you get your information but it is in stark contrast with all of the literature that can be found regarding BB cosmology. And finally, what evidence have you that SNe Type Ia are not good standard candles?

 

This contradicts everything you wrote in the quote above. How can that be? Perhaps we refer to different versions of the BB: the standard models, the new standard model, lambda-CDM, with or without inflation, the hot big bang, the cold big bang, eternal inflation, chaotic inflation, dark energy-WIMPs, or DE-WIMPS, MACHO-WIMP, DE-MACHO-WIMP, LAMBDA-WIMP-MACHO-CDM. From which version, exactly, do you derive your arguments?