CMBR as Evidence

[CraigD]

Therefore, the influence of the Earths motion throughout its orbit should have shown some changes in the light waves. None were detected [by the Michelson-Morley experiments].

Reason? The 'electric fields' that transmit the light pulses that surround the light emitters, moved with the experiment.

If this reason is true, would not a measurement of the speed of light give different values, depending on the velocity of the light’s source relative to the measuring device?

 

Modern mechanical speed-of-light measurements are very precise – better than +/- 1000 m/s. Ordinary astronomical objects typically have relative velocities with components many times greater than 10000 m/s. Such an effect should be easy to detect.

[sanctus]

That latter quote answers your first question.

Since the aether permeated all of space, it was assumed that space was expanding the light waves.

Therefore, the influence of the Earths motion throughout its orbit should have

shown some changes in the light waves.None were detected.

Reason? The 'electric fields' that transmit the light pulses that surround the light emitters, moved with the experiment.

 

NS

 

.

Yes but they moved in one direction...

[Boerseun]

That would be the case if the universe was 'normal'.

 

Turns out that the universe is closer to being a four-dimensional hypersphere thats finite but unbounded, and every single imaginable point in the universe is the exact center of it.

 

In such a scenario, we shouldn't be looking for 'intuitive' or 'common sense' explanations for the Doppler red shift. We should be looking for mathematical answers to something thats totally foreign to our experience.

 

Which is also a good thing, maybe, seeing as 'intuitive' and 'common sense' interpretations of everyday experiences gave us in the past such gems as a flat earth and a sun orbiting the Earth.

[Mike C]

If this reason is true, would not a measurement of the speed of light give different values, depending on the velocity of the light’s source relative to the measuring device?

 

No, because the experiment was criss-crossed to eliminate any gains of the light speed irself..

But the movement of the Earth could not be eliminated.

These experiments were made on opposite sides of the Earths orbital

movements.

 

Yes but they moved in one direction.

 

I do not quite understand this question but the above answer to Craig should answer this also.

 

..Turns out that the universe is closer to being a four-dimensional hypersphere thats finite but unbounded, and every single imaginable point in the universe is the exact center of it.

 

The BB is supposed to be bounded (fixed size) but infinite to light since light is bouncing off the edges to infinite distances.

 

NS

[Boerseun]

The BB is supposed to be bounded (fixed size) but infinite to light since light is bouncing off the edges to infinite distances.

Let's consider the universe as three dimensional, for the purpose of this discussion.

 

The universe is then expanding at the 'boundary' at precisely the speed of light, the light emanating from the galaxies *inside* the universe breaking new ground as it expands the informational footprint of the universe.

 

It's *bounded* in the sense that no information can travel faster than the speed of light, which means the universe has a radius in 3D space (in this example) of roughly 15 billion light years in all directions. It's not bounded in the sense that if you keep going, you'll eventually bump your head against the universe's edge. You can keep travelling in any conceivable direction and never reach an edge.

 

But now it becomes interesting in the sense that every single point is indeed the point of origin. Space itself is expanding, with galaxies at the edge (as viewed from Earth) receding faster than light. From their point of view, Earth is at the edge, receding away from them at a speed faster than light. Any possible everyday analogy falls flat in trying to illustrate hyperspheres. But this does not mean we should try and simplify it in order to cater for our limited imaginations. This is where mathematics can construe models that are weird and wonderful, and totally foreign to our everyday experience - but more in line with observations and data.

[Mike C]

Boerseun

 

You must be familiar with the 'saying' that if you point a flashlight into BB space, it will come around and hit you in the back of the head?

 

So that is why I said that the BB is bounded but infinite in extent to light.

 

I cannot accept the 'expansion of space (EoS) as the cause of the 'cosmological redshft (CR) because of the evidence against it such as the M-M interferometer experiments and the Halton Arp redshift anomalies plus the BB itself.

 

You obviously accept the EoS as the cause of the CR, so that is where we cannot agree on this science.

 

NS

[Boerseun]

You must be familiar with the 'saying' that if you point a flashlight into BB space, it will come around and hit you in the back of the head?

Whilst I don't particularly agree with the saying, it does serve its purpose in illustrating properties of hyperspheres that might allude our common day-to-day experience and expectations. It's rather like explaining to someone that a 2-dimensional world can be warped in a third dimension, without you being able to test it on a small scale. You experience the world as flat. The surface of your world is adequately described on an XY grid. There is nothing about a small-scale sample of your world which might indicate the existence of an extra dimension. Take a plot of land, for instance, or a tennis court or football pitch. You can't see a third dimension there. Yet, if you keep walking in a set direction, you'll end up exactly where you started from. And the only way this is possible is for your familiar 2D reality to be warped in a third dimension, in this case, a sphere. This might sound like common knowledge, but serves as a handy analogy for our 3D-universe to be curved in a higher dimension, hence the hypersphere.

So that is why I said that the BB is bounded but infinite in extent to light.

I agree, the universe is bounded. But like I mentioned in my previous post, the *boundaries* are expanding with the universe's informational footprint at the speed of light. That's where the above analogy falls flat. The light from your torch will never hit you behind your head, because the universe isn't an everyday three-dimensional sphere. It might have been the case if the universe had an actual *center* from where such measurements could have been taken. But a hypersphere doesn't have a center - the light will keep on going in a line that will look perfectly straight, bar a few gravitationally induced curves here and there.

I cannot accept the 'expansion of space (EoS) as the cause of the 'cosmological redshft (CR) because of the evidence against it such as the M-M interferometer experiments and the Halton Arp redshift anomalies plus the BB itself.

I do acknowledge that the concept is a bit hard to swallow, and completely counter-intuitive. However, Michaelson-Morley doesn't discount this. The M-M interferometer experiments was performed to see if there was a change in how light propagates with respect to the Earth's velocity through space. The results showed that there was no change at all, regardless of where Earth was in its orbit around the sun. This does not disprove anything about expanding space. The M-M experiments could be performed in a spacecraft travelling at .9C with exactly the same results. It merely shows that there are no aether, to begin with, and no such thing as 'absolute' frames of reference. 'Expanding' space doesn't imply anything remotely 'aether-like', that's once again trying to shoe-horn the universe into something tangibly three-dimensional.

 

A particularly gory example of a hypersphere might be one in which you might envisage a sphere with all your entrails and inner organs on the outside, and the entire universe on the inside. The *expansion of space* is the process whereby this hypersphere unfolds from the state where everything's on the outside to the state where everything's on the inside. It doesn't fold up like an imaginary paper construct where one section first folds over the other section, it unfolds from every single point in the one state to every single point in the next state, and every single point has full claim on being the exact center, at any one time. And from any vantage point on this gory sphere, it will look like the whole sphere is *unwrapping* away from it. No motion at any one point would be detectable, but if you measured two points (which both seems to be unmoving when measured locally) against each other, the *unwrapping* will be detected.

 

Like a third dimension warping your familiar 2D world into a third-dimensional sphere being the only solution when you end up where you started from, the physical expansion of space is the only solution at hand in what we observe as redshift. And neither the M-M interferometer experiments nor the anomolies you mentioned disprove it.

You obviously accept the EoS as the cause of the CR, so that is where we cannot agree on this science.

Unfortunatly, that seems to be the case! Hyperspheres might be a tad hard to envisage and swallow, but hey - the maths hold up...:Guns:

[Mike C]

Boerseun

 

My Steady State Universe can be considered a hypersphere in comparison to the BBU that has a questionable size that cannot be calculated.

 

Also, did you check out the 3 Arp redshift objects that I quoted as proofs of his research?

They are NGC 7603, AM 2054-2210 and AM 0328-222.

 

An old S & T magazine dated April 1983 has positive prints of these objects on pages 307-309. Some large library archives may have a copy.

Judge for yourself.

 

NS

[ughaibu]

Here's an article about redshift in spectra from the sun, ie a body that is not moving away from us: Redshift of Spectral lines in the Sun's Chromosphere

There's some interesting stuff in this (short) book about radar reflections from Venus and the inconstancy of the speed of light, you might want to skim the ranting: The Farce of Physics: Table of Contents

 

I dont know much about any of this stuff so I'd be interested in informed crits.

[coldcreation]

(...) Hyperspheres might be a tad hard to envisage and swallow, but hey - the maths hold up...:)

 

This is precisely what causes the de Sitter effect in a static universe.

 

So you see Boerseun, there is at least one viable alternative to the expanding model for redshift z. And, it has been known for quite some time.

 

Coldcreation

 

PS. Perhaps the Big Bang (God) never existed.

[Boerseun]

This is precisely what causes the de Sitter effect in a static universe.

The de Sitter solution is commonly applied to an expanding universe of the Friedmann-Walker-Robertson metric form.

 

This results in neighbouring galaxies eventually being so far away that they expand away from us at faster than the speed of light. This will be many, many years in the future, which might result in the visible universe to consist of only the Milky Way (from our point of view, of course). Considering that our visible horison is now about 15 billion light years away and growing, this will indeed be many years in the future.

 

But I don't see it as an artifact of a static universe, by definition. Rather, it fits the bill of an 'unfolding' multi-dimensional hypersphere perfectly.

[coldcreation]

The de Sitter solution is commonly applied to an expanding universe of the Friedmann-Walker-Robertson metric form.

 

This results in neighbouring galaxies eventually being so far away that they expand away from us at faster than the speed of light. This will be many, many years in the future, which might result in the visible universe to consist of only the Milky Way (from our point of view, of course). Considering that our visible horison is now about 15 billion light years away and growing, this will indeed be many years in the future.

 

But I don't see it as an artifact of a static universe, by definition. Rather, it fits the bill of an 'unfolding' multi-dimensional hypersphere perfectly.

 

You are correct B,

 

But the metric equation linked above was (and still is) a viable alternative solution to the expanding model, i.e., the de Sitter metric is indeed a static universe solution, unlike the expanding model ironically called the Einstein-de Sitter model.

 

The de Sitter metric is to my knowledge the only tenable solution to explain the observed cosmological redshift.

 

As far as the CMBR, the assumption that the blackbody spectrum has been redshifted is a pure model-based extrapolation. Not that pure model-based extrapolations are wrong or bad, but pure model-based extrapolation are not empirical in nature and so remain speculative at best.

 

Fred Hoyle once wrote (and I agree):

 

“How, in the big-bang cosmology, is the microwave background explained? Despite what supporters of big-bang cosmology claim, it is not explained. The supposed explanation is nothing but an entry in the gardener’s catalogue of hypothesis that constitutes the theory. Had observation given 27 Kelvins instead of 2.7 Kelvins for the temperature, then 27 kelvins would have been entered in the catalogue. Or 0.27 Kelvins. Or anything at all.” (Hoyle 1994, 1997 p. 413)

 

 

Geoffrey Burbidge and Fred Hoyle co-authored a paper that was published in the Astrophysical Journal (1998) entitled The Origin of Helium and the Other Light Elements. In that paper, available online, they explain the CMBR not as a relic of an explosive past, but as a natural outcome of stellar processes. The problem is the QSSC introduction of an ad hoc mechanism (metal wiskers if I recall) responsible for thermalization. That problem is easily overcome.

 

Coldcreation

 

PS. It seems the fingerprint of God (the CMB) is just another problem for modern cosmology that sticks out like a soar thumb.

[CraigD]

How would you define a redshift that is less than one in words?

A redshift (z value) less than one is associated with an source of electromagnetic radiation (light, radio, etc.) moving away from the observer at a speed less than three fifths (.6) times the speed of light in vacuum ©.

 

This follows directly from the mathematical definition of redshift appearing in several previous posts.

 

As mentioned earlier in this thread, there’s nothing especially significant about an EM radiation source having a redshift more or less than 1. It’s not any sort of natural unit.

 

PS: my apologies for so long neglecting to respond to this simple question.

[PhysBang]

But the metric equation linked above was (and still is) a viable alternative solution to the expanding model, i.e., the de Sitter metric is indeed a static universe solution, unlike the expanding model ironically called the Einstein-de Sitter model.

The de Sitter solution is not static, it was thought to be static only due to the peculiar coordinate system used by de Sitter in originally presenting the metric.

The de Sitter metric is to my knowledge the only tenable solution to explain the observed cosmological redshift.

You'll have your work cut out for you to establish that a de Sitter universe can even match the existing data.

[PhysBang]

Boerseun

 

What you have explained above is the standard BB theory that I already know.

 

However, you ignore the fact that the Doppler science has been replaced by the Lemaitrae 'expansion of space (EoS) and the universe'.

 

Lemaitraes idea is based on the Doppler interpretation that was refuted and replaced by his idea. So this EoS is then used as the cause of the cosmological redshift CR).

Hermann Weyl made the initial predictions of redshift, given certain cosmological models.

 

In nearby galaxies with no significant peculiar motion, the redshift of the light from the galaxies is caused by the time delay between the reference frame in which we make observations of the light and the reference frame co-moving with the emitter of the light.

BUT, the M-M interferometer experiments have shown that space has no influence on the light waves.

This is obviously false. Regardless, it is irrelevant to standard observations of redshift, as time delay is part of the special theory of relativity which is entirely consistent with the MM experiement.

To add further refuring evidence to the idea of space as the cause of the CS, are the Arp Redshift Anomalies.

Ah, yes. The anomalies. Pictures that Arp cannot explain that, when better observations of them can be made, always turn out to have the tell tale signs of their distance as predicted by redshift. Like the former Arp poster quasar/galaxy pair, Q2237+0305.

[Mike C]

A redshift (z value) less than one is associated with an source of electromagnetic radiation (light, radio, etc.) moving away from the observer at a speed less than three fifths (.6) times the speed of light in vacuum ©.

 

This follows directly from the mathematical definition of redshift appearing in several previous posts.

 

As mentioned earlier in this thread, there’s nothing especially significant about an EM radiation source having a redshift more or less than 1. It’s not any sort of natural unit.

 

PS: my apologies for so long neglecting to respond to this simple question.

 

Are you using Einsteins RS formula?

 

The values of the RS is determined by a comparison of the spectrums of the object in relation to the Suns spectrums

It has nothing to do with math.

It is a precise measurement of the difference of the spectrums.

 

These diferences are expressed in meters.

For instance, the dimension for hydrogen alpha as expressed in meters is 6.56 x 10-7 meters.

Now if this value is twice the size given, that would be a RS of one.

 

Mike C

[Mike C]

Hermann Weyl made the initial predictions of redshift, given certain cosmological models.

 

In nearby galaxies with no significant peculiar motion, the redshift of the light from the galaxies is caused by the time delay between the reference frame in which we make observations of the light and the reference frame co-moving with the emitter of the light.

 

This is obviously false. Regardless, it is irrelevant to standard observations of redshift, as time delay is part of the special theory of relativity which is entirely consistent with the MM experiement.

 

Ah, yes. The anomalies. Pictures that Arp cannot explain that, when better observations of them can be made, always turn out to have the tell tale signs of their distance as predicted by redshift. Like the former Arp poster quasar/galaxy pair, Q2237+0305.

 

One example does not refute Arps observations.

 

Vera Rubin also provided a sample to refute Arps observations.

The example she gave was credible. So their are some examples that Arp should not have included in his lists.

 

Arps best examples are NGC 7603, AM 2054-2210 and AM 0328-222.

 

To me, these examples are definite proofs that Arps RS anomalies are right.

 

 

Mike C