Redshift z

[InfiniteNow]

I agree completely Mr EWright, so oft people reject offhand anothers ideas out of fear that their interpretation will suffer, it's called; "defending one's ego". Somewhere in the mix, the truth is hidden. The only poor opinions are no opinions at all................Infy

Well said. I too agree with EW's point in this regard.

[coldcreation]

The reader will observe that the situation portrayed here corresponds to the spacetime description brought about by the general postulate of relativity-according to which we treat the geometrical relationships of the non-Euclidean continua with respect to standard measuring techniques of both distance and time relative to the constancy of the velocity of light, and with respect to our relative rest-frame.

 

The Gaussian (or Lobachevskian) curvature of the geometrical spacetime continuum can be established by measurements at the telescope, obtained from data of both the metric properties and the time intervals. The redshift is a departure from linearity (from flatness) - a lengthening of the wave between two epochs that increase with distance in a true four-dimensional curved manifold.

 

So we have at least two viable interpretations for redshift z, one of which does not lead to a boundary, a singularity, to the breakdown of all physical laws at some time t in the past.

[EWright]

The reader will observe that the situation portrayed here corresponds to the spacetime description brought about by the general postulate of relativity-according to which we treat the geometrical relationships of the non-Euclidean continua with respect to standard measuring techniques of both distance and time relative to the constancy of the velocity of light, and with respect to our relative rest-frame.

 

The Gaussian (or Lobachevskian) curvature of the geometrical spacetime continuum can be established by measurements at the telescope, obtained from data of both the metric properties and the time intervals. The redshift is a departure from linearity (from flatness) - a lengthening of the wave between two epochs that increase with distance in a true four-dimensional curved manifold.

 

So we have at least two viable interpretations for redshift z, one of which does not lead to a boundary, a singularity, to the breakdown of all physical laws at some time t in the past.

 

There is really no *need* for a departure from flatness, nor would it be the simplest way (as you suggest) for light to travel in a curve rather than a linear fashion. I understand that you are suggesting it follow a curve because the fabric of space itself is curved, and thus its natural route, but I do not beleive that is the case.

 

I am also not convinced that your theory doesn't suggest a bound or finite universe, as it seems as though a curved space should at some distant point have the capability of wrapping back around on itself as would a sphere.

 

As I've said, I do see your idea as plausible; I am simply offering either food for thought or seeking clarification.

[Erasmus00]

The redshift is a departure from linearity (from flatness) - a lengthening of the wave between two epochs that increase with distance in a true four-dimensional curved manifold.

 

You keep claiming that your manifold indeed describes the universe. I ask again, produce a metric so that those with the ability to do the calculations can see for ourselves. All the qualitative arguments in the world aren't as good as a few predictions.

-Will

[EWright]

CC, he has asked for this a number of times. Is this something you're able to provide or not???

[Harry Costas]

Quasars

 

As to the iron content

 

Lots of stars containing Iron are collapsing into quarsars thats the reason for the High Iron Content. The other reason is that Iron and Tin are the last elements formed by the star fusion process.

 

The Big Bang and the expansion of the universe is OLD HUT.

[coldcreation]

The metric structure of the cosmos, as viewed from any restframe, is non-Euclidean, hyperbolic, as suggested by Lobachevsky early on and later by de Sitter, Weyl, Ellis GFR and others. The exact metric solution, mathematically, is a work-in-progress.

 

Coldcreation

 

You all have some good points. The above quote answers one question partially.

 

For EWright, I would highly recomend reading general relativity a few times until the idea of curved spacetime sinks in (no pun intended). I would look at Einstein's version(s) and de Sitter interpretations.

 

Willem de Sitter was able to demonstrate that the geometrical attribute of pure space (a completely empty universe, where both density and pressure are equal to zero) is a hypersphere-time is no longer independent of space, but depends on distance. The time and space that separates two points is curved, corresponding to a hyperbolic spacetime description. In other words, from the point of view of a hypothetical observer, the time that elapses between two events is proportional to the distance of the events. This is the reason for the redshifts in spectral lines of distant sources, called the de Sitter effect (in a static universe).

 

An important consideration: if the metric intervals between two points is 'stretched' or distorted, this dilation is referred to as 'curvature' even though the trajectory of a light ray forms a straight line, a geodesic. Similarly, if a source of light is observed somewhere is space, its spectrum can be distorted, redshifted, even though the rays have traveled in a 'straight' line; the effect is called curvature. This is probably obvious by now, but might as well be reiterated for emphasis. Space and time are curved, or warped in this case. (The de Sitter effect is caused by the dilation of the time intervals, with distance, or likewise, spacetime intervals are compressed closer to the observer).

 

Don't fight the chill.

 

Coldcreation

[EWright]

You all have some good points. The above quote answers one question partially.

 

For EWright, I would highly recomend reading general relativity a few times until the idea of curved spacetime sinks in (no pun intended). I would look at Einstein's version(s) and de Sitter interpretations.

 

Willem de Sitter was able to demonstrate that the geometrical attribute of pure space (a completely empty universe, where both density and pressure are equal to zero) is a hypersphere-time is no longer independent of space, but depends on distance. The time and space that separates two points is curved, corresponding to a hyperbolic spacetime description. In other words, from the point of view of a hypothetical observer, the time that elapses between two events is proportional to the distance of the events. This is the reason for the redshifts in spectral lines of distant sources, called the de Sitter effect (in a static universe).

 

An important consideration: if the metric intervals between two points is 'stretched' or distorted, this dilation is referred to as 'curvature' even though the trajectory of a light ray forms a straight line, a geodesic. Similarly, if a source of light is observed somewhere is space, its spectrum can be distorted, redshifted, even though the rays have traveled in a 'straight' line; the effect is called curvature. This is probably obvious by now, but might as well be reiterated for emphasis. Space and time are curved, or warped in this case. (The de Sitter effect is caused by the dilation of the time intervals, with distance, or likewise, spacetime intervals are compressed closer to the observer).

 

Don't fight the chill.

 

Coldcreation

 

I do agree with what you are saying about the time intervals as they relate to redshift, as this is similar to my interpretation (although I was admittedly unfamiliar with the De Sitter effect). Can you clarify for me, however, as to whether your interpretation varies from that somewhat? I don't want to reread this entire thread, but I thought I recalled you attributing the curvature to a large gravitational influence, which doesn't exist in the empty universe scenario you described here.

[coldcreation]

I do agree with what you are saying about the time intervals as they relate to redshift, as this is similar to my interpretation (although I was admittedly unfamiliar with the De Sitter effect). Can you clarify for me, however, as to whether your interpretation varies from that somewhat? I don't want to reread this entire thread, but I thought I recalled you attributing the curvature to a large gravitational influence, which doesn't exist in the empty universe scenario you described here.

 

From your remarks earlier it appears you are unfamilliar with Einstein as well. Light waves can propagate in curved geodesic straight lines. There is a huge difference between a spherical geometry (closed) and a hyperbolic manifold (open and infinite spatiotemporally).

 

Take the example of a distant supernova Ia. The light may travel in a straight line from our point of view and yet propagate through a curved spacetime continuum. There is a resulting time dilation effect on that light ray, and it is redshifted in the process.

 

The Cold Creation redshift interpretation slightly different then de Sitter's. It is as logical and reasonable as it is plausible:

 

Features in the spectra of distant astronomical objects are shifted to longer wavelengths (toward the red end of the spectrum) by a fractional amount due to curved spacetime phenomenon: not because space is expanding.

 

The prospect that the universe may perhaps be non-Euclidean has to some extent been previously considered (as we have noted in preceding sections): Recall that Lobachevsky developed the concept of hyperbolic space between 1823 and 1826; de Sitter suggested that the redshift was due to time dilation in a static universe; Weyl's transitory suggestion of 1921 was along the same lines; Segal's 1976 chronometric redshift stems from partial differential equations which are hyperbolic relative to a given causal orientation; and the suggestion made by Ellis in 1978 that redshift may be seen in terms of cosmological gravitational redshifts.

 

The inherent designation of the spatiotemporal quantity (to be determined by redshift z - apparent magnitude relation for spatial increments) gives the metric in the manifold. The resulting multi-dimensional curvature, or, 'bending' or 'stretching' of 3-space, transforms the distances between points and alters the rate of clocks as measured from the relative location of the observer. It may be noted that Riemann's spaces of constant curvature arose from the physical requirement that “figures” move in such a space without contractions or expansions (Monastyrsky 1979, 1987). Our main objective is to define the dimension of space and to determine the geometrical structure that best describes physical space.

 

CC

[EWright]

From your remarks earlier it appears you are unfamilliar with Einstein as well. Light waves can propagate in curved geodesic straight lines. There is a huge difference between a spherical geometry (closed) and a hyperbolic manifold (open and infinite spatiotemporally). [/Quote]

 

It depends on what aspect of Einstein you're refering to. I have read some of his work, but I have not made it a secret that I do not fully understand it. That probably goes for most of us here. I do agree that your idea is *plausible*, but I don't see that it is *necessary* for light to follow a curved path, nor do I necessarilly agree that it would follow a geodesic straight line in open space, but I do understand that you are viewing that as necessary due to the curvature of space, similar to something traveling in a straight line on the surface of the earth... even though it is still traveling in a curve, since the surface is curved. However, it seems to me that light could take a 'short cut' in curved space and thus follow a linear path (which i believe you would describe as Euclidian) in a non-Euclidian space. I am not suggesting that I understand this better than you do, I'm just saying it seems more probable from a layman's view.

 

Take the example of a distant supernova Ia. The light may travel in a straight line from our point of view and yet propagate through a curved spacetime continuum. There is a resulting time dilation effect on that light ray, and it is redshifted in the process.

 

Yes, this I agree with, under the terms I stated above. But you seem to suggest the straight line we perceive isn't actually straight, but rather, curved with a curved space-time.

 

The Cold Creation redshift interpretation slightly different then de Sitter's. It is as logical and reasonable as it is plausible:

 

Features in the spectra of distant astronomical objects are shifted to longer wavelengths (toward the red end of the spectrum) by a fractional amount due to curved spacetime phenomenon: not because space is expanding.

 

The prospect that the universe may perhaps be non-Euclidean has to some extent been previously considered (as we have noted in preceding sections): Recall that Lobachevsky developed the concept of hyperbolic space between 1823 and 1826; de Sitter suggested that the redshift was due to time dilation in a static universe; Weyl's transitory suggestion of 1921 was along the same lines; Segal's 1976 chronometric redshift stems from partial differential equations which are hyperbolic relative to a given causal orientation; and the suggestion made by Ellis in 1978 that redshift may be seen in terms of cosmological gravitational redshifts.

[/Quote]

 

You're going to get redshifts in a universe whether its expanding or not, accelerating or not, static or not, if you apply the right reason to any of these scenarios. My theory would account for the same reason in any of them.

 

The inherent designation of the spatiotemporal quantity (to be determined by redshift z - apparent magnitude relation for spatial increments) gives the metric in the manifold.

[/Quote]

 

WTF does the above statement mean?

 

The resulting multi-dimensional curvature, or, 'bending' or 'stretching' of 3-space, transforms the distances between points and alters the rate of clocks as measured from the relative location of the observer.

[/Quote]

 

Well, at least you're not attributing the rate of change in clocks to some mystical powers of light.

 

It may be noted that Riemann's spaces of constant curvature arose from the physical requirement that “figures” move in such a space without contractions or expansions (Monastyrsky 1979, 1987). Our main objective is to define the dimension of space and to determine the geometrical structure that best describes physical space.

 

CC

 

I still don't understand what you feel shapes space-time/the universe if you remove all matter from it, yet insist that your hypoerbolic universe curves light due to gravitational influence. Can you clarify this in a *simple* and *straight forward* manner please?

[coldcreation]

I still don't understand what you feel shapes space-time/the universe if you remove all matter from it, yet insist that your hyperbolic universe curves light due to gravitational influence. Can you clarify this in a *simple* and *straight forward* manner please?

 

The empty universe was de Sitter's idea. He had reasons. I will not elaborate on that now, though it's fascinating to examine.

 

The Coldcreation universe is different: it has matter and energy in it.

 

My view is that a truly empty universe (i.e., if indeed it were possible to remove all the ZPE and ZPF) is flat, Euclidean.

 

Imagine now, a universe with stars, planets, galaxies and people (sounds a lot like our, I know). This universe cannot be flat, Euclidean. All the matter and energy within it gravitates, causing a deviation from flatness. Yes, curvature. But not in 2-D like the surface of the earth. In 3 spatial dimensions and one time. So a curve is not really a curve, in the normal sense, it is a change in distance increments, as well as time intervals with distance. And, it is only a relative effect, observable from all locations anywhere in the universe.

 

Coldcreation

[EWright]

The empty universe was de Sitter's idea. He had reasons. I will not elaborate on that now, though it's fascinating to examine.

 

The Coldcreation universe is different: it has matter and energy in it.

 

My view is that a truly empty universe (i.e., if indeed it were possible to remove all the ZPE and ZPF) is flat, Euclidean.

 

Imagine now, a universe with stars, planets, galaxies and people (sounds a lot like our, I know). This universe cannot be flat, Euclidean. All the matter and energy within it gravitates, causing a deviation from flatness. Yes, curvature. But not in 2-D like the surface of the earth. In 3 spatial dimensions and one time. So a curve is not really a curve, in the normal sense, it is a change in distance increments, as well as time intervals with distance. And, it is only a relative effect, observable from all locations anywhere in the universe.

 

Coldcreation

 

It most certainly could be flat... with simple pockets of curvature surrounding gravitational sources. If gravity diminishes with the inverse square law, there is now reason for the gravity of these objects to effect the whole of the universe as you suggest. Granted, it may be possible that there is enough combined gravity to do so, but it is not mandated.

 

Also, if you suggest a static universe that is not expanding, gravity that is this pervasive would then also be strong enough that it should be attractive in such a way that the universe should in fact be shrinking and objects moving together in a sort of big crunch, which would accelerate over time as well.

 

To avoid this you add a sort of 'made up' space 'cushion', in suggesting that massive objects will not be attracted to eachother even if they stop moving because the space between them won't allow it. You suggest that if the Earth were to stop orbiting the sun, that it would not then be attracted toward the sun because of this 'cushion'. This is most certainly not the case and is causing me to have a great deal of trouble with your theory.

[coldcreation]

It most certainly could be flat... with simple pockets of curvature surrounding gravitational sources. If gravity diminishes with the inverse square law, there is now reason for the gravity of these objects to effect the whole of the universe as you suggest. Granted, it may be possible that there is enough combined gravity to do so, but it is not mandated.

 

Also, if you suggest a static universe that is not expanding, gravity that is this pervasive would then also be strong enough that it should be attractive in such a way that the universe should in fact be shrinking and objects moving together in a sort of big crunch, which would accelerate over time as well.

 

To avoid this you add a sort of 'made up' space 'cushion', in suggesting that massive objects will not be attracted to eachother even if they stop moving because the space between them won't allow it. You suggest that if the Earth were to stop orbiting the sun, that it would not then be attracted toward the sun because of this 'cushion'. This is most certainly not the case and is causing me to have a great deal of trouble with your theory.

 

Here, I will have to refer you to the Cosmological Constant: A New Law thread, where you will find the response to your current query (in your last paragraph above) on local and global stability, or quasi-equilibrium self-gravitating systems.

 

As for the first part of your quote, I will have to disagree. Grvaity is thought, for good reason, to have an infinite range of action. It does not stop somewhere on the horizon. If this reasoning is correct, the gravity of every object in the universe adds to the general curvature.

 

Re-print: Einstein's general principle of relativity characterizes the metric properties of space by the gravitational field (curvature). We are familiar with the idea that local gravitational fields are analogous to hills and valleys (in two dimensions), which are obviously not flat. The average quantity of curvature in a homogenous field is not zero. Light rays follow 'curved' geodesic paths that depend on the variations in the fields they traverse. The actual departure from linearity is derived from the propagation of light as it crosses every hump and wrinkle in the global metric. All the matter and energy in the universe introduces a deviation from flat space. It would no doubt be ludicrous to envisage an infinite Euclidean universe where local non-Euclidean features merely cancel other curved protuberances in the spacetime metric.

 

CC

[Harry Costas]

Hello all

 

The Universe is not expanding

 

As for the universe it is infinite. Being Infinite means we are looking at a very little part of it and trying to workout the total. This is not very scientific.

 

Many years ago most cosmoligists were BB holders.

As we looked into deep field images we saw existing galaxies Billions of years old just as we see the close galaxies.

Most BB holders predicted that we would see the start of the universe fro TIME= 0.

This never happened.

 

As for the Big Bang

see link

http://www.fixall.org/bigbang/bigblackbang.htm

http://redshift.vif.com/JournalFiles/V10NO1PDF/V10N1ANT.pdf

http://www.setterfield.org/staticu.html

 

 

I do not hold onto any theory or become emotional. I am indifferent.

 

One theory is the Recyclic theory that invovles the process matter to energy and energy to matter.

 

Understanding star formations and the processes is general knowledge.

 

The Black Holes hold the key to the process. Where by they collect matter and expell it.

http://www.hypography.com/sciencearticle.cfm?id=5196

http://imagine.gsfc.nasa.gov/docs/introduction/active_galaxies.html

 

http://antwrp.gsfc.nasa.gov/cgi-bin/apod/apod_search?Black+Hole

http://antwrp.gsfc.nasa.gov/cgi-bin/apod/apod_search?quasar

 

Black holes are not the only objects that expell matter. Others such as stars (supernova), neutron stars, quark stars, magnetors.

 

I'm in the process of putting the recyclic theory down on paper and sometimes I may think aloud.

[EWright]

Here, I will have to refer you to the Cosmological Constant: A New Law thread, where you will find the response to your current query (in your last paragraph above) on local and global stability, or quasi-equilibrium self-gravitating systems.

It would sure be nice if you could keep all of your ideas in one thread, so we don't have to leapfrog around the site to understand your theory in whole. That, or just post the relevant responses here when we ask. I really don't want to read every post in a new thread to search out the answer.

 

As for the first part of your quote, I will have to disagree. Grvaity is thought, for good reason, to have an infinite range of action. It does not stop somewhere on the horizon. If this reasoning is correct, the gravity of every object in the universe adds to the general curvature.

Yes, gravity may have an infinite range of influence, but it most certainly diminishes over distance. Light has an infinite range as well, but you don't see the entire night sky aglow from the combined effects of the starlight, now do you?

 

Re-print: Einstein's general principle of relativity characterizes the metric properties of space by the gravitational field (curvature). We are familiar with the idea that local gravitational fields are analogous to hills and valleys (in two dimensions), which are obviously not flat. The average quantity of curvature in a homogenous field is not zero.

no, hills and vallies are not flat, but they do not make up the curvature of the earth, either. Or, if you 'consider' the earth surface flat (ie two dimensional) then the hills and valleys become three dimensional pockets in its surface... similar to the hills and valleys, or rather pockets of curvature, that objects with mass create in flat space.

 

Light rays follow 'curved' geodesic paths that depend on the variations in the fields they traverse. The actual departure from linearity is derived from the propagation of light as it crosses every hump and wrinkle in the global metric. All the matter and energy in the universe introduces a deviation from flat space. It would no doubt be ludicrous to envisage an infinite Euclidean universe where local non-Euclidean features merely cancel other curved protuberances in the spacetime metric.

 

CC

 

No need for them to cancel, necessarilly, they can just be stronger locally as i've described above with regard to the inverse square law. Also, *IF* gravitons (or whatever source you attribute to gravity) travel as a wave, perhaps they would cancel each other to some degree. :hihi:

[Harry Costas]

as previously noted above with arp's work on redshift

http://www.electric-cosmos.org/arp.htm

and other notes on red shift

http://redshift.vif.com/JournalFiles/V10NO1PDF/V10N1ANT.pdf

http://www.setterfield.org/Redshift.htm#new53103

http://www.setterfield.org/homecopy.htm

http://www.newtonphysics.on.ca/QUASARS/Quasars.html

 

read them through and make your own conclusions

 

Some of you are looking at the expanding universe as if its law. It has not be proven that the universe is expanding.

 

The question is how can "ALL" expand and to waht if the universe is infinite and ageless.

[InfiniteNow]

Some of you are looking at the expanding universe as if its law. It has not be proven that the universe is expanding.

You raise a good point, Harry, that calling it a law may imply that nothing else is possible and that this is not generally the best approach. However, I'm not sure how any of the links you've attached necessarily negate the implications of what we call "Hubble's Law." Can you elaborate your thought?