Redshift z

[Little Bang]

If I come up with a new theory and I come across a piece of data that does'nt fit my theory, I can fix that easily by claiming that the piece of data(black holes) does'nt exist.

[tommy81]

Cold Creation-

 

It's time to get quantitative.

 

If you are serious about redshift, I suggest you find some software that can handle half-a-million data points or so. Download redshift and apparent magnitude for the latest SDSS catalog. Transform according to Eq. 1 below, and do a scatterplot of M(de Sitter) vs. log(z). Look at the bright-side limit vs. log(z).

 

Please inform us of your results.

 

Tom-

 

In terms of absolute magnitude (M) and apparent magnitude (m),

 

M(de Sitter) + constant = m - 2.5 log(10)[1 - (z + 1)^-2]. [Eq. 1]

[coldcreation]

If I come up with a new theory and I come across a piece of data that does'nt fit my theory, I can fix that easily by claiming that the piece of data(black holes) does'nt exist.

 

Hello Little Bang,

 

You probably meant to post the above in the thread about white and black holes, as it has nothing to do with the present discussion: redshift zgrav (as a general relativistic spacetime curvature effect) as opposed to redshift z Doppler (as in expansion or change in scale factor with time t).

 

What you bring up is interesting, and so I will respond to it in the appropriate place (in the thread about white and black holes).

 

CC

[coldcreation]

Cold Creation-

 

It's time to get quantitative.

 

If you are serious about redshift, I suggest you find some software that can handle half-a-million data points or so. Download redshift and apparent magnitude for the latest SDSS catalog. Transform according to Eq. 1 below, and do a scatterplot of M(de Sitter) vs. log(z). Look at the bright-side limit vs. log(z).

 

Please inform us of your results.

 

Tom-

 

Hello Tom,

 

I would love to be able to handle half-a-million data points, unfortunately, I don't think my G4 would be willing to follow the lead.

 

Hopefully a general relativist somewhere will enjoy doing the calculations. After all, if indeed the results show that the static de Sitter metric (or similar) works for the observed redshift z - absolute magnitude relation, then the Doppler interpretation (expansion) will be seriously put into question (to say the least).

 

It is felt, however, that an open discussion on these subjects should be viewed as healthy and constructive, and may be the sole means by which our common goals can be achieved - to find the solution to cosmology, the unification of GR and QM, an ultimate theory of everything. The position taken in this thread is to reach an enhanced reciprocal understanding of the general problems and to seek new means by which to solve them.

 

It is obvious that the large gap that separates differences of opinion on cosmology can and should only be narrowed by the hard facts - no matter how difficult they are to accept. The weak point of this position is mutual; there are no hard facts. If intuition or interpretation is to be the sole guide, then a resolution to the problems and uncertainties may well be irreconcilable.

 

Contrary to the bleak picture that appears to materialize from this conclusion, the outlook of Coldcreation is not pessimistic. There are ways and means by which a resolution may be envisioned. In order to achieve this ambitious objective, a radical change will undoubtedly be involved, and in fact, required - not in physics, but in our interpretations of it. This is a difficult position to assume because the consequences inevitably lead to the downfall of our current convictions (big bang expansion). Who wants to carry the burden of liability for such a dramatic insurrection? Certainly no one wishes this upon himself or herself. But if on the other hand the outcome guarantees an enhanced appreciation of the natural occurrences that surround us, then everyone should benefit. Who would not want to assume this responsibility?

 

CC

[coldcreation]

Thanks Infy, good to hear from you too.

Wednesday will be much more tranquil to get back into the swing of redshift z and its implications for the future of cosmology. Indeed it is a subject that is not going away. Recall, the Doppler (change in scale factor to the metric) interpretation is not the only viable interpretation. There is (at least) one other that agrees with observations throughout the 19 octaves of the spectrum, and out to the greatest visible distance.

 

Food for thought: Part Two

 

CC

 

However simplified and retrospective the interpretation outlined above may seem, it remains true that it reflects an approach to the relationship between observation and nature whose general outlines were held in common by several leading protagonists, from Lobachevsky to Einstein to de Sitter to Eddington to Segal and to Ellis. This interpretation was the way found by some of the most articulate from within the general relativistic circle to describe the most essential collective principles of relativistic cosmology, and it had the asset of being open to very diverse approaches, methods and modes of expression.

 

The general relativistic globally curved spacetime concept was not easy to accept, and may be even more difficult to acknowledge today, predominantly because of the a priori idea that the Doppler interpretation is absolutely true and general, viz Hubble's Law, in the global sense. But the central problem that cosmologists and physicists faced throughout most of the twentieth-century was keeping theories in direct contact with nature - constantly responding to it as the raw material of their science, and yet still producing works that were free of nature, their own self-contained inventions (viz the big bang).

 

It was in this way that all those who had been within the 'expansion' circle, seemingly withdrawn into a more non-representational science, rationalized their new stance and convinced themselves that it did not mean a renunciation of GR. This is the attitude behind those statements of de Sitter published in 1932, of which these are particularly telling samples:

 

“Gravitation acts on all bodies in the same way, everywhere and always we find it in the same rigorous form, which frustrates all our attempts to penetrate into its internal mechanism. Gravitation is, in its generality and rigour, entirely similar to inertia, which has never been considered to require a particular hypothesis for its explanation, as any ordinary special physical law or phenomenon. Inertia has from the beginning been admitted as one of the fundamental facts of nature, which have to be accepted without explanation, like the axioms of geometry.” (de Sitter 1932, see 1957, p. 304)

 

This is also the attitude guiding Coudec when he writes:

 

“It would have been very surprising if expansion, the offspring of relativity, had been found to contradict it owing to some internal flaw. In fact, to calculate the recession of distant objects one starts precisely by attributing to them a nil velocity in their own neighborhood: the recession concerns objects at rest in their natural system of reference…It would be puerile to consider the velocities which we attribute to a given galaxy as an intrinsic property of that galaxy, for this velocity depends, not on it, but on the position of the observer who makes the measurement.” (Coudec 1952, p. 186)

 

In plain language, the relative change of wavelength is equal to the relative change of radius. The cosmos would have no spatial curvature - though it would nevertheless contain matter, its galaxies systematically separating from one another. Note that the velocities are therefore only apparent and can consequently be interpreted as properties of the physical inertial field, versus the (quite different) interpretation required by geometrical characteristics based on the gravitational distortions of the spacetime continuum. As a result, one could remain concerned with both the formal Newtonian look of the past and yet court the expression 'relativistic cosmology,' despite the total absence of the gravitation interaction - and in accordance with the special theory of relativity - in a four-dimensional “Euclidean” continuum: A monumental error.

 

A hypothesis or set of attitudes with so accommodating a scope may seem to blur rather than elucidate observations, and yet throughout the 1930s and 1940s it added up to a very distinct approach, and indeed, today still, resides at the heart of the manifold differences flanked by the professed 'special relativists,' and their so-called 'radical' adversaries.

 

Don't fight the chill.

 

Something has only just begun.

 

Coldcreation

[tommy81]

I would love to be able to handle half-a-million data points, unfortunately, I don't think my G4 would be willing to follow the lead.

 

Hopefully a general relativist somewhere will enjoy doing the calculations. After all, if indeed the results show that the static de Sitter metric (or similar) works for the observed redshift z - absolute magnitude relation, then the Doppler interpretation (expansion) will be seriously put into question (to say the least).

 

CC

 

Don't underestimate your tools. My G3 can handle this with ease. So can your G4.

 

Recall that in terms of absolute magnitude (M) and apparent magnitude (m),

 

M(de Sitter) + constant = m - 2.5 log(10)[1 - (z + 1)^-2]. [Eq. 1]

 

It's just a little simple algebra applied to a data set with only two fields: redshift and apparent magnitude. I'll think you'll find it very interesting, and all the more so if you do it yourself. It shouldn't take much more time than you probably spend on some of your longer posts.

 

A true theorist doesn't back away from data, he devours it.

 

All the best,

 

Tom-

[coldcreation]

Don't underestimate your tools. My G3 can handle this with ease. So can your G4.

 

Recall that in terms of absolute magnitude (M) and apparent magnitude (m),

 

M(de Sitter) + constant = m - 2.5 log(10)[1 - (z + 1)^-2]. [Eq. 1]

 

It's just a little simple algebra applied to a data set with only two fields: redshift and apparent magnitude. I'll think you'll find it very interesting, and all the more so if you do it yourself. It shouldn't take much more time than you probably spend on some of your longer posts.

 

A true theorist doesn't back away from data, he devours it.

 

All the best,

 

Tom-

 

OK Tom, I give it my best shot.

cc

[coldcreation]

I will venture to step in on the part of Coldcreation.

 

I am new to this forum, and I apologize if I violate any forum etiquette. I have so far only read a small part of the forum. Please forgive me if I am not aware of all previous discussion.

 

Erasmus, there is a static metric that has just the sort of gravitational redshift CC has been talking about. It is none other than the original de Sitter metric. Not its Friedmannian incarnations, and not its Einstein-de Sitter mutation, but the pure, unadulterated de Sitter metric, circa 1917.

 

The de Sitter metric was dismissed in the 1920's because of the requirement that rho + p = 0, and thus to avoid negative pressure, the de Sitter universe was assumed to be empty with rho = p = 0. Nowadays, everybody is invoking negative pressure, so why should we persist in the belief that the de Sitter universe is empty?

 

The original de Sitter metric is given by

 

ds^2 = -gamma^-1 dr^2 - [angular terms] + gamma dt^2,

 

where

 

gamma = 1 - (r/R)^2

 

with

 

R^2 = 3/(8 pi rho)

 

where the constant R is the radius of spacetime curvature and rho is the mean mass density of the universe (assuming simplified units so that G = c = 1).

 

Gravitational redshift is given by

 

z = gamma^(-1/2) - 1.

 

Thus the de Sitter redshift-distance relation is

 

r = R [1 - (z + 1)^-2]^1/2.

 

This, I believe, is the relation that CC has been searching for. This is roughly quadratic at low redshift and asymptotic at high redshift.

 

In terms of absolute magnitude (M) and apparent magnitude (m),

 

M(de Sitter) + constant = m - 2.5 log(10)[1 - (z + 1)^-2].

 

Choose a large data set such as the Sloan Digital Sky Survey, convert m to M(de Sitter) as given above, and you will find that the brightest objects at all redshifts are the same intrinsic brightness.

 

Of course, this could be a coincidence.

 

T-

 

I was wondering if anyone was capable of finding a solution to the above problem (credited of course).

[tommy81]

I was wondering if anyone was capable of finding a solution to the above problem (credited of course).

 

I have done so and the result is striking. It's all about looking at the forest instead of the trees.

 

All of the heavy lifting was done by de Sitter in 1917. We don't need any new theories, we just need to take de Sitter seriously.

 

It is ironic that de Sitter was dismissed because a "de Sitter world" would either be empty or else have the dreaded "negative pressure". Nowadays, with "negative pressure" in vogue, the dismissal of de Sitter theory isn't such a no-brainer.

 

Stop worrying about "cold creation", whatever that is, and check out de Sitter. It has many of the "features" you've been talking about, already "built-in". The world doesn't need a new theory, it needs an old one.

 

T-

[coldcreation]

I have done so and the result is striking. It's all about looking at the forest instead of the trees.T-

 

Striking I am sure. What did you find? What is the 'forest' and what are the 'trees'?

 

All of the heavy lifting was done by de Sitter in 1917. We don't need any new theories, we just need to take de Sitter seriously.T-

 

Certainly the de Sitter metric required some heavy lifting at the time when there were no computers to do those general reletavistic transformations.

 

It is ironic that de Sitter was dismissed because a "de Sitter world" would either be empty or else have the dreaded "negative pressure". Nowadays, with "negative pressure" in vogue, the dismissal of de Sitter theory isn't such a no-brainer.T-

 

I agree 100%.

 

Stop worrying about "cold creation", whatever that is, and check out de Sitter. It has many of the "features" you've been talking about, already "built-in". The world doesn't need a new theory, it needs an old one.

 

T-

 

If you read this thread you will see de Sitter's name several times (see list below for post numberse). The hyperbolic metric is the one of choice. It is the hyperbolically curved nature of the spacetime manifold and its effect on the propagation of light (similarly to the effect on light as it passes through a local gravitational field, the path of which is a geodesic) that has been misinterpreted as a change in the scale factor to the metric as seen in redshift z.

 

The de Sitter effect is well known to cause a redshift. Hubble himself was always reluctant to take a firm stance on the possibility that the universe was expanding in light of the alternative.

 

Finally, the de Sitter metric, is just that, a metric. It is not a comprehensive cosmology that explains the abundance of light elements and their isotopes, the origin of the CMBR, the formation of the large-scale structures, the evolution of the universe.

 

If de Sitter's metric (the de Sitter effect), or another hyperbolic metric, replaces the current interpretation for redshift z, a new cosmology for a stationary universe that nevertheless exhibits redshift is required.

 

That's what Coldcreation is. There are others.

 

Redshift z is a major aspect of cosmology. If it is misunderstood or misinterpreted, so too is the rest of cosmology.

 

Your position that no new theory is required is interesting (I misunderstood perhaps). Can you explain that in more detail?

 

Edited to add this: For a discussion of the de Sitter effect (metric, redshift, model) in this thread see posts:

4 and 8 on p. 1.

11 and 14 on p. 2

24, p. 3

51, p. 6

64, 67 and 69, p. 7

77, p. 8

99-109 p. 11

112, 115, 120, p.12

122 p. 13

139 p. 14

153, 160 p. 16

161-165 p. 17

182 p. 19 (etc.)

 

CC

[kailas_knight]

hi it's me kailas_knight ,

 

I read ur reply , and i see ur pretty sceptic .... if u need evidence about the things i said about time , consider searching it in the web....

 

Even scientists have agreed that if there is God out there , god would be

a hyperdimensional being...... and the concept of white hole has indeed

been specified in the theory of relativity..

 

consider searching the web for "Einstein-Rosen" bridge or worm hole or

"white hole" itself and u'll get ur answer......

 

In my reply to NIXALOT ,i specified the existence of god coz,

in his thread , he wanted to knw y god can exist for eternity and y not apply it to universe .......and not coz i wanted to involve god in science....

 

 

Really ,do u think that all the explanation i gave as reply to that post

is perfect non sense..?

 

Has the EKPYROTIK theory really been abandoned by it's author..? and

 

please tell me y do u think that go is not superior to us..?

[InfiniteNow]

Hello kk,

 

The onus is on you to support your own claims, not on others to find the evidence you cite. Also, we are a community that prefers words to be fully typed, as you have a keyboard in front of you, text messaging short hand is not necessary.

 

So anyway, you said:

consider searching the web for "Einstein-Rosen" bridge or worm hole or "white hole" itself and u'll get ur answer......

I searched for "white hole," and it returned 31.3 million sites. Please tell me exactly which one will give us the answer.

 

 

Cheers. :hyper:

[infamous]

hi it's me kailas_knight ,

 

 

Even scientists have agreed that if there is God out there , god would be

a hyperdimensional being...... and the concept of white hole has indeed

been specified in the theory of relativity..

Please be advised kailas_knight; This forum is not the place to be bringing up the question of God, we have a Theology Forum where those discussions can be undertaken.

 

 

 

In my reply to NIXALOT ,i specified the existence of god coz,

in his thread , he wanted to knw y god can exist for eternity and y not apply it to universe .......and not coz i wanted to involve god in science....

 

 

Really ,do u think that all the explanation i gave as reply to that post

is perfect non sense..?

 

Has the EKPYROTIK theory really been abandoned by it's author..? and

 

please tell me y do u think that go is not superior to us..?

Also; please make an effort to type out your words correctly instead of expecting us to decipher your cyber short hand. Thank you for your co-operation.............Infy

[coldcreation]

 

I was wondering if anyone was capable of finding a solution to the above problem (credited of course).-

 

 

I have done so and the result is striking. It's all about looking at the forest instead of the trees.

 

All of the heavy lifting was done by de Sitter in 1917. We don't need any new theories, we just need to take de Sitter seriously.

 

It is ironic that de Sitter was dismissed because a "de Sitter world" would either be empty or else have the dreaded "negative pressure". Nowadays, with "negative pressure" in vogue, the dismissal of de Sitter theory isn't such a no-brainer.

 

...snip...

 

[the de Sitter metric]... has many of the "features" you've been talking about, already "built-in". The world doesn't need a new theory, it needs an old one.

 

T-

 

Would you like to tell us about your results tommy81?

 

In what way would you say they are striking?

 

How did you end up looking at the se Sitter metric in the first place; why not the original static Einstein spherical solution to the field equations?

 

The de Sitter solution (or model) was not a theory describing the evolution of the universe, it was a metric based on Einstein's equations. In that sense, what do you mean by "The world doesn't need a new theory, it needs an old one."

 

Surely you're not saying the de Sitter universe was a complete cosmology.

 

Coldcreation

[coldcreation]

We seem to have lost TommyT.

[coldcreation]

For the record:

 

It has been suggested that the night sky is dark because the universe is expanding. It had been shown that an infinite static universe would have a night sky much brighter than observed, and so the dark sky concept was taken as strong evidence (and sometimes even 'proof') for the standard hot big bang model.

 

I argue that this is not the case, i.e., that radiation does not diverge in a nonexpanding frame where redshift is due to a de Sitter effect, to a hyperbolic general relativistic spacetime curvature of the manifold. (The latter interpretation for redshift z has been stressed throughout this entire thread)

 

Olbers' paradox was based on an infinite, isotropic, static Euclidean universe. The assumtion that the universe was Euclidean appears naive in retrospect. The Olbers argument had not taken into consideration the redshift (1 + z) and its associated time dilation factor (1 + z) which reduces the flux density, luminosity with distance, by more than the 'inverse square law.'

 

 

Note, for interest:

 

In both expanding models and nonexpanding models where z is a curved spacetime phenomenon, Olbers' paradox is solved. That is, whether one uses a Robertson Walker-like metric (a time dependent scale-factor to the metric) or the 1916 de Sitter metric where time intervals depend on and become larger with distance r, thus redshift z increases with distance (this is a static solution to Einstein's field equations; the so-called de Sitter effect in a static universe), the night sky remains dark, there is no paradox.

 

 

Cold Conclusion:

 

The fact that the night sky is dark does by no means prove, or solely provide evidence for, expanding models. Said differently, the concept of Olbers' paradox does not discount, exclude or render untenable static models where redshift z is a time-dilation associated feature of a non-Euclidean universe.

 

 

Coldcreation

[Harry Costas]

Hello All

 

Good on you coldcreation,,,,,,,,,I agree with you.

 

 

In actual fact light from deep field takes such a long time and distance to get to us and that for us to collect the little light that does, cosmologists aim the telescope at a small area the size of a wheat seed for months in order toget some form of image.

 

Redshift 10: Evidence for a New Farthest Galaxy

APOD: 2004 March 17 - Redshift 10: Evidence for a New Farthest Galaxy

 

Now this image is from a seed, imagine if we could see all the seeds up there. The sky would be totally a blaze. The problem is that our eyes are unable to see the images and that why the sky is as is.

 

In the near future google will have a total picture of the universe.