Redshift z

[InfiniteNow]

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

 

While I appreciate the enthusiasm of your statement, Harry, I find it's not too likely that we will ever have a TOTAL picture of anything... in the Heisenbergian sense that is.

[Harry Costas]

Hello Infinite now

 

Mate that goes without saying.

 

Still it is a big step towards mapping the universe.

[InfiniteNow]

Mate that goes without saying.

Well, not really, as you said the opposite just two posts ago. :confused:

[Harry Costas]

Hello Infinitenow

 

 

You remind me of my wife.

 

You read into words and take meanings out of context.

 

Any cowboy would know that we will never be able to mapp the universe completely. But! in the sense of the work there will be a huge amount of computer work in trying to mapp the universe. As to the extent like everything else in time to keep on improving on it.

[InfiniteNow]

Hello Infinitenow

 

 

You remind me of my wife.

 

You read into words and take meanings out of context.

 

Any cowboy would know that we will never be able to mapp the universe completely. But! in the sense of the work there will be a huge amount of computer work in trying to mapp the universe. As to the extent like everything else in time to keep on improving on it.

 

Sounds like you're wrong a lot, and your wife calls you on your BS then. Well, thanks for the compliment. :)

[coldcreation]

 

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

 

Thank you. And please, gentlemen, let's stay on topic.

 

 

The case has been made that there are only two interpretations for the relation redshift z - apparent magnitude consistent with what is observed in the universe.

 

Here, we have opted for the static de Sitter effect for redshift z, due to the general relativistic curvature of spacetime, rather than the linear time dependence metric scale factor interpretation (often erroneously called a Doppler effect).

 

The redshift z (according to both the static de Sitter metric and the unstable FLRW metric interpretations) is wavelength independent accross 19 octaves of the spectrum.

 

Both interpretations define redshift as a stretching of the wavelength between two epochs (one as space expands, the other, due to spacetime curvature).

 

One factor for (1 + z), again for both interpretations, comes as every photon is degraded in energy due to redshift. The other factor is the dilution in the rate of photon arrival by (1 + z) due to the streched (curved) path during the light-travel time. The second factor has traditionally been considered strong evidence for expansion, since it was believed that no other cause for redshift (e.g., tired light) would introduce this factor, but it is has been shown that the general relativistic de Sitter solution (1916-17) does indeed, both implicitly and explicitly.

 

The objective, then, is to determine which effect is operational in the real world.

 

Both the de Sitter metric and the FLRW metric interpretations are time dependent, i.e., meaning redshift inceases with distance in the manifold from the point of view of any observer; non-linearly and linearly, respectively. The way to determine which interpretation is real becomes straightforward at large z. A Euclidean or quasi-Euclidean relationship would not yield a 20% deviation from linearity at high-z observed in the spectra and light curves present in the SN Ia data.

 

The de Sitter solution is in better position to explain the 1998 SN Ia data than the standard interpretation (obliged to introduce parameters, e.g., dark energy, dark matter) to come close to agreement with theory. Where as, the deviation from linearity observed clearly follows from the hyperbolic spacetime de Sitter metric. In another was, the SN Ia data, today erroneously interpreted as acceleration of the expansion, is best explained as a non-Euclidean signature (no DM or DE required).

 

The evolutionary function of redshift z in the look-back time depends on the geometric properties of the manifold, where the deviation from linearity becomes manifest with increasing distance from the origin: the larger the redshift, the further the deviation from the linear Hubble flow, the more curvature manifests itself.

 

The implication of the study above is that the universe is non-expanding, that the observed universe did not stem from a hot amorphous fireball, that 96% of the material and energetic universe is not composed of something dark, directly undetectable, that modern cosmology is in for a wholesale revision.

 

There is a very simple way (beside the SN Ia data, which was already predicted corroboration) to test the Coldcreation hypothesis, to falsify its claims or to validate the model.

 

 

Coldcreation

[Harry Costas]

Hello All

 

Hello Coldcreation you sound different,,,,,,,,,smile write different to the other coldcreation.

 

You say

 

The implication of the study above is that the universe is non-expanding, that the observed universe did not stem from a hot amorphous fireball, that 96% of the material and energetic universe is not composed of something dark, directly undetectable, that modern cosmology is in for a wholesale revision.

 

Wow!!!!!!!!! this is aboslutely right

 

I have been on this logic for the last 20 yrs and the last few years on the NET with moderators still hung to the big bang theory. Still the majority think along the lines of the Big Bang theory regarless of what information you put in front of their eyes.

 

==============================================

Hello Infinite now

 

you said

 

Sounds like you're wrong a lot, and your wife calls you on your BS then

 

Just by reading your BS, I can say much more. But! I will leave it at that.

 

I'd rather focus on cosmology

[coldcreation]

 

Hello Coldcreation you sound different,,,,,,,,,smile write different to the other coldcreation.

 

You say

 

 

The implication of the study above is that the universe is non-expanding, that the observed universe did not stem from a hot amorphous fireball, that 96% of the material and energetic universe is not composed of something dark, directly undetectable, that modern cosmology is in for a wholesale revision.

 

 

Wow!!!!!!!!! this is aboslutely right

 

 

Thanks again HC,

 

I'm not sure what you mean by Coldcreation and coldcreation not sounding the same. One has a capital letter in front, the other not. Smile.

 

My discourse had always been the same. You can see all my threads and all my posts here at the forum, you will see for yourself.

 

I don't think there is any in cosmology that can be called absolutely right. There will always be a nagging doubt as to whether an interpretation is real or not. The best that can be done now, at least with respect to cosmological redshift z is to reconsider the curved spacetime interpretation, compare the predictions to the most recent data, compare the data to the most recent predictions, and see which model best fits the observations (preferably without introducing new physics, i.e., nonphysical parameters: e.g., DE and DM).

 

Is there a long way to go before a wholesale revision? Certainly. But the endeavor is well worth it, even if the GR spacetime de Sitter static model fails. The fact is, this well-known interpretation for z has never been sufficiently exlpored to have discarded it.

 

In another way, the discarding of the de Sitter effect interpretation for redshift z was premature.

 

I think what will be found, is that the hyperbolically curved spacetime metric approach for redshift z will coincide better with what is observed in the universe.

 

Coldcreation

[Harry Costas]

Hello Coldcreation

 

 

I write on many other forums and there are other names with coldcreation.

 

You come across as a lateral thinker. Its good to have you in this forum.

 

No need for thank you, I'm not saying that to get browny points.

 

I'd like your opinion on the following papers

Papers (PDF)

 

"On the cosmic nuclear cycle and the similarity of nuclei and stars", O.Manuel, Micheal Mozina and Hilton Ratcliffe, Journal of Fusion Energy (in press 2006)

Papers in PDF

 

 

"Observational confirmation of the Sun's CNO cycle", Michael Mozina, Hilton Ratcliffe and O. Manuel, submitted for publication 28 December 2005

Paper in PDF

 

 

O.Manuel, M.Mozina and Ratcliffe, H., "The Nuclear Cycle that Powers the Stars: Fusion, Gravitational Collapse, and Dissociation" abstract of paper submitted for presentation at the Hirschegg 2006 Workshop on Astrophysics and Nuclear Structure, Hirschegg, Kleinwalsertal, Austria, 15 - 21 January 2006.

Abstract in PDF

Paper in PDF

[coldcreation]

 

I'd like your opinion on the following papers

 

Perhaps in a PM, or another thread.

 

I would like to give you an opinion (for whatever it is worth) about the papers you mention, but they are way off topic for this thread: Redshift z, and its interpretation within the cosmological context.

 

 

CC

[Harry Costas]

Hello Coldcreation

 

I opened a new post

 

The Nuclear Cycle that Powers the Stars

 

I would like your opinion.

[Harry Costas]

Hello coldcreation

 

You said

 

Ironically it would be observations coming from the Hubble Space Telescope that would brake Hubble’s law.

 

Solutions? (1) A model is needed that explains all observations without the introduction of ad hoc dark forces or bogus vacuum energy. (2) A worldview is needed that explains observations without the break-down of natural laws. (3) The mechanism responsible for the gravitational interaction should be identified, and its relationship to the cosmological constant should be made clear, too without artificial flavor added as a preservative for a theory that should not be preserved. (4) Once the gravitation mechanism is identified, the new standard model that will inevitably surface should be applied to all the other areas of physics that were hitherto lacking, or incompatible with general relativity, vis, quantum mechanics...

 

You hit the nail right on the head.

 

For sometime I did not think that there were people like you around with the ability to have lateral thinking.

[Harry Costas]

Hello All

Cold creation said

 

I've posted news here myself about old galaxies in the early universe and Tormod posted here as well. There also seems to be some evidence for globular clusters that are older than the supposed 13.5 billion year age of the universe, i.e. 15 - 18 billion years. As a result, I personally believe there was some event (a big bang?) around 13.5 billion years ago in a universe that already existed. We can never know though because, as a result of that event, we can never see beyond that event horizon. I think the closest we could come to proof would be to positively date objects within the bounds of that horizon, our local universe, as being older than that event.

 

The Age of the Universe

 

In addition to the above, one needs to take note that stars go through many phases, nova and supernova and rejuvination that effects the dating process.

As for an event the occured 13.5 Billion years ago. I would question it, beacause it is led by the thought of the Big Bang Theory.

[Harry Costas]

Hello All

 

I'm just going back and reading some of the responds.

 

I'm impressed with the logic and the unbiased writing,

 

Infamous said

 

Very thought provoking C1ay; Several years ago, I was considering a theory that viewed universal evolution as such. An eternal state with occasional events that we might look upon as intermediate bangs, as our member Little Bang suggests with his member name. I have often wondered if black holes have a limit to the amount of mass they can aggregate? Perhaps our universe is eternal, collecting matter in localized areas and forming black holes which when reaching a critical size, erupt into little bangs as it were. A universe in equilibrium, not in oscilation nor in expansion but living and dying and being reborn in localized areas resulting in the illusion of expansion. If this is the case, we should see variations in the strength of the cosmic background radiation. However if these events are few and far between, the evidence of this would trend toward a homogeneous state reducing the noticeable effect. Like all theories of universal evolution, there always seems to be inconsistencies with observable evdence. It is still fun to think out of the box on occasion, understanding that there are many things we still don't have answers for. This is what makes scientific investigation so much fun. It is after-all the chance possibility that one will stumble onto the truth and discover the evidence to support their views that makes the chase worth the effort.

 

In the near future we will get closer to the facts.

In the last few decades many scientists have been running with eye flaps and thinking along the lines of the Big Bang theory without questioning the paths. Some who question the path were left out in the cold or outside the circle of influence or some would say out of the loop.

 

Discovery of H2, in Space

Explains Dark Matter and Redshift

Discovery of H2 in Space Explains Dark Matter and Redshift

 

The recent discovery of an enormous quantity of molecular hydrogen not only solves the problem of missing mass; it also solves the problem of the redshift, in a non-expanding unlimited universe. The Doppler interpretation of the redshift is a variation of the Creationist theory, since it claims that the universe was created from nothing, 15 billion years ago, with a sudden Big Bang. Since a much larger amount of molecular hydrogen than previously admitted has been observed in the universe, we can now see how this hydrogen is responsible for the redshift observed. That molecular hydrogen is responsible for the redshift which is erroneously believed to have a cosmological Doppler origin.

 

It is unfortunate that the existence of H2 has been ignored for so long. As noted by one of the recent discoverers, E.A. Valentijn, the missing mass problem might never have arisen if the Infrared Space Observatory results (or predictions of H2) had been known earlier. It is also true that the problem would not have arisen, if the arguments presented by this author and others for the necessary presence of H, had been heeded.

 

With the new discovery, science can now have a logical and realistic description of nature, because we no longer have to speculate with such exotic hypotheses as WIMPs and "quark nuggets" to explain the missing matter in the universe.

 

Big Bang Afterglow Fails An Intergalactic Shadow Test

Big Bang Afterglow Fails An Intergalactic Shadow Test

 

Big Bang Afterglow Fails An Intergalactic Shadow Test

 

Because it is seen coming from every direction in nearly uniform power and frequency, cosmologists theorized that the microwave background is afterglow radiation left over by the Big Bang that created the universe.

by Staff Writers

Huntsville AL (SPX) Sep 03, 2006

The apparent absence of shadows where shadows were expected to be is raising new questions about the faint glow of microwave radiation once hailed as proof that the universe was created by a "Big Bang."

In a finding sure to cause controversy, scientists at The University of Alabama in Huntsville (UAH) found a lack of evidence of shadows from "nearby" clusters of galaxies using new, highly accurate measurements of the cosmic microwave background.

 

A team of UAH scientists led by Dr. Richard Lieu, a professor of physics, used data from NASA's Wilkinson Microwave Anisotropy Probe (WMAP) to scan the cosmic microwave background for shadows caused by 31 clusters of galaxies.

 

"These shadows are a well-known thing that has been predicted for years," said Lieu. "This is the only direct method of determining the distance to the origin of the cosmic microwave background. Up to now, all the evidence that it originated from as far back in time as the Big Bang fireball has been circumstantial.

 

"If you see a shadow, however, it means the radiation comes from behind the cluster. If you don't see a shadow, then you have something of a problem. Among the 31 clusters that we studied, some show a shadow effect and others do not."

[coldcreation]

 

This means that those distant galaxies formed, according to Ellis, when the universe was a meager 600 million years old—at an epoch once assumed to be in the Dark Age. Observations suggest these distant objects are not representative of the first population of galaxies (Ellis, R.S., 2004).

 

Others too have found that distant red galaxies in the Hubble Ultra Deep Field (Toft et al 2005) present morphological properties that suggest “complex stellar populations, consisting of both evolved populations that dominate the mass and the restframe optical light, and younger populations, which show up as patches of star formation in the restframe UV light; in many ways resembling the properties of normal local galaxies.

 

 

I've posted news here myself about old galaxies in the early universe and Tormod posted here as well. There also seems to be some evidence for globular clusters that are older than the supposed 13.5 billion year age of the universe, i.e. 15 - 18 billion years. As a result, I personally believe there was some event (a big bang?) around 13.5 billion years ago in a universe that already existed. We can never know though because, as a result of that event, we can never see beyond that event horizon. I think the closest we could come to proof would be to positively date objects within the bounds of that horizon, our local universe, as being older than that event.

 

 

The text you quoted above HC (in post 271) was by C1ay not Coldcreation. See his post n. 19 quoted here. My position has always been clear: The big bang is a work of art, pure imagination. That does not mean it is not good fun to read and write about, it means the big bang model does not represent the real world.

 

CC

[Harry Costas]

Hello coldcreation

 

 

Sorry your right.

 

I took it from your post.

 

Too right about the Big Bang Theory

 

But! how did the world and most scientists take it on as the standard theory.

Schools, churches and politics.

 

Many scientists were put down or shifted aside because of their thoughts against the BBT.

[coldcreation]

Hello coldcreation

 

 

Sorry your right.

 

I took it from your post.

 

Too right about the Big Bang Theory

 

But! how did the world and most scientists take it on as the standard theory.

Schools, churches and politics.

 

Many scientists were put down or shifted aside because of their thoughts against the BBT.

 

The history of 20th century cosmology is rather intricate and lengthy. I've gone over some of its aspects related to redshift z in this thread. Look at the longer posts on pages 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 etc.

 

The main problem stems from a descision (by Hubble) that had to be made (and never was, not by Hubble anyway) between the de Sitter effect in a static universe and the Doppler effect in an expanding manifold. The latter was adopted erroneously, I suspect, judging from recent findings (SNe Ia data) on observational fronts.

 

Another main problem was the instability associated with general relativity. That is what led to the three Friedmann models, and ultimately to the 1931 Father George Henri Lemaître paper.

 

CC