Redshift z

[Mike C]

CC

 

You are quoting here the current BB cosmology. I am aware of that.

 

But I see many problems with the BB cosmology.

 

One example:

The recessional velocity of the BB relative to distance and a single point observer is 'additive', similar to the Newtonian formula for determining gravitation forces as increasing per second per second between two objects in alignment.

 

Since the Hubble constant of expansion is 75 kms/s, than the second second of expansion away from us would 'double' the recessional velocity and than increase again for the 3rd second of expansion and so forth.

So after 4000 seconds, space would be expanding at the velocity of light.

 

Does that make sense?

 

What is your opinion about this?

 

Like I said, the BB cosmology creates a lot of questions.

 

Mike C

[coldcreation]

Since the Hubble constant of expansion is 75 kms/s, than the second second of expansion away from us would 'double' the recessional velocity and than increase again for the 3rd second of expansion and so forth.

So after 4000 seconds, space would be expanding at the velocity of light.

Does that make sense?.

 

No, that makes no sense.

 

My point was simple. According to the BBT there is no center of the universe. In fact, I am not aware of any other cosmology that allows a center, or even stipulates the existence of one.

 

So, because there is no center, and due to the finite velocity of light, every observer is entitled, and in fact obliged observationally, to view the cosmos as if she was centrally located. Being at the origin of the light cone means that every observer (no matter where they are located) is at the present, according to her time frame. Everywhere else is in the past.

 

Redshift z seems to support this argument, even though there exist, arguably, objects that exhibit discordant redshifts (e.g., quazars) and others that violate Hubble's (linear redshift-distance relation) law as well: specifically SNe Ia.

 

My point was, too, that both the standard interpretation for redshift z (as an effect caused by the expansion of space, a change in the scale factor to the metric) and the de Sitter interpretation for redshift z (as a relativistic curved spacetime effect on the propagation of radiation throughout the entire spectrum, and the globally increases nonlinearly with distance), have the observer (any observer) centered on a 4-D manifold with past events and objects located in the look-back time.

 

Left to be determined is the curvature of the manifold. Is it Euclidean, nearly so, or hyperbolic from the perspective of the observer? Is the curvature real (as in the case of local gravitational fields) or is it only a relative effect seen in the spectra of distant objects, as it seems to me would be the case for an homogeneous, isotropic, globally nonzero gravitational field.

 

 

:)

 

CC

[modest]

 

So, again, to the best of my knowledge, there are two, and only two, interpretations for cosmological redshift z that are permitted by observations accross 19 octaves of the spectrum (i.e., that are wavelength independent and increase with distance).

 

(1) The FLRW solution(s): where the metric describes the cosmological expansion (or stretching) of space (supplement that with lambda-CDM).

 

(2) The de Sitter solution(s): where the metric describes, globally, a hyperbolically curved spacetime manifold.

 

I do agree with you. If it weren’t for CMBR and the abundance and proportion of light elements then it would be hard to rule out (or rule in) either tired light or a curved spacetime geometry effect on light such as the de sitter effect.

 

Imagine a civilization in the very distant future asking the questions we ask now. Because of expansion they would have no detectable CMBR or receding galaxies inside their visual horizon. I don’t think they will have any indication of expansion or redshift or the big bang. They may come to a de Sitter like solution.

 

Fortunately, we can base our model of the universe on evidence still perceptible. I do agree that there is more than one possible cause of redshift - let observations of evidence choose expansion (they do it well).

 

-modest

[Mike C]

No, that makes no sense.

 

My point was simple. According to the BBT there is no center of the universe. In fact, I am not aware of any other cosmology that allows a center, or even stipulates the existence of one.

 

So, because there is no center, and due to the finite velocity of light, every observer is entitled, and in fact obliged observationally, to view the cosmos as if she was centrally located. Being at the origin of the light cone means that every observer (no matter where they are located) is at the present, according to her time frame. Everywhere else is in the past.

 

Redshift z seems to support this argument, even though there exist, arguably, objects that exhibit discordant redshifts (e.g., quazars) and others that violate Hubble's (linear redshift-distance relation) law as well: specifically SNe Ia.

 

My point was, too, that both the standard interpretation for redshift z (as an effect caused by the expansion of space, a change in the scale factor to the metric) and the de Sitter interpretation for redshift z (as a relativistic curved spacetime effect on the propagation of radiation throughout the entire spectrum, and the globally increases nonlinearly with distance), have the observer (any observer) centered on a 4-D manifold with past events and objects located in the look-back time.

 

Left to be determined is the curvature of the manifold. Is it Euclidean, nearly so, or hyperbolic from the perspective of the observer? Is the curvature real (as in the case of local gravitational fields) or is it only a relative effect seen in the spectra of distant objects, as it seems to me would be the case for an homogeneous, isotropic, globally nonzero gravitational field.

 

 

:weather_snowing:

 

CC

 

You probably know by this time that I DO NOT accept the BBU or Einsteins GR and 'spacetime.

 

Was that 'Little bang' that said one of your posts sounded like a 'snow job'?

 

What you describe above is the standard science that Einstein started back in the early 1900's.

 

In my SSU, the 'expansion of the light waves' creates the same illusion that the 'expansion of space' creates.

That every observer will appear to be centrally located in the universe.

 

However, in the SSU, it has a center. The SSU I propose is much larger than the BBU and modeled after an elliptical galaxy..

So, because our current telescopes are still limited to reaching an edge to the universe, it will take some time before we get an answer to wheter we will observe deeply enough to see an edge. So I am waiting for the launch of the NGST that is slated to go up in around 2011.

 

The Hubble Deep Fields North and South did detect a difference in homogeneity. See the original photos of both fields in S & T Magazines on pages 48, May '96 issue (HDFN) and p 18, Feb '99 issue (HDFS).

The photo's of HDFS appears to have less (about 1/2) objects than the North photo.

However, when I accessed both photos later on the internet, (UCLA versions) the South field seemed to have objects ADDED to equalize the homogeneity.

So, see the S & T photos that I am sure have not been altered.

 

Mike C

[coldcreation]

You probably know by this time that I DO NOT accept the BBU or Einsteins GR and 'spacetime....What you describe above is the standard science that Einstein started back in the early 1900's. In my SSU, the 'expansion of the light waves' creates the same illusion that the 'expansion of space' creates. ...

 

So, see the S & T photos that I am sure have not been altered.

 

 

What does your post have to do with redshift z? Do you have some new interpretation for z, or is it a kind of "tired light" mechanism?

 

Are you suggesting the HDFS image was reworked to make it appear as if there were more objects than the otherewise undoctored images?

 

Are you aware of the HUDF images (with about 10,000 objects? Perhaps that is the one you saw that had more galaxies, i.e., due to its higher resolution).

 

It seems your idea is more of a conspiracy theory that anything else. This story would make the Korean stem cell fiasco (remember Dr. Hwang?) look like childs play.

 

I can see the headlines: "Hubble in Double Trouble" and the article: "Astronomers add 4,920 galaxies, with a little help from Photoshop and a janitor, to one of the deepest images of space taken to date, in an attempt to cover up a major flaw in the standard model regarding the supposed homogeneity and isotropy of the universe (otherwise known as the cosmological principle), requird by the model, and, in order to save the model from a certain death...The conspicary was discovered when an amateur astronomer noticed a remarkable resemblance between 189 of the 10,000 galaxies present on the plate. She also noticed that M31 was reproduced 63 times at various scales, and Einstein's Cross was found reproduced 237 times (once so large that it dwarfed a barred spiral galaxy that was actually placed (again with photoshop) on top, or in front, of the infamous object. In fact, it was discovered later, that the entire Virgo cluster was reproduced, superimposed, a total of 619 times. The story took a sinister twist when it was shown that some colliding galaxies were not galaxies at all: they were artist renditions previous published on the Spitzer telescope website... A Janitor working at the HST facility has pleaded guilty to eight counts of fraud with intent to deceive and one count of resisting arrest (bond has been set at 200,000 USD). It is hoped with some plea bargaining that he will reveal the names of his co-conspirators, or of those who gave him the orders to doctor the deep space image. More heads are expected to role."

 

LOL

 

 

CC

[Mike C]

What does your post have to do with redshift z? Do you have some new interpretation for z, or is it a kind of "tired light" mechanism?

 

My idea for the 'Expansion of the Light Waves' is not a 'tired light' hypothesis.

If you read my recent post on this subject, you will notice that I said an 'intrinsic force' is the cause of the expansion.

 

Are you suggesting the HDFS image was reworked to make it appear as if there were more objects than the otherewise undoctored images?

 

That is a possibility that the 'South' Field could have been modifided to appear homogeneous with the North Field in accordance with the current doctrine of 'homogeneity.

Their is a 'difference' between the S & T mag photo and the current interne t photo.

A main library should have a copy of this S & T mag. in its 'archives'.

See the S & T photo and compare with the photo on the internet (UCLA(?) redshift survey?).

 

Are you aware of the HUDF images (with about 10,000 objects? Perhaps that is the one you saw that had more galaxies, i.e., due to its higher resolution).

 

I saw more 'stars' added to the internet photo. This does no have anything to do with resolution.

CC

 

Mike C]

[coldcreation]

My idea for the 'Expansion of the Light Waves' is not a 'tired light' hypothesis. If you read my recent post on this subject, you will notice that I said an 'intrinsic force' is the cause of the expansion.

 

Recall, Zwicky’s famed speculation that light loses energy while traveling through space, dubbed “tired light” was disproved on the grounds that the loss of energy should be independent of the wavelength (observations have shown wavelength independence over 19 octaves of the spectrum). “No known scattering process has energy loss with so constant a fractional wavelength shift” (Sandage 1993 p. 127).

 

Your redshift concept would require the same wavelength independent vigilance.

 

As far as I can tell, the de Sitter effect as a cause for redshift z is independent of wavelength throughout the entire spectrum.

 

 

CC

[Mike C]

Recall, Zwicky’s famed speculation that light loses energy while traveling through space, dubbed “tired light” was disproved on the grounds that the loss of energy should be independent of the wavelength (observations have shown wavelength independence over 19 octaves of the spectrum). “No known scattering process has energy loss with so constant a fractional wavelength shift” (Sandage 1993 p. 127).

 

Zwickys 'tired light' acceptance is not my idea.

I only agree with his 'dark matter problem'.

I also did not agree with Hoyles introduction of 'new matter' in a SSU. But Hoyle was right about a SSU.

Santage believes in the BBU. So i do not give him any credibility regarding the light problem.

 

The 19 ovtaves of the levels of light would be the total possible radiations of the electron transitions or wavelengths possible.

 

Since I said the light pulses have an intrinsic force that causes them to expand, I cannot see any other mechanism for these expansions.

 

Your redshift concept would require the same wavelength independent vigilance.

 

All objects from a distance would be observed as a mixture of a 'black body curve ' at its peak level. So no individual wavelengths would be observed as here in the Sun. The Sun is a single star.

 

Mike C

[peter]

Coldcreation posted:

 

All ‘tired light’ scenarios are ruled out by observational data; there is no significant scattering, refracting, or absorption on the line of sight. Absorption would cause part of the incoming energy to be extracted into the interstellar or intergalactic medium; as a result, dimming would occur over a broad range of the spectrum. Scattering alters the direction of the photons, but the wavelength would remain the same. Refraction would cause a change in the direction or a bending of the wave, as light propagates through matter.

However, there could be one possible scenario which may cause redshift. If the particle size of the interstellar or intergalactic medium is very small which is not enough to cause scattering, refracting or absorption, when the photons hit such particles during their journey, they may still lose some of their energy and become redshifted. It really depends on size and the density of such particles.

[coldcreation]

ColdcreationAll ‘tired light’ scenarios are ruled out by observational data; there is no significant scattering' date=' refracting, or absorption on the line of sight. Absorption would cause part of the incoming energy to be extracted into the interstellar or intergalactic medium; as a result, dimming would occur over a broad range of the spectrum. Scattering alters the direction of the photons, but the wavelength would remain the same. Refraction would cause a change in the direction or a bending of the wave, as light propagates through matter.

[/i']

However, there could be one possible scenario which may cause redshift. If the particle size of the interstellar or intergalactic medium is very small which is not enough to cause scattering, refracting or absorption, when the photons hit such particles during their journey, they may still lose some of their energy and become redshifted. It really depends on size and the density of such particles.

 

There may be some constituents of the intergalactic medium smaller than, say, the hydrogen atom, but the resulting absorption, scattering and refraction caused by what is known to exist (hydrogen, dust, etc.) would still be present. The energy loss (redshift) would be associated with scattering of the beam and blurring of the images of distant galaxies. This has been shown not to occur. Therefore the redshift is not caused by dust or gas in the line of sight.

 

To get a good feel of the atmosphere that prevailed as a result of the events that transpired regarding tired light scenario's it is best to read the literature that had been written during the crucial period. This epigrammatic passage by Sir James Jeans (1930) is revealing:

 

“But there is room for a good deal of doubt as to whether these huge speeds are real or not. They have not been obtained by any direct process of measurement' date=' but are deduced by an application of what is known as Doppler’s principle…Yet other things than speed are capable of reddening light;” [[i']Here he proceeds to list some of the known phenomenon that cause redshifts] “Furthermore, on de Sitter’s theory of the universe, distance alone produces a reddening of light, so that even if the distant nebulae were standing still in space, their light would appear unduly red, and we should be tempted to infer that they were not receding from us. None of these cause seems capable of explaining the observed reddening of nebular light, but quite recently Dr Zwicky of the California Institute has suggested that still another cause of the reddening may be found in the gravitational pull of stars and nebulae on light passing near them—the same pull that causes the observed bending of starlight at an eclipse of the sun.” [On the final pages of his manuscript, Jeans confers] “…every conclusion that has been tentatively put forward, is quite frankly speculative and uncertain…” and that the difficult questions of “present-day-science” are “perhaps set for ever beyond the reach of human understanding. We cannot claim to have discerned more than a very faint glimmer of light at the best; perhaps it was wholly illusory…” [In his final sentence, Jeans summarizes:] “So that our main contention can hardly be that science of to-day has a pronouncement to make, perhaps it ought rather to be that science should leave off making pronouncements: the river of knowledge has too often turned back on itself.” (Jeans 1930 pp. 65, 66, 149, 150)

 

Do you, Peter, have a mechanism for redshift z that differs from the above arguments? :)

 

 

CC

[peter]

If the dark matter do exist in the universe and have about 80% or more of total mass of the universe as proposed in modern cosmology, it will be highly possible that the dark matter can cause redshift when light passes through it if and only if the dark matter can interact with regular matter.:D

[Mike C]

If the dark matter do exist in the universe and have about 80% or more of total mass of the universe as proposed in modern cosmology, it will be highly possible that the dark matter can cause redshift when light passes through it if and only if the dark matter can interact with regular matter.:shrug:

 

IMHO, there is 'no' dark matter.

 

I posted an article based on a SM Xray satelite telescope of a solar eruption that showed that the remains of the source of this eruption was iron, sulfur and oxygen ions stripped of all their electrons except the two inner electrons.

The temperature was estimated to be about 20 million Kelvin.

 

So these electrons are blowen out into space while the positive ions are captured within our galaxy.

So these free electrons are attracted back to these positive ions to create an illusion that there is an increase of gravity.

This then is what I consider to be the DM that is detected in our outer galactic gas perimeter to cause the spiral structures to violate the 'virial theorum by maintaining a uniform velocity.

 

This would be the solution for the Zwicky DM problem also with a central cloud of electrons to cause an added attraction between the positive

charged galaxies in the cluster.

Normally, you wouls expect these electron central clouds to disperse and

they would but this central cloud is contiuously being fed electrons to retain its attractive nature to the galaxies.

 

This DM is visible because they have been detected by xray radiations.

Since this central cloud is being drawn back by the galaxies, that is the reason why the galaxy velocites are increased to create the illusion that there is added mass. So this added attraction (coulomb force) is the reason for this apparent DM problem.

 

Mike C

[peter]

If the DM is like what Mike C. claimed, our solar system would be in the negative charge clouds of the electrons, then everything on the earth would be negatively charged, many physical experiments would fail. This is just impossible.

[modest]

This would be the solution for the Zwicky DM problem also with a central cloud of electrons to cause an added attraction between the positive

charged galaxies in the cluster.

Normally, you wouls expect these electron central clouds to disperse and

they would but this central cloud is contiuously being fed electrons to retain its attractive nature to the galaxies.

 

This DM is visible because they have been detected by xray radiations.

Since this central cloud is being drawn back by the galaxies, that is the reason why the galaxy velocites are increased to create the illusion that there is added mass. So this added attraction (coulomb force) is the reason for this apparent DM problem.

 

Mike C

 

My compass points north.

 

-modest

[Mike C]

If the DM is like what Mike C. claimed, our solar system would be in the negative charge clouds of the electrons, then everything on the earth would be negatively charged, many physical experiments would fail. This is just impossible.

 

Our Solar System is not in the perimeter of our galaxy.

It is supposed to be approximately 2/3's of the way from the central sourse in the Constellation of Sagittarius (spelling(?).

 

Mike C

[freeztar]

My compass points north as well, go figure...

[modest]

Our Solar System is not in the perimeter of our galaxy.

It is supposed to be approximately 2/3's of the way from the central sourse in the Constellation of Sagittarius (spelling(?).

 

Mike C

 

I'd bet, if our galaxy made a magnetic field strong enough to affect... let's say the Andromeda galaxy (like dark matter)... my compass would dance around like a french harlot