Redshift z

[coldcreation]

So far everthing I can find including the recent supernova still says the universe is flat. Do you have some independent verification other than your own that it is not flat?

 

The favored Friedmann model describing the universe in which omega is precisely equal to one, the critical density model, is ruled out by the SN Type Ia observations. There is no one-to-one relation between the density of the cosmos and its spatial curvature, i.e., this model with a flat, Euclidean geometry (zero curvature) is incompatible with the interpretation of universal acceleration, and so too incompatible with inflation. The velocity of the supposed expansion does not tend to zero as its radius approaches infinity. It appears to be accelerating, requiring an ad hoc dark energy to justify.

 

See Reiss, A.G., Filippenko, et al, 1998, AsJ, 116: 1009-1038, 1998 September "Observational Evidence from Supernova for an Accelerating Universe and Cosmological Constant."

 

Toft, S., et al, 2005, Distant Red Galaxies In The Hubble Ultra Deep Field, Draft version March 23, arXiv:astro-ph/0503454 v1 21 Mar 2005

 

Livio, M. 2000, The Accelerating Universe, Infinite Expansion, the Cosmological Constant,

and the Beauty of the Cosmos.

 

Goldhaber, G., Perlmutter, S. 1998, Physics Reports-Review Section Letters 307 (1-4):

325-331, Dec. 1998

 

Goldsmith, D. 2000, The Runaway Universe, The Race to Find the Future of the Cosmos.

 

 

This is not my view little bang. By the way, it was Einstein's view based on his general postulate of relativity that a Euclidean universe was untenable. Space-time had to be non-Euclidean, or quasi-Euclidean to use Einstein's term. Either way flatness does not fit in the GR.

 

The universe is either flat or it is not. I personally choose the latter. But do not take my

word for it. Do some research (the above references should make that easier for you) look at the evidence, then decide for yourself.

 

Question Little bang: Why would the universe be flat anyway? Do you really think the all the humps, bumps, ripples, nooks and crannies of spacetime curvature (gravity) due to the nonnegative, nonzero mass-energy density of the universe all cancel out to zero?

[C1ay]

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.

[coldcreation]

There are NO facts on the shape of the universe...

Well, let's see. ... I've never even claimed there was a big bang. What I will make clear is the departure of some crass member that wants to continue in some vein as to claim they are right and everyone else is wrong with out backing up their claim.

 

... 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.

 

OK, back to redshift z. The topic under review.

 

I will attempt to back some claims I've made above. I would hope that nobody takes this as a personal attack. It is not meant to be. Though it is certainly an alternative view to the standard model. My opinion will be mixed into what follows, but most is based on the Hubble Space Telescope supernovae data from the late 1990s. I would hope that an open forum exists in order to voice opinions, especially those that do not concord with modern cosmology, and even more so when those opinions are founded on observational evidence. Why? If that were not the case everyone would agree on everything, give or take a little inter-stance nitpicking and naïve questions from the curious. Note, I have all the references, if anyone would like one.

 

Fact 1. Distant supernovae and their host galaxies appear to be receding slower than permitted by Hubble’s Law (the proportionality between redshift and apparent magnitude). Remarkably, the observations are consistent with an accelerating expansion of the cosmos: a model that had never before been predicted. What had been predicted was a deceleration or a constant 1 to 1 Hubble flow.

 

Fact 2. The large shells of radiation and material emitted by distant supernovae appear to have a greater area than they would in a topologically flat space, making the source look very faint.

 

Fact 3. The visible universe appears larger, deeper and emptier than previously suspected.

 

Fact 4. Unexpected dimness of early supernovae gives the impression they are further away than their redshifts indicate, altering the predicted structure of the cosmos.

 

Fact 5. These SN Type Ia observations indicate that at least 80 percent of the matter necessary to make the universe flat (in accordance with inflation theory) is missing, i.e., undetectable.

 

Fact 6. If the Doppler interpretation is real, the universe could be as young as 12.5 billion years old, a figure at odds with the age of a flat matter dominated universe, and at odds with the age of some of the objects in it, i.e., some stars in the Milky Way appear much older (around 18 billion years old. The conservative figure is 15 billion years old, and the upper limit is 20 billion years): Even when the age problem is revised upwards at around 14 Gyrs, the age crisis looms.

 

Cold Conclusions:

 

The favored Friedmann model describing the universe in which omega is precisely equal to one, the critical density model, is ruled out by observation. There is no one-to-one relation between the density of the cosmos and its spatial curvature, i.e., this model with a flat, Euclidean geometry (zero curvature) in incompatible with the interpretation of universal acceleration. The velocity of the supposed expansion does not tend to zero as its radius approaches infinity. It appears to be accelerating, requiring an ad hoc dark energy to justify.

 

The Friedmann model with a closed spherical geometry that expands and collapses to infinite density in a finite time is ruled out observationally. There is not enough gravitating mass to halt the expansion and reverse it. There will be no big crunch.

 

The Friedmann model with a hyperbolic geometry that expands for ever, tending to infinity with a finite velocity is ruled out on empirical grounds. Distant galaxies are not undecelerated.

 

So what to do? If the big bang is to be salvaged, the Friedmann model should obviously be dropped. Another different model is required. Inflation should be dropped as well as it was designed with the critical model in mind. But the universe is not flat. By the way, flatness contradicts not only the SN observations, but it also violates general relativity. The GR continuum cannot be regarded as Euclidean. Anyone that reads the general postulate once knows that. The continuum can only be non-Euclidean.

 

A major fact follows: the flat universe predicted by inflation is untenable. Redshift z shows the universe is not flat. And if inflation falls, so too does the big bang. Unless of course one is willing to accept again all the intrinsic problems with that scenario (horizon, monopole, singularity, spacetime boundary, isotropy of the CMB, etc.). These problems are well known. Inflation was supposed to have solved them, albeit by introducing a false vacuum: a state that has never been observed nor can it. All vacuum experiment show that the state described as a false vacuum would require an infinite amount of negative energy to produce, obviously something that does not exist. So now we have two reasons to abandon inflation: the non-physical nature of the false vacuum and SN observations that show the universe is not flat. What a pity...

 

Eternal inflation, chaotic inflation, superstrings, M-threory (branes) are al useless is the patch-up process because not one of theses alternatives shows any observational or experimental evidence for support. The search continues...for a fourth Friedmann model. One that accelerates to infinity. It leads to a Big Rip...to a cosmological constant 120 orders of magnitude overweight.

 

Riess et al recently grouped under the name Great Observatories Origins Deep Survey (GOODS). The word Origins had to be added, otherwise they would have been left with GODS program. The latter is possibly most fitting, as Riess admits, referring to dark energy “we still have almost no clue what it is.” (Britt 2004)

 

"In some ways it sounds more like science fiction than fact," alleged Dr. Robert Caldwell, a Dartmouth physicist who described this apocalyptic prospect in a 2003 paper with Dr. Marc Kamionkowski and Dr. Nevin Weinberg, California Institute of Technology.

 

Riess is trying to determine whether the universe will end in a “Big Rip, Big Collapse or just a Big Fizzle.” Snap crackle or pop?

 

A cosmological constant dominated universe is “the bleakest of all outcomes, offering no chance to do cosmology, no chance for rebirth—just a long, cold death,” observes a cold footed Brian Schmidt as if he just got coldcocked by a cold-hearted southpaw in cold-blood. The natural laws have been cold-shouldered cold turkey once again.

 

Cold Creation predicts they all will eventually win, i.e., the observations will rip apart the theory causing it to collapse then fizzle-out. Catastrophysics will ultimately fail. In my opinion it already has.

 

Frankly, it’s hard to believe that something so ridiculously dubious is so doggedly pursued. One need not be a visionary to see that there are no viable solutions to fix big bang cosmology and that it needs to be replaced with something known-physics compatible. Just when everyone began thinking that modern cosmology was safe, and that physics would soon find solutions to the unification problem (well, within the next hundred years or so), Einstein’s cosmological constant began seeping back into the Astrophysical Journal. Though, Einstein would no longer have recognized it.

 

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...

 

A cold wave is on its way.

 

Coldcreation

[BlameTheEx]

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.

If there are globular clusters that preceded whatever the "Big Bang" event turns out to be then the "event horizon" is somewhat bogus. Clearly in that case we CAN gain information from prior to the BB. The existence of these clusters is information.

 

There is more. If these clusters truly started prior to the BB then I can't see how we can salvage the idea of an expanding universe because we would have to postulate globular clusters evolving in a universe of microscopic size or zero size. Ether that or totally rethink the nature of the expansion. Could you vote for a universe that started large and then suddenly started getting bigger?

 

The "tired light" theory needs to be looked at again. Perhaps red shifting is a property of space?

[C1ay]

Could you vote for a universe that started large and then suddenly started getting bigger?

Probably not. I personally believe in an infinite universe that has existed for eternity. I accept the possibility that there was some event approximately 13 billion years ago, that theorists have interpretted as the big bang, that resulted in our local universe. There are too many loose ends for my taste though. The analysis of the CMB radiation does not agree with the dating of old globular clusters or galaxies that are thought to have been dying from 13 billion years ago. Redshift in the NASA/IPAC Extragalatic Database is all over the place with over 2K objects having a negative redshift. With nothing more than dark matter and dark energy to explain the variation and no concrete proof that the quantities required of these items even exists it is hard to give much weight to the expansion theory. I accept it as a possibility but that's all.

 

I feel that some of the pieces we have collected to this puzzle are being forced to fit other pieces we have collected while there are still many pieces out there that we have not collected yet. We need some of those uncollected pieces so that the pieces we have already collected can fall into their proper places instead of the places we have put them in. Until then I'm open to the possibilities we have not even imagined yet.

[infamous]

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..

 

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.

[coldcreation]

Redshift and the CMB

 

According to the standard model of evolution the cosmic microwave background CMB radiation is redshifted as all other radiation in the 19 octave spectrum. So if the universe in the past was 1000 times smaller the temperature T of the CMB was 1000 greater. It follows that, temperature T = 2.726(1 + z) K, so at redshift 1500 the corresponding temperature was about 4000 K. Therefore the CMB has cooled by a factor or 1500into the observed millimeter waveband. (Longair, M.S. 1993, The Deep Universe, 1994, Saas-Fee Advanced Course 23, Lecture Notes 1993, Swiss Society for Astrophysics and Astronomy, section 2.1, p. 355).

 

The problem remains: what reconciliation can be made between the gross irregularities observed in the large-scale distribution of matter and the extraordinary isotropy of the CMB?

 

The CMB is a thermal blackbody. If its origin was not associated with an era called the ‘last scattering surface’ what is its origin. Is it produced locally, and therefore not redshifted? Is is warming with time, cooling with time, or as postulated by some worldviews, is the temperature constant? And finally, what is the best way to determine which of these scenarios best fits observations?

 

My own nagging suspicion is that like the universe itself, the CMB has no age, so it does not come from a specific epoch, i.e. it is not a redshifted relic with a specific origin... Almost as the background noise reverberating in all directions at a shopping mall. Where each source contributes to the overall millimeter spectrum. Remove all the undifferentiated matter and energy in the universe, including the ZPE and ZPF (this is a thought experiment) and the temperature T drops off to absolute zero. Of course, there is matter and energy in the universe, and so a minimum of temperatures is likely to persist. Now, depending on the adopted theory, the evolution of the thermal radiation is subject to active debate.

 

BlameTheEx, tired light theory are kaput. Where do you see scattering, absorption, or refraction? Redshift isn’t a property. One could say it is a effect on the properties of a photon packet and get away with it. Globular cluster didn’t exist before a hot BB. My point was that because object appear older than the supposed age of the universe, it is evidence that the concept of age, and the origin of the universe, and, you guessed it, the big bang, and flat wrong.

 

Speaking of space though, empty space precisely, the de Sitter effect shows redshift of a test particle even in an empty universe, hmm.

 

Later

Coldcreation

[Tormod]

Almost as the background noise reverberating in all directions at a shopping mall. Where each source contributes to the overall millimeter spectrum. Remove all the undifferentiated matter and energy in the universe, including the ZPE and ZPF (this is a thought experiment) and the temperature T drops off to absolute zero.

 

Coldc, I am a bit short of time atm but I would like to point your attention to the following:

 

UVES Measures the Cosmic Temperature 12 Billion Years Ago

 

A fundamental prediction of the Big Bang theory has finally been verified.

 

For the first time, an actual measurement has been made of the temperature of the cosmic microwave background radiation, at a time when the Universe was only about 2.5 billion years old . This fundamental and very difficult observation was achieved by a team of astronomers from India, France and ESO [1]. They obtained a detailed spectrum of a quasar in the distant Universe, using the UV-Visual Echelle Spectrograph (UVES) instrument at the ESO 8.2-m VLT KUEYEN telescope at the Paranal Observatory .

 

If the Universe was indeed formed in a Big Bang, as most astrophysicists believe, the glow of this primeval fireball should have been warmer in the past. This is exactly what is found by the new measurements.

 

The analysis of the VLT spectrum of the distant quasar not only gives the definitive proof of the presence of the relict radiation in the early Universe, it also shows that it was indeed significantly warmer than it is today, as predicted by the theory.

 

Source: European Southern Observatory, 2000.

http://www.eso.org/outreach/press-rel/pr-2000/pr-27-00.html

[coldcreation]

Source: European Southern Observatory, 2000.

http://www.eso.org/outreach/press-rel/pr-2000/pr-27-00.html

 

Thank you, I checked out the press release and downloaded the full paper. I will review it and see if I can find a snag. I think I've already found one but I need to read the full text first.

 

Aside from that, I wish this type of experiment could be (and it can) with objects that are less problematic than quasars. There is much debate as to the actual distances of these objects, and today quasars are far from being used as standard candles. In another way, the physics surrounding quasars is much more speculative than it is for supernovae Type Ia, spiral galaxies, globular clusters, etc. Remember when gamma-ray bursts were though to be extremely far and high powered, then an article was published showing that they came from within the Milky Way...I'm sure that scoop is not over yet.

 

If this CMB report is indeed verified, and I would wait for some corroborative observations from say, the Hubble Space telescope. Or even better, proof of this should come in 2011 after NASA and ESA launch the James Webb Space Telescope (with much higher resolution than the Hubble ST) this would be the first successful prediction of the standard model as far back as I can remember.

 

For some strange reason, I would not pass out cigars yet. I've seen rush-to-judgment interpretations in the past fizzle out as fast as they came to light. Hopefully for theorists this one too will not go up in smoke.

 

coldc...

[Little Bang]

Gamma-Ray bursts do not come only from the milkyway, they appear equally distributed throught out the sky.

[coldcreation]

Gamma-Ray bursts do not come only from the milkyway, they appear equally distributed throught out the sky.

 

Originally Posted by Tormod

 

http://www.eso.org/outreach/press-r...0/pr-27-00.html Source: European Southern Observatory, 2000.

 

Yes LB, if they are in the Milky Way they occur in other galaxies too, good observation. My point was that they are not the furthest objects we can see, as previously thought according to their redshift.

 

Big bang cosmology is kind of like Schrödinger’s cat, it is both dead and alive at the same time. As for the CMB-quasar data, I see at least two huge snags:

 

(A) One quasars was used for the analysis. Not two, or three, just one quasar PKS1232+0815. This type of claim, of “the first real proof that the CMBR was indeed warmer in the past” is not unique is the annals of science. Others have made the similar rash rush to judgments that were never corroborated by other independent (and preferably impartial) groups. For example, the cold fusion claim. In retrospect they seem more like wishful thinking than solid re-verifiable evidence. (I’d like to see a more recent paper backing it up with several object, any more links on the same subject? I will search on my end.)

 

When Halton Arp shows one quasar associated by a luminous bridge to a low redshift galaxy, the redshifts of which do not jive with Hubble’s law, it is described as a chance association, objects in the same line of sight. So he searchs and finds another, and another, and another, until his catalogue is filled with hundreds of associated objects, and the response is still the same: chance. In the paper I read that claims to have “definitive proof” for the first time that the “relict” was hotter in the past had one example, i.e., 1 example. I wouldn’t count my lucky stars. But I wouldn’t discount them either. Further research is required, corroborative or not

 

(:wave: Quasars have never fit the linear redshift-distance (or redshift-apparent magnitude) relation; instead, their plots on a graph resemble a shotgun blast. Today, quasars remain an unsolved enigma. Quasars are very luminous almost point-like sources of light with extremely large redshifts. They are often a source of radio and x-ray emission and are thought to be extreme forms of active galactic nuclei. Quasars have a stellar appearance on photographic plates. They were first discovered through the optical identification of extragalactic radio source, and are believed to be extragalactic objects, nicknamed ‘quasi-stellar radio sources,’ abbreviated quasar.

 

Another major problem for modern cosmology is that quasars possess large amounts of iron. There appear to be only two and a half possible explanations, and both are a disappointment to most expansion theorists. They are either much older than expected, and so too is the universe, or they are much closer than their redshifts indicate, contradicting the Hubble law and the Doppler interpretation. The explanation few are likely to adhere to is that iron was produced very early on by unknown physical means.

 

All of the evidence indicates that quasars show non-cosmological or non-velocity redshifts, i.e. the redshifts are not caused by velocity of recession in a hypothetically expanding frame and are therefore not proof of expansion. Most detrimental to the proponents of the expanding universe scenario, Halton (Chip) Arp has found an endless number of galaxies and quasars that are seemingly connected by luminous bridges. In many cases, the quasars are clearly associated (ejected from?) the parent or progenitor galaxy according to Arp. Hubble’s law implies that connected objects cannot show extreme differences in redshift, as the objects should be separated by great distance, receding at different velocities. In another way, two objects that are connected should have the same (or nearly the same) redshift if Hubble’s law is real.

 

The skeptics say that these are chance association and that the objects in question just look as if they were connected because they are in the same line of sight or even in circumambulation. This type of argument would have passed if few associations had been discovered, but the empirical evidence shows large quantities of associated aggregates. Halton Arp has calculated the probabilities of chance associations for every group of connected bodies. An example (and there are many) is the case of NGC4258; the chance of accidental association is one in 2.5 million. Another example has raised the ante to a chance of one in 4 million (M31). There are examples of discordant redshifts of connected objects that if calculated in velocity, show thousands of kilometers per second higher redshift than their associated companion. Some extreme examples of discordant redshift ‘velocities’ have ranged from 1,000 to 30,000 kilometers per second. These are the types of discoveries that ‘Chip’ says turned out to be “a lift-you-out-of-your-chair thrill.”

 

Identifying luminous connections between galaxies and quasars of greatly disparate redshifts is a decisive way of establishing their non-velocity character and clear evidence that the Hubble redshift-apparent magnitude relation is violated.

 

Discordant redshifts show that the universe is not expanding, that a Doppler effect in non-operational, that the BB never occurred. These observations establish a platform for the development of new theories, new world-models.

 

Simply put, discordant redshifts indicate that many objects do not lie at the distance expected according to Hubble's law. The standard model expansion is based on the Hubble diagram that tells us the recessional velocities increase linearly with distance.

 

Other observations contradict Hubble’s law, vis, the supernovae Type Ia data from the late 1990s, interpreted as an acceleration of expansion.

 

Arp is funny though, he hates general relativity, does not believe in curved spacetime and has no cosmological theory of his own. He adhered to the quasi-steady state cosmology QSSC model for a while, when Hoyle was still alive and kicking. Now he's gone, and so too is QSSC. It's a pity that there is no visible young generation to question today the validity of modern cosmology, to come up with a viable alternative, one that does agree with observations, one where the laws of physics never break down, one with no spacetime boundary condition, one with no time t = 0.

 

Hmmm, I'm not even sure they would get any funding, or telescope time to make crucial observational tests. They probably wouldn't even graduate.

 

Even if this CMB data is confirmed using more reliable distance indicators, I’m not sure one correct prediction will save the big bang (or a form of it). There are still so many holes in the model. Albeit, if the universe turns out to be warmer in the past several alternative theories will be discarded; including Cold Creation.

 

CC

[BlameTheEx]

C1ay

 

Nice to be in agreement with someone for a change.

 

The evidence that the universe is not steady state is overwhelming. Something pretty dramatic happened about 13 billion years ago. Also it happened more or less evenly over the entire universe at the same time.

 

Lets assume that there were globular clusters before this event.

 

That gives us a large pre-existing universe complete with stars. The easiest way to explain that is assume at least one earlier BB and probably (as 2 is an unlikely number) a whole series of them. It also beings back some version of "tired light" as clearly the universe can't be expanding as much as it appears.

 

The BB is then an injection of matter spread more or less evenly over the universe and all at the same time. As the universe was large enough to contain globular clusters we have to solve the question of how the event was synchronised over so much distance. My best guess is something like an interaction with another universe that doesn't share spatial dimensions with ours. If that was the case the interaction could not be defined in space and might well occur throughout.

[coldcreation]

C1ay

 

Nice to be in agreement with someone for a change.

 

The evidence that the universe is not steady state is overwhelming. Something pretty dramatic happened about 13 billion years ago. Also it happened more or less evenly over the entire universe at the same time.

 

... It also beings back some version of "tired light" as clearly the universe can't be expanding as much as it appears.

 

.

 

BTX, yes it might be comforting to be in agreement with someone, but the tired light concept you seems to stick to has been ruled out by observation. What do you have against the Doppler interpretation. I fail to understand. If you agree with BB expansion cosmology you don't need a spurious scattering process that is not observed, do you?

[BlameTheEx]

coldcreation

 

"THE tired light concept" has indeed been ruled out. However variations are still possible. In essence I am suggesting that light and presumably any travelling object is slowly damped down as it travels. Perhaps some property of space itself. Perhaps some sort of gravitational drag. Whatever, it must have the effect of acting like Doppler shift or for that matter a gravitational well.

 

What I have against the Doppler interpretation was clearly stated - it is inconsistent with the universe existing, with considerable size, before the BB. For that matter anything like a standard BB expansion cosmology is also inconsistent. I started with an assumption and then looked for a set of rules that would make it possible. I would just as happily start with the assumption that the moon is made from green cheese and look for a set of rules for that. If it turns out that the rules look absurd then I am just playing devil's advocate.

 

Frankly I stand with C1ay here - Cosmology is a messy business and the current position looks fudged with Dark Matter, Dark energy, and an embarrassing lack of antimatter. These aparently overaged globular clusters lead to further unease. The truth could easily be something unexpected so keeping an open mind is just common sense.

[coldcreation]

coldcreation

 

"THE tired light concept" has indeed been ruled out. However variations are still possible. In essence I am suggesting that light and presumably any travelling object is slowly damped down as it travels. Perhaps some property of space itself. Perhaps some sort of gravitational drag. Whatever, it must have the effect of acting like Doppler shift or for that matter a gravitational well.

 

What I have against the Doppler interpretation was clearly stated - it is inconsistent with the universe existing, with considerable size, before the BB. For that matter anything like a standard BB expansion cosmology is also inconsistent. I started with an assumption and then looked for a set of rules that would make it possible. I would just as happily start with the assumption that the moon is made from green cheese and look for a set of rules for that. If it turns out that the rules look absurd then I am just playing devil's advocate.

 

Frankly I stand with C1ay here - Cosmology is a messy business and the current position looks fudged with Dark Matter, Dark energy, and an embarrassing lack of antimatter. These aparently overaged globular clusters lead to further unease. The truth could easily be something unexpected so keeping an open mind is just common sense.

 

OK BTX now I understand. Forgive me. I thought you were pushing the old tired light concept and the big bang at the same time. Two concepts that from the ouset are at odds with each other. We are in total agreement. Thanks for the clarification.

 

One thing though, if C1ay and I are not in agreement how can BlametheX and coldcreation?

[C1ay]

OK BTX now I understand. Forgive me. I thought you were pushing the old tired light concept and the big bang at the same time. Two concepts that from the ouset are at odds with each other. We are in total agreement. Thanks for the clarification.

 

One thing though, if C1ay and I are not in agreement how can BlametheX and coldcreation?

Ah, but you really don't know what my complete POV is.

 

I do not necessarily support any of the interpretations of redshift Z. It's all over the board with some objects supposedly flying away from us at more than 30,000 km/s and other objects coming at us at over 2000 km/s It just doesn't sound like expansion to me.

 

For context, my personal belief is this: The universe is infinite and has existed for eternity. There was some local event approximately 13 billion years ago that resulted in a dispersion of matter and energy we refer to as the universe. I think this event has an expanding event horizon that we see as the boundary of our universe. I think this event occured in a region where old galaxies and clusters already existed and we see them within the envelope of the event horizon. This is why they are older than the event itself.

 

Imagine the room where you sit now as an infinite space. Hold up a soccerball and it represents the universe as we know it within the larger infinite space. You could event imagine other balls throughout the room as representing other big bangs. This is my personal view of the universe. I even imagine that some of the material from the various events is intertwined and that is why we have bodies in our local region that are older than our own local event.

 

This model has some expansion of the local dispersion of matter and energy. The energy wave may actually move some of the already existing matter much like a floating item on the water is nudged by a passing wave. Some of the matter that existed in the local area would have been moving away from it's own origin and would subsequently be moving toward our own showing a negative redshift z as we see with some objects.

 

This is all speculative imagination though, not any formal claim of truth. For me it is just one model that kind of fits the data.

[coldcreation]

Ah, but you really don't know what my complete POV is.

 

I do not necessarily support any of the interpretations of redshift Z. It's all over the board with some objects supposedly flying away from us at more than 30,000 km/s and other objects coming at us at over 2000 km/s It just doesn't sound like expansion to me.

 

For context, my personal belief is this: The universe is infinite and has existed for eternity.

 

This is all speculative imagination though, not any formal claim of truth. For me it is just one model that kind of fits the data.

 

Hmm, so we are in agreament on a number of points. Very interesting. Question: Would the laws of physics be different in every region of expansion, as in the muliverse theroy, of chaotic inflation (as in Lynde's version). Or would all your balloon universes abide by relativity, the fundamental constants, QM and thermodynamics, etc.

 

I would hope that anyone out there, physicists, laymen, and what not, that are out to find a TOE or even just a standard theory, would use the laws of nature as a starting point, then observations, then interpretations. Otherwise you run the same risks of been totally off the mark, obliged to use new physics, and end up disgruntled when someone points out evidence that contradicks your dogmatic stance. Good luck men, may nature be with you, pleasent journey into never never land.

 

Coolcreation