Redshift z

[EWright]

See, that is why it's pretty fruitless to discuss anything with you, cc. You disregard what is considered proof because you do not accept that it may be. You act as if BB theory is some kind of deity which we must not have any faith in. But it is merely a scientific theory, and does not need to be treated like anything else.

 

So stop pretending that BB theory is pure hogwash. It may *turn out to be*, but until evidence is offered that better explain what we see, BB is the flavor of the decade.

 

The currently accepted and confirmed predictions of BB cosmology are:

 

1) Background radiation (which you blatantly disregard but have not yet shown any proof for, AFAIK)

 

2) Expanding universe (predicted in the 20ies by Friedman, confirmed by Hubble)

 

3) Abundance of light matter (The production of elements during the very early periods)

 

All three have been confirmed and thus support BB theory. Yet they can all be falsified at some point. And all introduce further issues.

 

These are not unique to the BB theory and are accounted for in other models as well. (See Brane theory). Thus, they need not be falsified to extend to other theories, they only need to be accounted for within the context of those theories. And I thought it was an abundance of heavy elements in the "early" universe that puzzles cosmologists?

[coldcreation]

These are not unique to the BB theory and are accounted for in other models as well. (See Brane theory). Thus, they need not be falsified to extend to other theories, they only need to be accounted for within the context of those theories. And I thought it was an abundance of heavy elements in the "early" universe that puzzles cosmologists?

 

I must say Ewright has reason. Quasi steady state cosmology prediced the abundance of light elements (Hoyle and Burbidge, I've given those exact references before). 100 Gyrs was sufficient to form them fvia stellar processes, therby excluding the presumption of premordial creation, and the CMB is predicted by all world models.

 

The abundance of light elements (and isotopes), helium, lithium etc. (not heavy elements) has long been held as a pillar of proof for bb cosmology, though it is really not one at all. Certainly it is impossible for them to have been created in such a short time (14.7 Gyrs) through stellar fusion of hydrogen, and so they are assumed to have been created premordially, i.e., very early on, all at once is some event that cannot be explained with physics.

 

In the Cold Creation theory all of the elements observed were created through stellar processes circa 250 - 650 Gyrs up until the present. There is no problem with the time scale at all, just as there was none in QSSC.

 

That leaves the CMB and redshift z, the other two pillars of modern cosmology.

 

CC

 

PS. No problem for constructive discussions with cc Tormod. I am open to the possibility that some form of event occurred billions of years ago and that the universe might actually be expanding, though I doubt it. My mission on this website is to explain why...and also to point out the contrast between bb theory and observations. I know the majority agree with bbc, but science is not a democracy, it is a collections of ideas based on empirical evidence, and as we speak, that evidence is flying in the face of inflation, the savior of big bang cosmology.

[Tormod]

The abundance of light elements (and isotopes), helium, lithium etc. (not heavy elements) has long been held as a pillar of proof for bb cosmology, though it is really not one at all. Certainly it is impossible for them to have been created in such a short time (14.7 Gyrs) through stellar fusion of hydrogen, and so they are assumed to have been created premordially, i.e., very early on, all at once is some event that cannot be explained with physics.

 

AFAIK bb theory explains where and when light matter was produced - it happened at the moment when the universe was cool enough for protons, neutrons and electrons to bind together in atoms. This is called recombination and occured approx. 300,000 years after the BB.

[coldcreation]

AFAIK bb theory explains where and when light matter was produced - it happened at the moment when the universe was cool enough for protons, neutrons and electrons to bind together in atoms. This is called recombination and occured approx. 300,000 years after the BB.

 

300,000 years is very short on cosmological scales. Premordial creation is obligatory in big bang cosmology, if theory is to match observation. This is a delicate subject and deserves its own thread; one entitled Creationism might be justified, or simply Hot Creation.

 

The idea that all elements except for hydrogen were created through stellar processes seems more realistic from a physical standpoint than premordial creation.

 

The most important form of creation is that of hydrogen. Hydrogen is the most abundant elements in the universe.

 

This of course is a thread titled Redshift Z. So far, no one has been able to poke a hole in the general relativistic spacetime curvature redshift approach. That is indeed a good sign for the Cold Creation concept.

 

It's not too late...

 

CC

[Erasmus00]

These are not unique to the BB theory and are accounted for in other models as well. (See Brane theory). Thus, they need not be falsified to extend to other theories, they only need to be accounted for within the context of those theories. And I thought it was an abundance of heavy elements in the "early" universe that puzzles cosmologists?

 

Nearly every modern theory of cosmology contains a big bang event. (brane theory, for instance). The evidence we have can't yet distinguish which version of the big bang might actually have occured, but some version almost certainly did...

-Will

[EWright]

Nearly every modern theory of cosmology contains a big bang event. (brane theory, for instance). The evidence we have can't yet distinguish which version of the big bang might actually have occured, but some version almost certainly did...

-Will

 

;) Semantics, pure semantics! ;)

 

There is a big difference between THEE Big Bang, and the type of "bang" described in brane theory; comeon. The point was that the various 'observations' are not *proof* of any one specific theory regarding the origins of the universe because these observations can be accounted for by other, and very different, theories as well.

[Southtown]

;) Semantics, pure semantics! ;)

 

There is a big difference between THEE Big Bang, and the type of "bang" described in brane theory; comeon. The point was that the various 'observations' are not *proof* of any one specific theory regarding the origins of the universe because these observations can be accounted for by other, and very different, theories as well.

Yep, yep. Like mine...

 

“

He [Jehova] alone

spreads out the heavens

,

And treads on the waves of the sea; ”

—

Job 9:8 nkjv

 

“

It is He who sits above the circle of the earth,

And its inhabitants are like grasshoppers,

Who

stretches out the heavens

like a curtain,

And

spreads them out

like a tent to dwell in. ”

—

Isaiah 40:22 nkjv

 

“

Thus says God the LORD,

Who

created the heavens and stretched them out

,

Who spread forth the earth and that which comes from it,

Who gives breath to the people on it,

And spirit to those who walk on it: ”

—

Isaiah 42:5 nkjv

 

“

Thus says the LORD, your Redeemer,

And He who formed you from the womb:

` I am the LORD, who makes all things,

Who

stretches out the heavens

all alone,

Who spreads abroad the earth by Myself; ´ ”

—

Isaiah 44:24 nkjv

 

And inflationary theory progresses even closer still... Notice the continuous use of the plural "heavens," remind you of anything... maybe multiverse. HAHAHA I got more on the CMB, I'll get back to ya.

[coldcreation]

Yep, yep. Like mine...

.

 

What's with all the B-word texts?

I would stick to scientific discussions. Yes Lemaitre was a monk, yes he co-invented the big bang, yes the bb is beyond science, yes you're funny hii hiii, but this thread is about redshift z, one of the support pillars of bb cosmology. Without it, there is no bb, no expansion. The CMB needs its own thread. So too does the abundance of light elements: the two other pillars of modern cosmology.

 

cc

 

PS. EWright, more will come very soon, relax, there is no hurry.

[EWright]

What's with all the B-word texts?

I would stick to scientific discussions. Yes Lemaitre was a monk, yes he co-invented the big bang, yes the bb is beyond science, yes you're funny hii hiii, but this thread is about redshift z, one of the support pillars of bb cosmology. Without it, there is no bb, no expansion. The CMB needs its own thread. So too does the abundance of light elements: the two other pillars of modern cosmology.

 

cc

 

PS. EWright, more will come very soon, relax, there is no hurry.

 

:P

There is if you want to get your ideas out there before I publicize my own theory, thereby invalidating any ideas you might have.

;)

[coldcreation]

:P

There is if you want to get your ideas out there before I publicize my own theory, thereby invalidating any ideas you might have.

;)

 

Redshift z is a curved spacetime phenomenon, a time dilation from the perspective of any observer, a general relativistic phenomenon predicted by Einstein and confirmed by observation. The universe is non-Euclidean as seen from any referrence frame.

 

Coldcreation

 

PS Use it but don't abuse it

[EWright]

Redshift z is a curved spacetime phenomenon, a time dilation from the perspective of any observer, a general relativistic phenomenon predicted by Einstein and confirmed by observation. The universe is non-Euclidean as seen from any referrence frame.

 

Coldcreation

 

PS Use it but don't abuse it

 

:P I'm talking about the BIGGER picture, here. ;)

[coldcreation]

:P I'm talking about the BIGGER picture, here. ;)

 

Not bad, the wave mon.

 

Let me here more about it, if there is anything more.

[EWright]

Not bad, the wave mon.

 

Let me here more about it, if there is anything more.

 

In Time cc; all things in Time.

[Erasmus00]

Redshift z is a curved spacetime phenomenon, a time dilation from the perspective of any observer, a general relativistic phenomenon predicted by Einstein and confirmed by observation. The universe is non-Euclidean as seen from any referrence frame.

 

Coldcreation

 

You say Redshift z is a curved spacetime phenomenon, but as far as I am aware, the only curved space phenomenon that could account for the consistant redshift seen is De Sitter spacetime. But, GR predicts that a universe modeled by De Sitter spacetime is expanding out (and can be extrapolated back to a big bang-like event). But, your theory seems to stem from a desire to avoid a big bang. If there are De Sitter models that aren't expanding please point me to them.

-Will

[coldcreation]

You say Redshift z is a curved spacetime phenomenon, but as far as I am aware, the only curved space phenomenon that could account for the consistant redshift seen is De Sitter spacetime. But, GR predicts that a universe modeled by De Sitter spacetime is expanding out (and can be extrapolated back to a big bang-like event). But, your theory seems to stem from a desire to avoid a big bang. If there are De Sitter models that aren't expanding please point me to them.

-Will

 

Back to the old continent...

 

The de Sitter effect is well known. A timelike interval depends on distance in a static metric: meaning, a clock placed near one observer keeps a different time than an identical clock placed at a greater distance in the manifold. The timelike interval becomes smaller with increasing distance. Clocks appear to slow down depending on distance. The effect manifests itself as redshift z, increasing with distance. This is known as the de Sitter effect in a static universe. It is a nonexpanding model, also called de Sitter redshift effect. The radius of curvature can be obtained using the de Sitter model with Einstein's GR equations, 1917. Note that the time dilation with distance seen in redshift z is observtional evidence of spacetime curvature in a stationary universe model, it has a hyperbolic signature.

 

Note too that Edwin Hubble had always left open the possibility that z was de Sitter effect, i.e., not a Doppler effect. See Hubble 1954. I have the full referrence for those with an interest in expanding vs nonexpanding models.

[Erasmus00]

It is a nonexpanding model, also called de Sitter redshift effect. The radius of curvature can be obtained using the de Sitter model with Einstein's GR equations, 1917. Note that the time dilation with distance seen in redshift z is observtional evidence of spacetime curvature in a stationary universe model, it has a hyperbolic signature.

 

Emphasis added by me. De Sitter models do expand. While the De Sitter-Schwarzchild metric's space metric is invariant, the cosmological equations show that the universe grows with time.

 

The simplest De Sitter model is the solution of space made isotropic and homogeneous (remove all the mass). The space of this model does expand with time. The radius is proportional to e^(Ct) where C is sqrt(lambda/3). lambda being the Einstein lambda. This has a constant curvature.

 

The other De-sitter model I can think of is the so called Einstein-de Sitter model, which is isotropic and homogeneous. It too has constant curvature, and expands, but lambda is 0.

 

All of these models show evolving universes. Please show me an actual metric where the cosmological equations predict that the size of the spatial universe doesn't change with time, and redshift effects are predicted.

 

For a general treatment of evolving universes, google Friedmann equation.

-Will

[coldcreation]

Emphasis added by me. De Sitter models do expand. While the De Sitter-Schwarzchild metric's space metric is invariant, the cosmological equations show that the universe grows with time.

 

The simplest De Sitter model is the solution of space made isotropic and homogeneous (remove all the mass). The space of this model does expand with time. The radius is proportional to e^(Ct) where C is sqrt(lambda/3). lambda being the Einstein lambda. This has a constant curvature.

 

The other De-sitter model I can think of is the so called Einstein-de Sitter model, which is isotropic and homogeneous. It too has constant curvature, and expands, but lambda is 0.

 

All of these models show evolving universes. Please show me an actual metric where the cosmological equations predict that the size of the spatial universe doesn't change with time, and redshift effects are predicted.

 

For a general treatment of evolving universes, google Friedmann equation.

-Will

 

"Our conception of the structure of the universe bears all the marks of a transitory structure. Our theories are decidedly in a state of continuous, and just now very rapid, evolution. It is not possible to predict how long our present views and interpretations will remain unaltered and how soon they will have to be replaced by perhaps very different ones, based on new observational data and new critical insight in their connection with other data." Willem de Sitter, 1932

 

Everything is in transit...

 

There is a world-view called the Einstein-de Sitter model: galaxies separate at a critical rate that prevents gravitational attraction from over-powering the expansion. This representation is also referred to as the critical model. As the radius of the universe tends to infinity the velocity of expansion tends to zero. This model is the source of the classic fine-tuning problem. The balance is perfect; why? (Of course this concept is neither Einstein’s nor de Sitter’s, it is a posthumous interpretation of Friedmann’s). Touch E = mc2 with your magic wand and you can go anywhere!

 

In 1929, the historically correct year that Hubble’s official discovery was made, he published a famous paper entitled A Relation Between Distance and Radial Velocity Among Extra-Galactic Nebula. In this seminal work he writes: “The outstanding feature, however, is the possibility that the velocity-distance relation may represent the de Sitter effect, and hence that numerical data may be introduced into discussions of the general curvature of space.”

 

Hovering on the brink of complete surrealism, himself, Hubble seemed to have gotten cold feet. Philosophically he found the expanding universe concept “unsatisfactory” and preferred to highlight the “difficulties” and “uncertainties” involved with the observational groundwork. In a 1931 letter to the Dutchman de Sitter, Hubble wrote; “The interpretation, we feel [Hubble and Humason], should be left to you and the very few others who are competent to discuss the matter with authority”

 

Coldcreation