Redshift z

[Erasmus00]

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!

 

Yes, the rate of expansion tends to zero as the radius goes to infinity. HOWEVER, it starts quite high. This model represents a universe that expands at a decreasing rate, eventually slowing to a crawl. It still expands. You have made the claim that redshift is related to gravitational effects in a universe that is NOT expanding, but you don't have any metric that can satisfy both those conditions (accounts for redshift and isn't expanding).

-Will

[coldcreation]

Yes, the rate of expansion tends to zero as the radius goes to infinity. HOWEVER, it starts quite high. This model represents a universe that expands at a decreasing rate, eventually slowing to a crawl. It still expands. You have made the claim that redshift is related to gravitational effects in a universe that is NOT expanding, but you don't have any metric that can satisfy both those conditions (accounts for redshift and isn't expanding).

-Will

The critical model (or Einstein-de Sitter model, which was neither Einstein's or de Sitter's, but Friedmann's) where omega is equal to 1, has not been confirmed by observation. The universe does not appear to be slowing down. The two other Friedmann models are also in violation of observation: the universe does not appear to be coasting to infinity at a constant rate, and there will be no big crunch. So what gives?

 

A fourth Friedmann model? I think not. A well endowed cosmological constant that defeat gravity in a one on one battle? I doubt it. Dark (kooky) energy? Why not, but where is it?

 

The metric: the Einstein-de Sitter metric is one where the universe is in equilibrium. Balanced, albeit delicately, between expansion and collapse. It is a non-expanding model.

 

In 1977, G. F. R. Ellis wrote a paper titled "Is the Universe Expanding?" Ellis shows that “spherically symmetric static general relativistic cosmological space-times can reproduce the same cosmological observations as the currently favored Friedmann-Robertson-Walker universes.” In this case the systematic redshifts are interpreted as “cosmological gravitational red shifts” and the assumption of spatial homogeneity is replaced by the assumption that the universe is stationary.

 

You will find a general relativistic metric in this paper. It may not yet be the final metric. The redshift itself is a sign of spatiotemporal curvature.

 

Coldcreation

[Erasmus00]

The metric: the Einstein-de Sitter metric is one where the universe is in equilibrium. Balanced, albeit delicately, between expansion and collapse. It is a non-expanding model.

 

The Einstein- de Sitter model with lambda=0 does expand. Its expansion just slows with time, eventually slowing to a crawl. An Einstein-de Sitter model starts at near 0 volume and grows with time, just with a slowing growth. It is not a non-expanding model.

 

In 1977, G. F. R. Ellis wrote a paper titled "Is the Universe Expanding?" Ellis shows that “spherically symmetric static general relativistic cosmological space-times can reproduce the same cosmological observations as the currently favored Friedmann-Robertson-Walker universes.” In this case the systematic redshifts are interpreted as “cosmological gravitational red shifts” and the assumption of spatial homogeneity is replaced by the assumption that the universe is stationary.

 

I am not familiar with the paper, in what journal was it published so that I may find it? Also, I believe spherically symmetric, non-expanding spacetimes only work with a non-zero lambda, which you have stated is not what you believe.

-Will

[coldcreation]

The Einstein- de Sitter model with lambda=0 does expand. Its expansion just slows with time, eventually slowing to a crawl. An Einstein-de Sitter model starts at near 0 volume and grows with time, just with a slowing growth. It is not a non-expanding model.

 

I am not familiar with the paper, in what journal was it published so that I may find it? Also, I believe spherically symmetric, non-expanding spacetimes only work with a non-zero lambda, which you have stated is not what you believe.

-Will

 

Let’s be clear about what is not going on. It was realize after 1929 that the critical Friedmann model resembled the stable-stationary universes of both Einstein and de Sitter. The original Einstein Models, and the original de Sitter models were all non-expanding worldviews. Recall that these theories were developed from 1917 onward, well before the expansion hypothesis flourished. For those still attached to the old Friedmann models: they have all been excluded on observational grounds. The favored critical model (as it should be called exclusively) was the source of the fine-tuning problem, as well as the flatness problem (don’t forget the age problem: at the outset of expansion theory the age of the universe according to the critical model was 1.2 Gyrs old).

 

The new-relativists transformed the Einstein-de Sitter solution in such a manner that the universe became non-static, an intellectual construal that solely depends on how the geometrical symbols are conceived and physically interpreted. Neither Einstein nor de Sitter seem to have considered this new expanding model important. They both flatly (no pun intended) rejected it.

 

A theory is supposed to make predictions that can be tested against results of observations or experiments. The Friedmann equations make three very explicit predictions. 85 years later astronomers were able to obtain data that reconciled non of the predictions. So what to do? Modify the models (create a fourth model) or abandon them altogether. The difficulty is that more than a modification is required. A complete overhaul is more appropriate terminology. The Friedmann models were all based on the idea that gravity would control the fate of the universe, and that depended on the mass, omega. A fourth model, if it is to comply with observations, no longer depends on mass, or gravity. It depends on something else. Something that by definition cannot be studied, observed or detected directly: dark energy, nonbaryonic dark matter, quintessence, a new cosmological term off by 120 orders of magnitude, the most grotesque fudge factor in the history of science.

 

As far as expansion or staticity is concerned, the situation is by no means settled. The favored Miss Universe contestant is the only stable Friedmann model, where ? = 1. This is neither the most attractive, nor the most repulsive, but by far the most desirable of the three Friedmann models; also known as the critical model or, paradoxically, the Einstein-de Sitter model. Here the universe is the flat, isotropic, homogenous, the metric is Euclidean, it has the linear expansion regime. The expansion of the universe does not accelerate in this model. The velocity of expansion tends to zero as the radius R (the size of the universe) tends to infinity. It will never collapse into a big crunch like the ? > 1 model, although some of her traits are the same: both models inherited the missing mass problem. To maintain this linear regime, most of the matter in the universe must be non-baryonic, not composed of ordinary matter. Ordinary matter refers to elements composed of protons, neutrons and electrons. Visible forms of matter, stars and galaxies, account for less than 1% of the critical density. Even with the additional baryonic dark matter (brown dwarfs, planets, gas, and their constituent protons, neutrons and electrons) the missing mass problem is still as real as ever: a dazzling reminder in dark times of what cosmological dramatists do best.

 

Since 1990’s supernovae survey, all Friedmann models are ruled out observationally. Non of the Friedmann models predicted an accelerating universe. That option was not, either, considered by the Priest himself, Lemaître, the co-Creator of the big bang, He who resurrected the Friedmann models, or Guth, the co-Creator of inflation, another flat theory, or anybody in between. Galaxies were supposedly going to coast to infinity (or decelerate) not speed-up. That represents a freefall when the clocks are revered. Now the universe puts on the brakes if we reverse time. This idea is not only ugly, it is hideous, it is the worst possible scenario anyone could have hoped for.

 

See H. Kragh’s exceptional book titled Cosmology and Controversy (1996), and P. Kerszberg’s outstanding study of the Einstein-De Sitter debate The Invented Universe (1989).

 

Here is the Ellis reference again: Ellis, G.F.R. 1977, Is the Universe Expanding?, General Relativity and Gravitation, Vol. 9, No. 2 (1978), pp. 87-94

 

Coldcreation

[Erasmus00]

Let’s be clear about what is not going on. It was realize after 1929 that the critical Friedmann model resembled the stable-stationary universes of both Einstein and de Sitter. The original Einstein Models, and the original de Sitter models were all non-expanding worldviews.

 

Yes, and these models both have a nonzero cosmological constant. Einstein created the cosmological constant in order to build a static universe. You claim that the universe is static, and lambda is 0, but I don't see how thats possible if you believe GR is essentially the correct description of large scale objects.

-Will

[coldcreation]

Yes, and these models both have a nonzero cosmological constant. Einstein created the cosmological constant in order to build a static universe. You claim that the universe is static, and lambda is 0, but I don't see how thats possible if you believe GR is essentially the correct description of large scale objects.

-Will

 

For specific details regarding the Cold Creation interpretation of Einstein's cosmological constant see the thread titled The Cosmological Constant: A New Law. Indeed your precise question is answered there generally. Here briefly, it can be mentioned that the value of lambda has never been known for sure, though it was presumed to be zero by both Einstein, de Sitter, Eddington, Weyl and others from 1917 onward.

 

The value of lambda is difficult to determine because of many factors. 0 degrees Centigrade was easy to determine, though the freezing point of water was chosen arbitrarily. The boiling point of Mercury could just as readily been chosen as the zero value. The problem is this: What, in the case of the cosmological term, is being measured? Is it pressure, antigravity, dark energy? Know one really knows.

 

Before the value is determined with any exactitude, a clear and unambiguous definition must be made. Once defined, empirical evidence must be gathered and compared to the predictions as defined.

 

There is absolutely no contradiction between the general postulate of relativity and a zero value for lambda in a stationary, evolving, dynamic (non-expanding) universe. On the contrary.

 

The Cold Creation definition of lambda is straight forward: Lambda is a physical state that describes pure spacetime, i.e., a vacuum state in the absence of curvature (gravity, pressure, energy etc.). Lambda is the Minkowski spacetime that would be left over if all matter energy and field could be removed. It defines the properties not just of space but of what happens when matter, energy and field are present.

 

One might complain that special relativity and Minkowski spacetime are only special cases of the manifold, and have been replaced by GR, a theory that does include gravity and excludes the existence of Euclidean space (because the field is everywhere present, i.e., according to Einstein there exists no space without field). This is true, though there exist in every gravitational system points that are field-free, called Lagrange points.

 

The point is that lambda is the ‘opposite’ of the gravity field, thus the common misinterpretation ‘antigravity.’ The opposite of curved space is not a space curved in the opposite direction (that would simply be gravity). Curvature is gravity: there is no positive and negative gravity. Gravity does not carry with it a sign, it has no charge. So what about positive and negative curvature, hyperbolic and spherical curvature? To understand these terms more than non-Euclidean geometry is required. You see, the only way to reconcile observation and physical theory is set an absolute scale for gravity, curvature (just as there is for temperature, and just as there should be for entropy, energy, pressure).

 

As it turns out, an absolute value for lambda (absolute zero curvature) provides the mechanism for the gravitational interaction: something that has eluded physics since its outset. That is because space is thought of generally as nothing, with no limit.

 

The implicit argument in all big bang expansion theories is that space is created between galaxy clusters allowing (or causing) expansion. Space is therefore not conserved. Nowhere can it be found in the pertinent literature how space is created, by what physical process space enlarges, grows. There simply is no physical explanation as to how space is created.

 

The contention here is that lambda is not vacuum energy, negative pressure, gravity with an opposite sign, or a dark unphysical (undetectable) force responsible for expansion with a turbo-charge. It is a physical state that describes spacetime and how that space responds to objects and forces within it. It is essentially ubiquitous and has the same absolute value for all times. The field is a modification of that state. These properties are responsible for the observed quasi-equilibrium between gravitating systems.

 

Lambda is responsible for maintaining stability not just on scales compatible with super clusters or clusters of galaxies, but also right here in the solar system.

 

Take a classic two-body system, say, the Sun and Earth (or the Earth and Moon). Between two massive bodies, along the line connecting the centers of each mass, there exists a point called L1 (or the inner Lagrange point). This is a point in space where the two gravity fields cancel. At L1 the value of gravity is zero (absolute). An object, or test particle, placed on either side of L1 will tend to accelerate toward the mass on the side in which it is placed. Visualize a curved space or gravitational well. Both the Sun and Earth are in their own respective wells. If you could ride a bike up the hill and escape from the Earth’s field all the way to L1, you could stop there, rest, then roll, or freefall down to the Sun. The Lagrange point L1 is the top of the hill. Stability is attained because the Earth cannot climb out of its own well, it cannot pass through the top of the hill. Massive bodies maintain a ‘space-cushion’ like two magnets that repel one another. If the Earth and Sun where to stop in their tracks they would not attract each other and merge. Space acts in a way that keeps them apart, without actually being a repulsive force

 

As it turns out, the value of curvature (or gravity) at the top of the hill between the Earth and Moon is also equal to zero. All field-free points have zero value for the gravity field, not –1 or +1. This fact is not by chance. It is because of a very general law of nature that has never been properly expressed, it is because the cosmological constant poses very definite limits on the curvature of space. It is because of lambda that space cannot be created, that space cannot expand.

 

This interpretation of lambda is not based on new physics, or founded on some philosophical argument in order to justify a stationary regime. It is based known physics, simply, on the notion that the vacuum, space, is a four-dimensional surface upon which all interactions, fields and material bodies manifest themselves. And, yes, there is a new law of nature that describes how space responds in the presences of all things. Lambda is a fundamental, universal constant.

 

Coldcreation

[coldcreation]

Yes, and these models both have a nonzero cosmological constant. Einstein created the cosmological constant in order to build a static universe. You claim that the universe is static, and lambda is 0, but I don't see how thats possible if you believe GR is essentially the correct description of large scale objects.

-Will

 

For specific details regarding the Cold Creation interpretation of Einstein's cosmological constant see the thread titled The Cosmological Constant: A New Law. Indeed your precise question is answered there generally. Here briefly, it can be mentioned that the value of lambda has never been known for sure, though it was presumed to be zero by both Einstein, de Sitter, Eddington, Weyl and others from 1917 onward.

 

The value of lambda is difficult to determine because of many factors. 0 degrees Centigrade was easy to determine, though the freezing point of water was chosen arbitrarily. The boiling point of Mercury could just as readily been chosen as the zero value. The problem is this: What, in the case of the cosmological term, is being measured? Is it pressure, antigravity, dark energy? Know one really knows.

 

Before the value is determined with any exactitude, a clear and unambiguous definition must be made. Once defined, empirical evidence must be gathered (much is available already) and compared to the predictions as defined.

 

There is absolutely no contradiction between the general postulate of relativity and a zero value for lambda in a stationary, evolving, dynamic (non-expanding) universe. On the contrary.

 

The Cold Creation definition of lambda is straight forward: Lambda is a physical state that describes pure spacetime, i.e., a vacuum state in the absence of curvature (gravity, pressure, energy etc.). Lambda is the Minkowski spacetime that would be left over if all matter energy and field could be removed. It defines the properties not just of space but of what happens when matter, energy and field are present.

 

One might complain that special relativity and Minkowski spacetime are only special cases of the manifold, and have been replaced by GR, a theory that does include gravity and excludes the existence of Euclidean space (because the field is everywhere present, i.e., according to Einstein there exists no space without field). This is true, though there exist in every gravitational system points that are field-free, called Lagrange points.

 

The point is that lambda is the ‘opposite’ of the gravity field, thus the common misinterpretation ‘antigravity.’ The opposite of curved space is not a space curved in the opposite direction (that would simply be gravity). Curvature is gravity: there is no positive and negative gravity. Gravity does not carry with it a sign, it has no charge. So what about positive and negative curvature, hyperbolic and spherical curvature? To understand these terms more than non-Euclidean geometry is required. You see, the only way to reconcile observation and physical theory is to set an absolute scale for gravity, curvature (just as there is for temperature, and just as there should be for entropy, energy, pressure) where at zero absolute, gravity is no longer present.

 

As it turns out, an absolute value for lambda (absolute zero curvature) provides the mechanism for the gravitational interaction: something that has eluded physics since its outset. That is because space is thought of generally as nothing, with no limit.

 

The implicit argument in all big bang expansion theories is that space is created between galaxy clusters allowing (or causing) expansion. Space is therefore not conserved. Nowhere can it be found in the pertinent literature how space is created, by what physical process space enlarges, grows. There simply is no physical explanation as to how space is created.

 

The contention here is that lambda is not vacuum energy, negative pressure, gravity with an opposite sign, or a dark unphysical (undetectable) force responsible for expansion with a turbo-charge. It is a physical state that describes spacetime and how that space responds to objects and forces within it. It is essentially ubiquitous and has the same absolute value for all times. The field is a modification of that state. These properties are responsible for the observed quasi-equilibrium between gravitating systems.

 

Lambda is responsible for maintaining stability not just on scales compatible with super clusters or clusters of galaxies, but also right here in the solar system.

 

Take a classic two-body system, say, the Sun and Earth (or the Earth and Moon). Between two massive bodies, along the line connecting the centers of each mass, there exists a point called L1 (or the inner Lagrange point). This is a point in space where the two gravity fields cancel. At L1 the value of gravity is zero (absolute). An object, or test particle, placed on either side of L1 will tend to accelerate toward the mass on the side in which it is placed. Visualize a curved space or gravitational well. Both the Sun and Earth are in their own respective wells. If you could ride a bike up the hill and escape from the Earth’s field all the way to L1, you could stop there, rest, then roll, or freefall down to the Sun. The Lagrange point L1 is the top of the hill. Stability is attained because the Earth cannot climb out of its own well, it cannot pass through the top of the hill. Massive bodies maintain a ‘space-cushion’ like two magnets that repel one another. If the Earth and Sun where to stop in their tracks they would not attract each other and merge. Space acts in a way that keeps them apart, without actually being a repulsive force

 

As it turns out, the value of curvature (or gravity) at the top of the hill between the Earth and Moon is also equal to zero. All field-free points have zero value for the gravity field, not –1 or +1. This fact is not by chance. It is because of a very general law of nature that has never been properly expressed, it is because the cosmological constant poses very definite limits on the curvature of space. It is because of lambda that space cannot be created, that space cannot expand.

 

This interpretation of lambda is not based on new physics, or founded on some philosophical argument in order to justify a stationary regime. It is based known physics, simply, on the notion that the vacuum, space, is a four-dimensional surface upon which all interactions, fields and material bodies manifest themselves. And, yes, there is a new law of nature that describes how space responds in the presences of all things. Lambda is a fundamental, universal constant.

 

Coldcreation

[Erasmus00]

There is absolutely no contradiction between the general postulate of relativity and a zero value for lambda in a stationary, evolving, dynamic (non-expanding) universe. On the contrary.

 

There are no solutions to Einstein's field equations with non-zero lambda that don't imply universes that grow (or shrink) with time. As much as you want to make the claim otherwise, you haven't produced a metric. The cosmological constant was, in fact, invented in order to make models with 3 space static.

-Will

[coldcreation]

There are no solutions to Einstein's field equations with non-zero lambda that don't imply universes that grow (or shrink) with time. As much as you want to make the claim otherwise, you haven't produced a metric. The cosmological constant was, in fact, invented in order to make models with 3 space static.

-Will

 

Now you understand why lambda had to be defined and what is the mechanism behind the gravitational interaction.

 

There are solutions to the field equasions that provide static solutions (see the references I provided earlier, then we'll talk).

 

With this knowledge it is shown that the universe cannot expand. There is no new physics. The theory you support is laoded with new physics, i.e., not physics.

 

Yes, you arew correct. With Einstein's cosmological term staticity was provisional. That's because there was no absolute value given to it (and that's because no one new what it was, and they still do not (Eddinton was closest to actually illuminating it's true essence). See my previous text for it's proper definition. It is pure spacetime. Nothing more, and nothing less. It has a zero value for all times. There are no negative or positive values for it. It is thus, not a parameter.

 

Coldcreation

[coldcreation]

There are no solutions to Einstein's field equations with non-zero lambda that don't imply universes that grow (or shrink) with time. As much as you want to make the claim otherwise, you haven't produced a metric. The cosmological constant was, in fact, invented in order to make models with 3 space static.

-Will

 

There is at least one solution to the field equations with a zero value for lambda.

 

Deviations in the local spacetime metric due to gravitational fields in the presence of massive bodies is well known, but the large-scale effects of gravitation on the global curvature of space and time remain unknown.

 

According to modern cosmology the Doppler redshift is due to a time-dependent scale factor to the metric, i.e., the expansion of the universe. The standard hot big bang model left open the possibility that the global geometry of the universe might not be flat—depending on its gravitating contents, the Minkowski spacetime metric of special relativity, with its invariance under a Lorentz transformation and its interval for isotropic and homogenous space of constant 3-space curvature, where the spatial metric in non-Euclidean, the signature of space curvature—whereas inflation generically predicts a flat universe today: an unfortunate contention that is in flat contradiction with current observational evidence (and in my opinion, with general relativity as well).

 

During the 1930’s, at the peak of observational cosmology, a full-scale program had been launched to determine the redshift-distance relation. The most important problem set out at the time was to resolve the question; whether expansion was real—the z–distance relation had to be linear if the expansion scenario was to be adopted—or whether z was an effect on light as it passed through a stationary universe with the parabolic metric of de Sitter (1917).

 

The field equations provided by general relativity show us how much spacetime curvature is generated by a given distribution of mass-energy density. The EEP determines how matter in the gravitational fields responds to the spacetime metric. The processes involved in the deflection or bending of light generated by gravitational fields, the gravitational redshift and time dilation (the time delay of light) are all closely related, even though the exact mechanism that describes each of these effect is not identical; all are caused by the non-Euclidean, geometric, topological, curvature or deformation of the spacetime metric.

 

General relativity impels us to reconsider the linear expansion hypotheses and come to terms with the fact that the general geometrical properties of the spacetime manifold depend upon the energy and pressure along with the gravitating mass-density of the universe. This principle strikes a mortal blow to the quasi-Euclidean, neo-Newtonian, pseudo-special-relativistic system that has been suckled and weaned for the past seventy-five years. The dual nature of the expanding model conception remains unsatisfactory—it considers gravitational phenomenon as a local deviation of the spacetime metric, whereas, on the largest scales the associated gravitational influences are entirely done away with, or reduced to trivial insignificance.

 

The Hubble law considers space and time separately in determining the space-time coordinates in other coordinate systems, i.e., those of other galaxies—a clear violation of the principle of general relativity, which states that the world of events forms a four-dimensional continuum. Modern cosmology describes a Newtonian world of events as a dynamic inertial picture changing in time and hurled onto the background of three-dimensional space, rather than as a static picture on the background of a four-dimensional spacetime continuum, where Einstein’s gravitation plays the key role.

 

Coldcreation

[coldcreation]

Simply:

 

The universe is either stable against collapse, expansion or unstable.

 

Let's assume for a moment that it is stable.

 

It follows that redshift z is non-Doppler.

 

If indeed it is not due to a Doppler effect, then it has a different explanation.

 

A curved spacetime effect is the only other possibility.

 

It is well known that light (in the 19 octaves of the spectrum) is redshifted (or blueshifted) as it passes through curved spacetime (a gravitational field).

 

The degree of curvature (as seen in redshift z) depends on the mass-energy density of an extremely large portion of the universe (larger than the visible universe).

 

It is well known the idea that the universe is non-Euclidean (see general relativity).

 

Next: this interpretation of redshift z needs to be fully explored if our understanding of the universe (the forces and material contained within it) is to move forward.

 

Coldcreation

[Erasmus00]

Simply:

 

The universe is either stable against collapse, expansion or unstable.

 

Let's assume for a moment that it is stable.

 

It follows that redshift z is non-Doppler.

 

If indeed it is not due to a Doppler effect, then it has a different explanation.

 

A curved spacetime effect is the only other possibility.

 

But the spacetime that would best model the red shift effect is De-Sitter space. However, De-Sitter space models an expanding universe, and you have violated your first assumption. You could fix it with a non-zero lambda, but as far as I understand, you don't want a nonzero lambda in your theory.

-Will

[coldcreation]

But the spacetime that would best model the red shift effect is De-Sitter space. However, De-Sitter space models an expanding universe, and you have violated your first assumption. You could fix it with a non-zero lambda, but as far as I understand, you don't want a nonzero lambda in your theory.

-Will

 

The redshift shows us that light (emission throughout the entire spectrum) is being affected by the nonzero mass-energy density of the universe. The displacement of spectral lines towards the red is truly a large-scale gravitational phenomenon. The redshift is observational proof that space is not flat.

 

Contrary to the simple linear relationship with which the Doppler interpretation enables us to estimate distance and apparent velocity of recession, the complex world of hyperbolic curved space-times collides head-on with the archaic notions that have dominated modern cosmology for the past seventy-five years.

 

Both well-known de Sitter models (the empty one, and the one with matter) were non-expanding models. Expansion came later, as a result of the Priest Lemaître and his transmutation of the Friedmann equations.

 

We must further develop the law of gravitation (Einstein’s serves the purpose once lambda is defined) applicable to an environment that is, at first approximation, homogenous. The Hubble constant, with its peculiar dimensions of kilometers per second per megaparsec, must be replaced with the general relativistic concept of spatial coordinates and time coordinates whose deviation from linearity (based on the absolute zero value of the cosmological constant) is perceived as embedded in a stationary four-dimensional continuous manifold.

 

What that means Erasmus00 is that the interpretation of redshift z must change from the Doppler effect to redshift as a quantity or degree of curvature in a non-Euclidean continuum. And, lambda has to be defined as empty space, not vacuum energy.

 

If only Einstein could have witnessed the revivification (in 1998 when acceleration was 'discovered') of a significantly grotesque version of lambda: “If the cosmological term exists, then away with expansion.” He might have said. He is actually known for having said almost the exact opposite when Weyl and Eddington (1923) found that test particles recede from one another in the de Sitter world. In a letter to Weyl, Einstein wrote: ‘If there is no quasi-static world, then away with the cosmological term.’ Practically the only man in the world that could have in the early thirties wreaked serious havoc in the growing expansionist camp was Einstein himself; using the potentially significant cosmological constant as an innate pivotal feature of the observed cosmic stability, along with his general conception of curved spacetime as a replacement for the Doppler interpretation to explain the global redshift.

 

It should be restated that even in a completely empty world model, whether it be de Sitter’s or the Milne model, the global geometry of the universe is hyperbolic, as related by the standard Lorenz transformation (Longair, 1993, p. 384). Certainly when that hyperbolicity is included into the calculation of redshift (in addition to the curvature caused by the mass-density of the universe) the missing mass problem is diminished.

 

There is no apparent contradiction between a zero value for the cosmological constant and a stable nonexpanding hyperbolically curved universes where redshift is due to a de Sitter-like effect.

 

Coldcreation

[coldcreation]

Only since the late 1990s has it become evident observationally the degree to which 'curvature' of the spacetime manifold deviates from Euclidean linearity on the largest scales visible. (to be discussed further)

 

Coldcreation

[Little Bang]

Coldc, how could you possibly hope to explain this so called coldcreation without knowing how and what makes up matter? If you do know that, it would save the entire scientific community a great deal of work. Please enlighten the world.

[coldcreation]

Coldc, how could you possibly hope to explain this so called coldcreation without knowing how and what makes up matter? If you do know that, it would save the entire scientific community a great deal of work. Please enlighten the world.

 

Actually, LittleB, this thread is about redshift z and its interpretation as a spacetime curvature phenomenon, it is one that does not imply expansion, one that does not lead to a singular creation event some time (-13.7 Gyrs) in the past.

 

I take it from your handle that you would agree there was no singular creation event but a series of little bangs (if this is the case you seem to have keeped it to yourself, at least I've never been able to find your ideas posted anywhere: it seems all you have is a long series of questions, but that is ok. Even your Diracian thought experiment thread was a question. Please do not take this as a critique. Well, you can if you like).

 

The term little bang(s) has often been used in the literature to describe material creation in spurts, usually as ejecta from active galactic nuclei, or C-fields (vis the Quasi-Steady Staters, Arpians, Nernst, MacMillan, Millican, etc.).

 

Coldcreation, like any other theory, hypothesis or concept, is a work in progress. You're right, no one has ever explained the creation of matter. I will try to do so in the thread called Material Creation: see you there....

 

Keep cool in the mean time...

[infamous]

Actually, LittleB, this thread is about redshift z and its interpretation as a spacetime curvature phenomenon, it is one that does not imply expansion, one that does not lead to a singular creation event some time (-13.7 Gyrs) in the past.

 

Hey Coldc......haven't touched base with you for a while. I've been following a couple other threads that I believe can add value to your theory. A while back, a thread titled 'Gravity is the 4th dimension' was introduced to Hypography. I noticed that both your theory and his have a few things in common even though large parts also do not. The reason I'm bringing this up is I feel that the truth lies somewhere inbetween. Not to discredit your theory, I've suspected for some time now that the universe did not come about by what is commonly referred to as the Big Bang. On this I tend to agree with your point of view. I also think that the thread 'Gravity is the 4th dimension' has some interesting observations to make. As a result, I have been encouraged to believe that both theories can be combined into a hybrid version. I know this would necessitate your theory to also include some form of expansion but not necessarilly due to the Big Bang. This is just a thought Coldc. , I hope you don't take this as a personal attack, I have always considered your theory to have great value. My gut feeling is, that there is also some reason to believe that little bangs, as you call them, might be responsible for the observed expansion we see. I think That Rascal Puff makes a good observation when he points out that if space is expanding, then it is highly likely that matter is doing the same, matter is afterall, little more than nothing but space anyway. I'm curious, what you think about these possibilities?................Infy.