Redshift z

[Erasmus00]

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.

 

Now that simply isn't true. In either model, move along the time dimension and take 3D "slices" at a given instant in time. You'll notice that the 3D slices get progressively larger as you move up the time axis. This is the very deffinition of an expanding universe.

-Will

[Little Bang]

Right now it appears that the expansion of the universe is accelerating. How does that fit with your veiws cc?

[coldcreation]

Right now it appears that the expansion of the universe is accelerating. How does that fit with your veiws cc?

 

First, the deviation from a linear redshift-apparent magnitude, as seen in the spectra of high-z SN Ia, is expected in a continuous curved spacetime. It was not expected (never predicted) by the standard model or any of its derivatives. To explain the contradictory observations a force had to be invented. It was not Einstein's cosmological term. It was a dark force. One that outweighed gravity on the large scales yet remains for all time undetectable. This ad hoc force thought to accelerate the cosmos is not needed in a nonexpanding general relativistic universe. The universe is not accelerating.

 

The early de Sitter models were nonexpanding models based on GR in a curved spacetime manifold. They had latter been interpreted as expanding models, I should add erroneously.

 

With regard to certain ideas of expansion, i.e., that matter too is expanding along with the universe (Poof, McC. etc.): I should say not. There is another way to explain gravity without introducing another mechanism, one that cause expansion. See another thread called The Cosmological Constant: A New Law, by Coldcreation. The mechanism behind the gravitational interaction is indeed layed out. It is a much more simple and symmetric explanation of gravity, and it too agrees with observations, both locally and globaly without introducing an ad hoc force, expansion, dark energy etc.

 

If there are any further questions about gravity, I will bring back the thread about lambda.

 

Redshift z, lambda, gravity, the CMB, and matterial creation are all related directly, and so should be discussed in one thread, but because of the complex interrelations between them it was deemed better to seperate them into threads of their own.

[questor]

how can something spread to infinity ? it goes against the definition.

[coldcreation]

how can something spread to infinity ? it goes against the definition.

 

Not sure what you mean by 'spread.'

 

As far as a universe that is infinite in spatiotemporal extent there is no problem, by definition. The problem arises when the universe is not infinite. Because, then, a boundary condition (e.g., a singularity at the horizon) needs to be introduced.

 

Hawking was a master at avoiding this problem, with his famous 'there is no north of the North Pole.' He needed a spherical universe for that to work though. Observations show the universe is not spherical but hyperbolic. See high-z Supernovae Type Ia results of the late 1990s. The data suggests (besides the erroneuos interpretation of accelerated expansion) an infinite, unbounded, open universe. Ta ta Dios.

 

cc

[Southtown]

What about the blantant structure of varying redshifts within galaxies and among companions? Arp's peculiars? How does CC explain those observations?

[coldcreation]

What about the blantant structure of varying redshifts within galaxies and among companions? Arp's peculiars? How does CC explain those observations?

 

Yes, Yes, the discordant redshifts. They are really not so blatent, as you write. But they nevertheless constitute a conundrum for most theories. That why cosmologists can't stand Arp. He is one of the most hard working observational cosmologists alive today.

 

The basic value of Arp's research is exemplified by the likelyhood that redshift is non-Doppler. i.e., the universe is nonexpanding. Why? Objects with luminous bridges connecting them that show greatly different redshift should be at large distances from one another.

 

Quickly (I'm in Madrid on someone elses computer) there is no problem fitting Arp's discoveries into the CC theory. Recall, the CC universe is not expanding. So far so good. What about discordant redshifts in a globally curved hyperbolic spacetime continuum? In addition to the general relativistic redshift z there are superimposed intrinsic redshifts, both gravitational (zgrav) and Doppler, when objects move toward the observer (or blueshifts when away from our point of view).

 

If, in the case of high-z quasars, the objets is extremely dense and moving towards us, the three redshift effects are operational at the same time. The result is a high-redshift object that appears closer than expected if redshift were striclty cosmological in nature. Likewise, an object could appear neither redshifted nor blueshifted and still be a great distances if the object were moving towards us, as the blushift would cancel the global (cosmological) redshift z.

 

It is true too that if global redshift is a Doppler effect in an expanding universe the same explanation can be used (motion towards or away and zgrav) to justify discordant redshifts without doing away with expansion. This is what should be argued rather than chance alignments.

 

There is another important aspect of Arp's work that does not fit in at all with the expansion hypothesis, and that does work extremely well with Coldcreation theory. The patterns of objects (e.g., galaxies, quasars) are often often aligned along straight lines as well as other patterns. Arp's interpretation is that the parent galaxies ejected material (young mater, high-z) out from the nuclei along an axis.

 

I do not think so. I will elaborate further on this, as it is fundamental to the CC theory. It has to do with the geometric structure found by Lagrange. This argument explains associaed objects like Einstein's Cross, barred galaxies, barred spirals and most if not all of Arps structures: the idea is that there is initially a mass M1 and a mass M2. Material rotates around the halo L1 orbit and mass ends up at L4 and L5, which are stable areas. There is no other more simple explanation.

 

The standard model has no explanation for these patterns. First, because the object are not supposed to be near each other. Second, because the universe is thought to be highly unstable, expanding. There can be no organized patterns like Arp's because galaxies when to close to on another gobble each other up, canabalism, they collide gravitationally. According to the standard model, unless there is orbital motion, centrifugal force that exactly cancels gravity, object with collide.

 

Again I can (and will) expand on this subject if need be.

 

cc

[Little Bang]

May I ask a real stupid, what data are you using to make the statement that the universe is not expanding. For the life of me I don't why I am wasting my time on you.

[coldcreation]

May I ask a what data you are using to make the statement that the universe is not expanding. snip.

 

Sure. But first, it should be said that the there is no proof that the universe is expanding. We do not see galaxies moving away from us on cosmological scale, we do not see galaxies disappearing off the horizon, we cannot make space expand in earth-based experiments and so on.

 

Indeed littlebang, the Doppler effect has been attributed to the redshift, but it is just an interpretation of the data. There is one other interpretation that is not in disagreament with the data, and it is just as viable (more so actually). That is the subject of this thread. It may be wrong, but it may be right. Only recently has it been possible to differenciate between the two competing interpretations. There is increasing discrepancy between the Doppler interpretation and observation: discordant redshifts (see Arp), no deceleration parameter (turns out the universe must be accelerating), and quasars, which have never fit the Hubble expansion lineage.

 

What data do I use? All the data available. And not just the redshift data. Too, data on apparent magnitude, rotational curves, color, etc.

 

For more info read this thread. Everything written above is already in the thread.

[Southtown]

From what I can tell there's a lot in common with your ideas and his. You both lean towards a non-expanding universe, and a constant formation of matter. You don't agree on gravity or redshift. You say space is curved by gravity, while he thinks space is flat and full of 'gravitons'.

 

Hence, the redshift would be gravitational in curved space, but not in flat space. Arp then has to find a mechanism, and that would be that matter grows with the accumulation of information (e.g., photons, gravitons, etc.) over time, thereby altering the energy carried by the light given off.

 

That would explain the "finger of God" z-pattern found in galaxies and companions. Also, Arp's theory explains galaxy formation much more solidly than any accretion models. I'm not sure which I agree with, it would depend on the true nature of gravity. I'm not totally comfortable with either gravity theory.

[questor]

if the universe is expanding, what is it expanding into? and as it expands, either matter must expand with it or voids would be created between the

''strings'' or dark matter or whatever is there. in addition, when we talk of curved spacetime, does that not imply a finite, static universe? from what point could this curvature be evident?

[coldcreation]

From what I can tell there's a lot in common with your ideas and his. You both lean towards a non-expanding universe, and a constant formation of matter. You don't agree on gravity or redshift. You say space is curved by gravity, while he thinks space is flat and full of 'gravitons'.

 

Hence, the redshift would be gravitational in curved space, but not in flat space. Arp then has to find a mechanism, and that would be that matter grows with the accumulation of information (e.g., photons, gravitons, etc.) over time, thereby altering the energy carried by the light given off.

 

That would explain the "finger of God" z-pattern found in galaxies and companions. Also, Arp's theory explains galaxy formation much more solidly than any accretion models. I'm not sure which I agree with, it would depend on the true nature of gravity. I'm not totally comfortable with either gravity theory.

 

How can you be totally comfortable with either gravity theory when gravitons have never been observed, but spacetime curvature is always observed. The graviton idea has not been confirmed experimentally as has Einstein's GR. Certainly a photon acts as a wave or particle or both or neither, but a graviton? Have anyone evr put one through a box with a slit? Not.

 

Funny thing though, that Arp hates spacetime curvature (does not believe in it at all). In several private communications between him and I from 1998 on, that became quite clear. His youbg matter-high-redshift is interesting because it cannot be easily refuted. Even though, few think it opperational.

 

Yes, yes, thrice yes, we both are proponents of a nonexpanding dynamic universe that evolves with time (evolve here does not mean the radius of the universe is changing in time), it means that matter evolves.

 

The question of continuous creation of matter, trickles, short spurts (little bangs) or a phase transitions over large time-scales is a difficult on to answer. I've pondered the possibilities quite a bit. Material creation is reserved for the thread Material Creation.

 

As far as redshift z, it seems that if Arp's is the right interpretaion then it should be testable experimentally. Take two atoms of the same element, one of which has aged (e.g., carbon date it to make sure) and compare its spectra with its counter part that has not aged. (just a thought, don't know if it works that way yet, gotta think about it more).

 

Arp, along with Hoyle (R.I.P), Burbidge and others are (were) essential elements in the business of cosmology. No matter what their theories, the observational data compiled over the years and the novel interpretations there of, have been irreducible: especially with regard to redshift z, the CMB, and light element creation.

 

cc

[Southtown]

How can you be totally comfortable with either gravity theory when gravitons have never been observed, but spacetime curvature is always observed. The graviton idea has not been confirmed experimentally as has Einstein's GR. Certainly a photon acts as a wave or particle or both or neither, but a graviton? Have anyone evr put one through a box with a slit? Not.

Very good point. Non-observation will never overtake observation. But I'm wondering (out of ignorance) if Einstein got the effects of gravity formulated without actually getting the correct method of gravity. I just can't help but wonder why the sol would be the same for all inertial observers. It doesn't just make the universe non-Euclidean, but positionally non-specific.

 

There has to be more to it than just curvature of space-time. The way time is added as a dimension just seems like another attribute. One could just as easily add temperature as a dimension. It's nothing but a system to describe a particular locale, with as many variable as you wish.

 

All one would need to invent formulations would be a relationship between temperature and positional/temporal objects, and wala, bent temperature. Formulation independant of the cause, insert adhoc cause here.

[coldcreation]

Very good point. Non-observation will never overtake observation. But I'm wondering (out of ignorance) if Einstein got the effects of gravity formulated without actually getting the correct method of gravity. I just can't help but wonder why the sol would be the same for all inertial observers. It doesn't just make the universe non-Euclidean, but positionally non-specific.

 

It is true that Einstein had not found what he had been searching for the last 30 years of his life. It was not just the unification of gravity with quantum mechanics. It was a search for something coherent and inherent in nature that tied all phenomena together into a unified theory. Still today there is no published theory that unite the large, the small, the weak, the strong etc.

 

It is true too that the mechanism for the gravitational interaction is missing from the literature. It is my opinion that once the mechanism is found the solutions for the rest will follows. In another way, the missing link from our theoretical framework that tries to describe all of physical reality is directly and indirectly the same mechanism.

 

I think part of the reason it has not surfaced is because of its simplicity. It must be ubiquitous, everywhere present, right under our very noses. It is so obvious that we continually mistake it for something else: a force within itself, dark, kooky, and fundamentaly obscure.

 

My gut feeling is that Einstein had indeed discovered the 'source' of gravity, the missing link, he had in fact exposed it to the world, then discarded it when he was told the universe was expanding. Einstein would never use it again convincingly in his formulations. And because of its premature disposal it had never been fully defined, elucidated or explored. It was because of Einstein's rejection of the 'term' that he was unable to finalize the field theory he had so desperately sought.

 

cc

[coldcreation]

It is true that Einstein had not found what he had been searching for the last 30 years of his life. It was not just the unification of gravity with quantum mechanics. It was a search for something coherent and inherent in nature that tied all phenomena together into a unified theory. Still today there is no published theory that unite the large, the small, the weak, the strong etc.

 

It is true too that the mechanism for the gravitational interaction is missing from the literature. It is my opinion that once the mechanism is found the solutions for the rest will follows. In another way, the missing link from our theoretical framework that tries to describe all of physical reality is directly and indirectly the same mechanism.

 

I think part of the reason it has not surfaced is because of its simplicity. It must be ubiquitous, everywhere present, right under our very noses. It is so obvious that we continually mistake it for something else: a force within itself, dark, kooky, and fundamentaly obscure.

 

My gut feeling is that Einstein had indeed discovered the 'source' of gravity, the missing link, he had in fact exposed it to the world, then discarded it when he was told the universe was expanding. Einstein would never use it again convincingly in his formulations. And because of its premature disposal it had never been fully defined, elucidated or explored. It was because of Einstein's rejection of the 'term' that he was unable to finalize the field theory he had so desperately sought.

 

cc

 

Nothing valid is created without nature.

 

Coldcreation

 

Don't fight the chill.

[questor]

CC, your quote:

''Nothing valid is created without nature.'

a very simple question... what is your definition of ''nature''? is it a force, or a combination of known forces, or all activities allowed by known physical laws?

may i have a nice definition?

[coldcreation]

CC, your quote:

 

''Nothing valid is created without nature.'

 

a very simple question... what is your definition of ''nature''? is it a force, or a combination of known forces, or all activities allowed by known physical laws?

may i have a nice definition?

 

Sure, just some quick thoughts beforehand:

 

In recent times, to the extent that they have developed in Western culture, theories dealing with the origin of the universe have taken a turn toward abstraction. Fundamental to the assumption behind this outlook are the key notions of nature and its complementary notion of beauty. In the fully formed theory the individual scientist’s aesthetic priorities or preferences, according to which nature is transformed and re-created, seem to be guided by new scientific, philosophical and religious beliefs that impinge upon the beliefs of all, and, of course, are usually in contradiction to what is newly discovered in the environment. Simply put, the history of the universe in which we live may be entirely different than what is projected by cosmologists. As a result, evolution is not well understood.

 

First, there is an innovative aspiration (frequently conventional) to relate cosmology to nature, through the self-expressive subjective medium of the theorist. Second, and in conflict with it, there is a residual side effect (usually radical) that separates science from nature in a very clear and unacceptable fashion, with the physicist or cosmologist, like the artist or guru, as a new god, imaginative and entirely independent. Third, and in conflict with both the former, there is a tendency (always far-reaching) to fasten science and nature back together again in as unified a configuration as possible, always with what is called ‘new physics.’

 

The in-depth development of Coldcreation (CC) is an attempt to conjugate all natural observed phenomenon in a consistent unified framework whereby known physics and the laws of nature are held accountable for every interaction, force (counter-force), trend, event, occurrence or happening; and all various processes that involve relations between temperature, pressure, changes in energy, and entropy related irreversibility. We treat the universe as an open system and describe its time-oriented changes of state as a result of both spontaneous dynamics of the system and as a result of interactions between its subsystems.

 

CC deals with what I have come to believe is a logical discourse of nature (broadly defined) that is far more wide-ranging and longer lasting than the models actually covered. The large concern here entails a major emphasis and contribution to the understanding and interpretation of the physical laws, how these relate and determine the evolutionary course of the universe. What should emerge is the comprehensive role of Einstein’s general theory of relativity, quantum mechanics QM (applicable to atoms, molecules and their constituents—electrons and so forth) and the laws of thermodynamics (within the realm of low-temperature physics), in the determination of the history and future developments of the universe—the most intriguing and challenging problem that remains a subject of vigorous research at the forefront of science.

 

It is central to examine the relation of artifice and nature in more detail.

 

na·ture n:

 

1. the physical world including all natural phenomena and living things

2. na·ture or Na·ture the forces and processes collectively that control the phenomena of the physical world independently of human volition or intervention' date=' sometimes personified as a woman called “Mother Nature”

...

9. the natural and original condition of humankind, as distinguished from a state of grace

10. the patterns of behavior or the moral standards that are considered to be universally found and recognized among human beings

11. the inherited genetic material that partly determines the behavior, character, and structure of an organism, as opposed to what is learned from experience or the environment

 

From Encarta® World English Dictionary © 1999 Microsoft Corporation. All rights reserved. Developed for Microsoft by Bloomsbury Publishing Plc.[/quote']

 

 

I would go even a little beyond the textbook definition to include that which is man-made, artificial (as we are a part of nature, so too are our creations).

 

The departure from nature that led to the big bang theory are dated from the 1920s and are signed Friedmann and Lemaître. And so yes, it was natural the invention of the big bang.

 

Coldcreation