Redshift z

[lindagarrette]

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.

Hey little B. I'm on your page. There's nothing forthcoming. This thread is just a metaphysical discourse between CC and ST.

 

 

Just out of curiosity and this is the last time I'm even interested, I discovered the following resources for the theory of non-expansion. Don't recognize any names and none of the topics has anything to do with the points in this thread. Perhaps CC and ST could investigate these sources and present a falsifiable hypothesis.

 

 

1 P.J. E. Peebles , Principles of Physical Cosmology, Princeton University Press, Princeton NJ, 1993, p.92

2 V.K.Kapahi, The Angular Size-Redshift Relation as a cosmological tool, in Observational Cosmology, edited by

A. Hewitt et al, IAU, 1987, p.251-266

3 K.I. Kellerman, Nature, 361, 134 (1993)

4 Y. Dabrowski, A. Lasenby and R. Sanders, MNRAS, 277,753-757 (1995)

5 H.C. Ferguson et al, arXiv:astroph/0309058 (2003)

6 R.J. Bouwens et al, arXiv:astroph/0406562 (2004)

7 M. A. Pahre, S. G. Djorgovski, R. R. de Carvalho, arXiv:astro-ph/9511061(1995)

8 L.M. Lubin and A. Sandage, Astronomical Journal, 122, 1071-1083,(2001)

9 T. Andrews, this volume, (2005)

10 J. B. Jones and M. J. Disney, The Surface Brightnesses of Galaxies in the Hubble Deep Field in The Hubble Space

Telescope and the High Redshift Universe, 37th Herstmonceux Conference, Cambridge, eds. N. R. Tanvir, A.

Aragón-Salamanca and J. V. Wall, World Scientific, Singapore, pp. 151-152, 1997.

11 R.J. Bouwens, personal communication

12 http://orca.phys.uvic.ca/~gwyn/MMM/stacks/NICMOS.UDF.zed

13 http://cadcwww.hia.nrc.ca/udf/acs-wfc/h_udf_wfc_V1_z_cat.txt

14 J.D. Goldader et al arXiv:astroph/0112352 (2001)

15 H. Yan et al, arXiv:astroph/0507673 (2005)

16 E. J. Lerner, IEEE Trans. On Plasma Sci. 31, 1268-1275 (2003)

17 E.J. Lerner, IEEE Trans. On Plasma Sci., 17, 259-263. (1989)

18 E. J. Lerner, Astrophysics and Space Science,227, 61-81 (1995)

19 S.G. Ryan, et al, Astrophys. J., 520, L57-L60, (2000)

20 C.J. Copi, D. Huterer, and G.D. Starkman, arXiv:astro-ph/0310511 (2003)

21 P.J.E Peebles, Astrophys.J., 557, 495-504 (2001)

22 G.Goldhaber et al, ApJ, 558,359 (2001)

23 A. Brynjolfsson, arXiv:astro-ph/0406437 (2004)

24 M. Rowan-Robinson, arXiv:astro-ph/0201034 (2002)

[coldcreation]

Just out of curiosity ... I discovered the following resources for the theory of non-expansion. Don't recognize any names and none of the topics has anything to do with the points in this thread. Perhaps CC and ST could investigate these sources and present a falsifiable hypothesis.

 

1 P.J. E. Peebles , Principles of Physical Cosmology, Princeton University Press, Princeton NJ, 1993, p.92

 

You never heard of Peebles?

[coldcreation]

There remain today only two possible guidelines of consideration in cosmology. On the one side, the expansion ideal - to which are attached the imitators of Einstein, the disciples of de Sitter and Eddington, those pseudo-relativists now enraptured by their comfortable cage.

 

And on the other, the Coldcreation ideal embracing all those true-relativists who renounce the flatness of the universe, who see beyond the horizon with the assistance of logical extrapolation, and who entrust themselves to the 'natural' without recreating it.

 

The anticipation is that as much as necessary has been explained to build an awareness of the subsistence of two opposing extremes, which were noticeably perceived as such, and of the distance that separate them. Then too, the hope is that, by taking the case of Hubble, Eddington, de Sitter and Ellis (amongst others), the point has been delivered. Any scientist between these polarities unavoidably situated themselves and their theories in relation to the general theory of relativity by a pattern of approval or refusal of the approaches and practices that went with it.

 

The spectrum of positions to the association between cosmology and nature (outlined throughout this thread) is inescapably an oversimplification of an extremely diverse and explosive state of affairs. In retrospect, it is now obvious; the understanding of the universe in its totality was governed by a single relativistic tensor field equation.

 

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.

 

Coldcreation

[Southtown]

Hey little B. I'm on your page. There's nothing forthcoming. This thread is just a metaphysical discourse between CC and ST.

Feel free to contribute.

 

And you can add NASA to your list.

“

An overwhelming abundance of evidence long ago convinced virtually all astronomers that quasars are indeed at the vast distances indicated by their redshifts”

—

The Hubble Heritage Project

I absolutely love statements like that. =P [see other pictures here.]

[Erasmus00]

And on the other, the Coldcreation ideal embracing all those true-relativists who renounce the flatness of the universe...

 

And what metric do these theorists posit? What metric does this cold creation suggest?

-Will

[coldcreation]

And what metric do these theorists posit? What metric does this cold creation suggest?

-Will

 

We need a theory that accurately describes the evolutionary dynamics of the universe in order to determine whether redshift is a measure of the global curvature, or whether it is simply a measure of the scale factor at any given time. Before attempting to answer your question Erasmus00, let us first examine more closely the physical aspects of curvature itself.

 

Riemannian spaces are distinguished by a 'positive' definite quadratic differential form that describes the square of the distance between two adjacent points: each of these little neighborhoods has the metric of Euclidean space, however, these segments may be 'sutured' together in an infinite variety of ways.

 

In passing from hill to hill, from galaxy to galaxy, we draw a picture of the geometrical structure of the visible universe (as seen from our relative rest-frame), in the same way that the hills and valleys on the surface of the Earth reveal the continuous curvature of a the global sphere. The difference being that the curvature of the universe is not spherical in the way described by Riemannian geometry or Einstein's globally finite spherical space.

 

As we have previously remarked this attitude is in contradiction with observation and creates the irreconcilable paradox where spacetime bends back on itself, and introduces the grave difficulty of boundary conditions that are equally indefensible (both for expanding and nonexpanding frames). Only the facts unswervingly accessible by observation and experience can shield us from such contradiction in terms.

 

The most recent data shows with little doubt that the universe has a hyperbolic metric (see the SNe Type Ia data, both the light curves and deviation in linearity of redshift z). If this last statement is unclear I will clarify.

 

CC

[EWright]

CC, I'm finally taking time to read through this post, which I've avoided because of its length and my sense that you rambled and beat around the bush a lot when it comes to your theory. However, I am gaining a bit more respect for some of your ideas as I sift through this thread. I do believe you have some good points. Because I have a theory of my own, I find myself feeling that you are likely correct about some arguments (because I can see my own theory fitting these same arguments), but that you seem to be a bit off base on others. I may also be able to explain the redshift and other problems you discuss, without using either of the two reasons you mention in the initial post. I'm only about half way through this thread, but wanted to take a break and drop you my two cents. I do feel you're making a good argument, despite the resistance you are encountering so far.

[infamous]

However, I am gaining a bit more respect for some of your ideas as I sift through this thread. I do believe you have some good points.

By no means am I an expert on this subject, however; I have come to respect the simple fact that amidst the various theories floating around today, there lies within each a semblance of the truth. The reason we continue the search is proof, that as yet, we are still unsure of all the details. Somewhere within the mix of all these theories lies the truth, each having a part in sheading light upon what we still view to be a little out of focus.

[Erasmus00]

Before attempting to answer your question Erasmus00, let us first examine more closely the physical aspects of curvature itself.

 

Thats all well and good. You have given lots of qualitative arguments, however physics is about quantitative prediction. To that end, I'm still waiting for a metric.

-Will

[coldcreation]

CC, I'm finally taking time to read through this post,..[snip] I do feel you're making a good argument, despite the resistance you are encountering so far.

 

What is your interpretation for cosmological redshift z that shows wavelength independence over 19 octaves of the spectrum.

 

If you have one, I would be very interested in learning what it is, as I presume most others would too.

 

CC

[EWright]

What is your interpretation for cosmological redshift z that shows wavelength independence over 19 octaves of the spectrum.

 

If you have one, I would be very interested in learning what it is, as I presume most others would too.

 

CC

 

I do have one. It may fill the requirements listed below:

 

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[/Quote]

 

Although I am quite sure that Einstein did not realize it, I am surprised no one has. I may also be very wrong.

 

I also have a possible suggestion for this:

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.[/Quote]

 

 

And don't you have this backwards?:

 

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).[/Quote]

[InfiniteNow]

I'm just going to jump in here myself, EWright.

 

You said, "I do have one. It may fill the requirements listed below.."

And, "I also have a possible suggestion for this.."

 

...but never stated what it was. Can you elaborate? Please also, respond primarily to CC and Will, as I care mostly to watch in this arena.

 

 

Regards,

[EWright]

I am in the process of rewriting my theory and plan to introduce it here at hypography soon. I'm not a scholar in this area, so I won't likely see any possibilities as far as 'scholarly journals' are concerned. It will be presented in a very straight forward way, with no use of formulas and the like. It is my hope that those with a larger understanding in that area will, if they see fit, attempt to apply the forumlas to prove or disprove it. I am open to either outcome.

 

I believe the theory can account for the redshift discussed here, but without the requirements proposed by CC; it will offer a solution to the problem of dark matter (as it relates to galaxy spin vs. mass... if there are other dark matter problems, let me know); it can account for dark energy; the continued creation of 'empty space'; the CMB; the reason for light speed; it may also account for flatness problems and age problems (elements and mature stars/galaxies too early in the history of the universe; and from what I understand it could apply to Big Bang theory, Brane theory or string theory.

 

I do NOT assume to be able to bridge any sort of gap between relativy and quantum mechanics. I certainly could not take my idea from one to the other and do not have a full understanding of either (which is probably a severe understatement). However, in almost all cosmological situations argued here, I seem to be able to apply my theory in some way. Much of it feels very akin to relativity to me; while perhaps one concept may be a bit of a stretch, but I feel it is worth mentioning and considering.

 

One thing that I would urge very strongly here, is for people to look moreso for reasons to support ideas like Cold Creation's, rather than to immediately try to falsify it. He admits that it is a work in progress, so why not look for ways to help it progress. Certainly point out obvious shortcomings and falsifications along the way, but perhaps look to an answer for these shortcomings, rather than thumbing one's nose at it all together. CC, you could be a little more open minded about some aspect regarding your theory as well. There as some good points, but some blatent disregard for other very strong concepts in cosmology just because they don't fit your idea. You seem a bit too close minded to me, which then begins to border on the religous aspect you accuse other of. There also seem to be some possible contradictions, which Will is asking for clarification on, but I don't have the sense that you have sufficiently clarified for us.

[InfiniteNow]

There as some good points, but some blatent disregard for other very strong concepts in cosmology just because they don't fit your idea. You seem a bit too close minded to me, which then begins to border on the religous aspect you accuse other of. There also seem to be some possible contradictions, which Will is asking for clarification on, but I don't have the sense that you have sufficiently clarified for us.

Was this directed at me? If so, we have a bit of a misunderstanding. I am considerably open minded (at least, I think I am :Waldo:). I just heard you stating things without following-up, so wanted to learn more, but you clarified that it is still in the works. That's all. I'm good with that.

 

I do think, however, that the crux of science is much more disproving faulty theories than proving others. There is no proof except in mathematics. Theories come and go. They are the closest fit to reality that we have at a given time, and they stay only until a better (more refined) theory comes along to replace it... IMO.

[EWright]

Was this directed at me? If so, we have a bit of a misunderstanding. I am considerably open minded (at least, I think I am :Waldo:). I just heard you stating things without following-up, so wanted to learn more, but you clarified that it is still in the works. That's all. I'm good with that.

 

I do think, however, that the crux of science is much more disproving faulty theories than proving others. There is no proof except in mathematics. Theories come and go. They are the closest fit to reality that we have at a given time, and they stay only until a better (more refined) theory comes along to replace it... IMO.

 

No, this was not directed specifically at you or anyone. While I do agree that disproving false theories is obviously very important, I often get the sense as though people are *close minded* to new ideas. That is, they are so often ready to rip them apart and criticize them, rather than helping to examine the weaknesses in it and explore avenues to a better concept with the necessary improvements. I feel this should be even more important in a setting such as this forum. This is not a peer review process of someone's work that is being submitted to a scientific journal, and who, as such, should have a thorough grasp on what he is submitting. Granted, CC can be a bit brash at times, which perhaps invites more criticism, but I've seen it in other's ideas as well here.

[infamous]

While I do agree that disproving false theories is obviously very important, I often get the sense as though people are *close minded* to new ideas. That is, they are so often ready to rip them apart and criticize them, rather than helping to examine the weaknesses in it and explore avenues to a better concept with the necessary improvements.

I agree completely Mr EWright, so oft people reject offhand anothers ideas out of fear that their interpretation will suffer, it's called; "defending one's ego". Somewhere in the mix, the truth is hidden. The only poor opinions are no opinions at all................Infy

[coldcreation]

The global redshift problem has been discussed extensively throughout these pages. As we have seen, the interpretation of redshift z is the central issue to the understanding of extragalactic astronomy and cosmology in general. This is because it concerns the definitive origin, the structure and the future development of the cosmos.

 

The motivation, and in fact, the entire premise that had led to the development of Coldcreation theory stems from one idea: cosmological redshifts displayed by distant celestial objects are not caused by the expansion of the universe.

 

The Doppler effect (a disorder characterized by the sudden onset of discordant redshifts) only partakes in blueshift or redshift when an object is moving toward or away from our reference point (respectively).

 

The further deep-lying phenomenon that unquestionably contributes to the redshift is due to the strong intrinsic gravitational fields of massive bodies. Although the gravitational redshift generally involves relatively dense compact objects like quasars, systems such as the Virgo cluster and the Fornax cluster exhibit significant alterations in redshift that cannot be dismissed with buoyancy.

 

There are certainly cases where the redshift distortions suffered by systems constituents are potentially very large. Certain places in the universe, known as clusters of galaxies, contain such a large concentration of matter that the galaxies located deep inside the gravitational well of these associations are extremely redshifted.

 

However, the fact that objects appear globally more redshifted the further they are from our observational platform (interpreted as galactic recession, or change in scale factor) and the new unexpected discovery of the dimness of early (high-z) SNe Ia giving the impression they are further away than their redshifts indicate (today interpreted as an accelerating cosmos) incites a new broad-spectrum approach in the investigation and interpretation of redshift z.

 

My contention is that the spectral line shifts should be attributed and treated as a Doppler effect only after the other possibility is excluded on observational grounds.

 

Coldcreation is founded on the concept that the large-scale geometrical armature of the four-dimensional spacetime continuum is non-Euclidean. The cause of redshift z over the entire range of wavelengths (or frequencies) of the electromagnetic spectrum is interpreted as a global cosmological effect on the propagation of light through the general relativistic curved spacetime manifold.

 

The metric structure of the cosmos, as viewed from any restframe, is non-Euclidean, hyperbolic, as suggested by Lobachevsky early on and later by de Sitter, Weyl, Ellis GFR and others. The exact metric solution, mathematically, is a work-in-progress.

 

Coldcreation