Solar System of Universes

[tarajee]

How the universe will end.

There are so many stories about the fate of the system relating to the function of the universe including the galaxies. No specific information on the subject. No one is certain about their theories. The scientists fear a collision between the planetary systems. May be the sun exhausts its energy and so the entire surrounding planets will go dead. Identically there is nothing to believe. All is based on assumptions and raw opinions. No one can say with firm words, what the temporary inhabitants of this global village will have to see at the moment of the destruction of the entire universe. Yes! The entire universe is going to meet the end. No million or trillion years. It will take not more than 500 years and there will be no galaxies no stars, nothing to observe. There will be no observatories to peep into the depth of the starry skies to enjoy the hide and seek glamour of the sky objects. All the material hard like diamonds will turn into dust. Yes the mountains will turn into as gales of snow. First of all an echo will be heard all over the world. No one will pay an attention to the sound which will go harsh in a short time. A tremor will be felt soon after it, resulting in a major disaster all over the universe. The sky will go red due to the fire which will burst out all over here and there in the universe. The oceans will evaporate and all kind of life on the earth or on the planets [if there is] will completely be finished. All kind of material will lose its compaction power and will turn into dust. Nothing will left here except dust and darkness. Tarajee.

[ldsoftwaresteve]

tarajee:

All kind of material will lose its compaction power and will turn into dust. Nothing will left here except dust and darkness.

The universe will do whatever it will do with or without our involvement. The only thing we can effect is the length of time we have to attempt to understand it and the joy we can experience as we try.

In my humble opinion, we are a very long way away from understanding how the universe will end, if it ever will. If we cannot understand how it started, I hardly think we know how it will end.

I know enough to doubt my understanding.

[ryan2006]

It sounds as if you are refering to the book of mattew. The sun will turn to darkness, the moon will not shine and the stars will fall from the sky and on a great cloud Jesus will swoop to earth on the sound of trumpets to divinely intervene in human affairs. Now I don't know about you but I am having a hard time believing in the supernatural currently speaking in that the more I understand about the nature of things the harder it is to have faith that a great supernatural being is even concerned about a little planet called earth and he is going to judge us anyway. It is a humanism approach which calls for progress of the planet and advancement of human civilization while religion is just waiting for the final judgement. Right and wrong good and evil get miscontrued as each state is soveriergn and has the right to establish its own laws which govern that state it is only until someone gets a wild hair and decides to take a state matter to the federal circuit. But I think science and cosmology are both scientific, religious, and in many way a mystery and as humans we are naturally prone to question our exsistence through finding laws of nature and the supernatural is a question of faith.

[Harry Costas]

Hello all

 

How the universe will end.

 

 

There is no ending to the never ending story.

 

The universe is ageless and endless its infinte in every way.

 

Its home to all the parts within. These parts will go by the never ending cycle of forming and reforming of stars and galaxies.

 

Our solar system will eventually die a few billion years from now.

 

http://antwrp.gsfc.nasa.gov/apod/ap010405.html

 

Where did the gold in your jewelry originate? No one is completely sure. The relative average abundance in our Solar System appears higher than can be made in the early universe, in stars, and even in typical supernova explosions. Some astronomers now suggest that neutron-rich heavy elements such as gold might be most easily made in rare neutron-rich explosions such as the collision of neutron stars

 

 

It talks about the early universe. Makes an assumtion that the Big Bang theory is true.

The universe is ageless and recyclic in my opinion.

 

 

Neutron star

http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/neutron_stars_031203.html

 

Star birth

 

http://archive.ncsa.uiuc.edu/Cyberia/Bima/StarForm.html

http://www.stsci.edu/stsci/meetings/shst2/ballyj.html

http://cfa-www.harvard.edu/swas/science1.html

http://antwrp.gsfc.nasa.gov/cgi-bin/apod/apod_search?Star+Formation

http://www.plasmaphysics.org.uk/research/starformation.htm

http://www-astronomy.mps.ohio-state.edu/~pogge/Ast162/Unit2/himass.html

 

Star death

 

http://archive.ncsa.uiuc.edu/Cyberia/Bima/StarDeath.html

http://www-astronomy.mps.ohio-state.edu/~pogge/Ast162/Unit3/supernova.html

[Jay-qu]

Its home to all the parts within. These parts will go by the never ending cycle of forming and reforming of stars and galaxies.

 

Have you heard of entropy before? given enough time the universe will come to thermal equlibrium and max entropy will be reached, no going back!

[hallenrm]

There is no ending to the never ending story.

 

The universe is ageless and endless its infinte in every way.

 

Its home to all the parts within. These parts will go by the never ending cycle of forming and reforming of stars and galaxies.

 

 

I agree, tha's in line with my signature.

 

Isn't it Harry Costas:) :shrug:

[Harry Costas]

Hello All

 

Yes I have heard of entropy

 

"Have you heard of entropy before? given enough time the universe will come to thermal equlibrium and max entropy will be reached, no going back!"

 

 

In the last forty years I have heard many things.

 

Entropy is wrong in the case of an infinite universe an ultra dense plasma matter. We need to see the actual happenings to the total universe and not to the indivitual parts that go through a recycle process.

 

Who said there is no going back.

 

Info on entropy for those who want info.

 

http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/therm/entrop.html#e1

http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/thermo/seclaw.html#c4

http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/thermo/temper2.html#c2

http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/therm/entrop2.html#c1

http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/therm/entrop.html#e3

http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/thermo/therid.html#c1

[Eclogite]

Entropy is wrong in the case of an infinite universe an ultra dense plasma matter.

Please provide some citations for this intriguing idea.

 

Before you do that, however, would you clarify what you are saying. I am assuming the highlighted an is meant to be an and. So, what do you mean by "it is wrong"? do you mean there is no entropy in an infinite Universe...etc? Do you mean that entropy is reversible?

 

I am guessing, from the midst of your superficial statment, you mean that the Universe will recycle by collapsing back to a singularity - the ultra dense plasma matter - then initiate a further Big Bang, in the process rewinding the entropy 'clock'. If this is what you mean, how do you account for the current view that the Universe will continue to expand for ever?

[Harry Costas]

Hello Eclogite

 

as for an and and,,,,,,,,,,,,,,i think you can work that one for yourself.

 

you asked for "Please provide some citations for this intriguing idea."

 

Entropy does not apply to the universe it may apply to its parts. As part of a recycling process.

 

 

The universe will never collapse to a singularity its parts will go through a cycle and part of this cycle is the singularity. All the parts will never ever collapse to a single point in sapce.

 

As for the Big Bang theory its only a theory which does not stack up.

 

Its amazing that so many people are talking about the Big Bang Theory and actually think that it happened. Its only a thoery.

 

In the last few years or should I say decades the Big Bang has been put on the back burner as a theory that once was. Still the amount of people that talk about it is over 60 % which says to us there must be something to it or we have been lead up the garden path for a long time and we have developed habits of thinking along the lines of the Big Bang and as you know habits are hard to stop and change.

 

 

 

read these links

http://www.fixall.org/bigbang/bigblackbang.htm

 

quote

Cosmology is the scientific study of the beginnings of our Universe. Theories have been devoloped by cosmologists to explain how the Universe came about. One theory, the Big Bang theory, while acknowledged by the theorists to be just a theory, has come to be accepted by most mainstream scientists and subsequently by most of the public. However, a careful reading of the originators of these theories reveals that they, the authors, consider the theory to be an assumption. A serious error of great import occurs, however, when secondary observers assume the assumption is fact. For when the theory eventually filters down to the public, the theory is taken as the truth.

 

 

http://www.bigbangneverhappened.org/

one example from the many

 

quote

" Light Element Abundances predict contradictory densities

The Big bang theory predicts the density of ordinary matter in the universe from the abundance of a few light elements. Yet the density predictions made on the basis of the abundance of deuterium, lithium-7 and helium-4 are in contradiction with each other, and these predictions have grown worse with each new observation. The chance that the theory is right is now less than one in one hundred trillion"

 

http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/bang.html

 

quote

Religious circles embraced the idea of an expanding universe because for the universe to be expanding, then at some point in the past it had to originate from a single point, called the Big Bang". The "Big Bang" coincided nicely with religious doctrine and just as had been the case with epicycles (and despite the embarrassment thereof) religious institutions sought to encourage this new model of the universe over all others, including the then prevalent "steady state" theory."

 

http://www.rense.com/general53/bbng.htm

quote

"Cosmology Statement.org (Published in New Scientist, May 22-28 issue, 2004, p. 20)

 

The big bang today relies on a growing number of hypothetical entities, things that we have never observed-- inflation, dark matter and dark energy are the most prominent examples. Without them, there would be a fatal contradiction between the observations made by astronomers and the predictions of the big bang theory.

 

In no other field of physics would this continual recourse to new hypothetical objects be accepted as a way of bridging the gap between theory and observation. It would, at the least, RAISE SERIOUS QUESTIONS ABOUT THE VALIDITY OF THE UNDERLYING THEORY.

 

But the big bang theory can't survive without these fudge factors. Without the hypothetical inflation field, the big bang does not predict the smooth, isotropic cosmic background radiation that is observed, because there would be no way for parts of the universe that are now more than a few degrees away in the sky to come to the same temperature and thus emit the same amount of microwave radiation. "

 

But there is more as the man would say.

[pgrmdave]

Harry, if you don't believe that the universe is expanding, then how do you explain the red shifting of the galaxies? If everything is moving away from everything else, does it not make the most sense that the space between them is expanding, not that they are moving?

[ryan2006]

Searching for evidence for our origins is perhaps the most complicated story of all including the faith needed to believe in the book of genesis. I believe people pose new models to the universe out of curiousity and question for the sole pupose of where do we come from. I agree with Harry in that the world goes on forever what I think he does not say is that it is ordered. For example and I may be taking this out of context but it is a famous quote by Albert Einstein, "God does not play dice with the universe" Ok Harry universe ecompassess one universe which is infinite and I think a lot of people would agree the word eternal has been around since or before the teachings of Jesus its just that they didn't have hubble telescope infinity is not what I question as a matter of math or the sign for infinity used in classes of math or a spiritual term designated to agree that above all their is an intelligent designer. My question to you then Harry is why he would leave out a solar system of universes that fits into a galaxy of univeres that fits into a superdooper cluster of galaxies and so forth. This infinity idea also takes a leap of faith and it is the blind leading the blind to imagine what is out their to discover our origins from star dust to memory or simply by an intelligent designer. I went to a sermon the other day and the pastor said a man picked up a pinch of sand from a beach and said this is sand from all the beaches on the planet and let the sand drop from his hand this is how much you will know about god in your lifetime or this is how much you will know about anything in your lifetime so really I am nuetral even though I like to imagine and search for the answers I really can not understand infinity other than you can count to 10, 100, 1000, 1 million, 1 billion, 1 trillion if you took the time but even if you did count that high you still couldn't comprehend all that it is.

 

Ryan Henningsgaard

[Harry Costas]

Hello All

 

Ryan,,,,,, infinity is undersandable.

 

Man through history has always been limited by his ability and knowledge.

 

I wish I had the time to expand my thoughts. Bit by bit i hope my thoughts will come across. Should I say the thoughts of the cosmologists around me.

 

I also am limited by the knowledge. I can only express my opinion as i read other peoples knowledge.

 

As for the expansion of the universe. I can only ask you to read the bottom links. I can give examples here and there but i would not be painting the right picture.

http://redshift.vif.com/JournalFiles/V10NO1PDF/V10N1ANT.pdf

 

http://www.spaceandmotion.com/cosmology-wsm-summary-infinite-space.htm

 

Halton Aps work is worth looking at.

 

http://www.electric-cosmos.org/arp.htm

 

quote

"Halton C. Arp is a professional astronomer who, earlier in his career, was Edwin Hubble's assistant. He has earned the Helen B.Warner prize, the Newcomb Cleveland award and the Alexander von Humboldt Senior Scientist Award. For years he worked at the Mt. Palomar and Mt. Wilson observatories. While there, he developed his well known catalog of "Peculiar Galaxies" that are misshapen or irregular in appearance.

 

Arp discovered, by taking photographs through the big telescopes, that many pairs of quasars ("quasi-stellar objects") which have extremely high redshift z values (and are therefore thought to be receding from us very rapidly - and thus must be located at a great distance from us) are physically associated with galaxies that have low redshift and are known to be relatively close by. Arp has photographs of many pairs of high redshift quasars that are symmetrically located on either side of what he suggests are their parent, low redshift galaxies. These pairings occur much more often than the probabilities of random placement would allow. Mainstream astrophysicists try to explain away Arp's observations of connected galaxies and quasars as being "illusions" or "coincidences of apparent location". But, the large number of physically associated quasars and low red shift galaxies that he has photographed and cataloged defies that evasion. It simply happens too often

 

Because of Arp's photos, the assumption that high red shift objects have to be very far away - on which the "Big Bang" theory and all of "accepted cosmology" is based - is proven to be wrong! The Big Bang theory is therefore falsified."

 

The "Fingers of God"

quote:

"The diagram above is an attempt to plot the positions of the galaxies we can see from Earth that are located in a ninety degree field of view centered on the Virgo Galaxy Cluster. The distance of each galaxy that was used to make this plot is computed by presuming that its actual distance is proportional to its redshift value - as modern astronomers do. As a result, the Virgo cluster itself takes on the shape of two long fingers pointed directly at Earth. These have become known as "The Fingers of God". (Shown here in red.)

 

Long cosmic sized fingers pointed directly at Earth! This result is false on its face. It is independent proof that the "redshift equals distance" assumption is nonsense. Again - Copernicus discovered many years ago that the Earth was not the center of anything! A galaxy cluster should have a more symmetrical shape than this. Arp demonstrates that the Virgo cluster is much more compact than it appears in this diagram. The high redshift galaxies in the upper regions of the diagram are not far away - they are just very young! And much closer to us than this diagram would indicate.

 

How astrophysicists can continue to look at this diagram and not see that something is very wrong with their theory is evidence of how disconnected from reality they have become."

----------------------------------------------------------------------

 

If in the past we have been given false information by scientific error than redshit and the expanding universe theory and the Big Bang has put many cosmologists on the wrong track.

 

Evidence is hard to come by and time will show its face.

[ryan2006]

Going back to Tormods how would you detect or test the possiblity that our universe is bounded. I came across an article in Science News bulletin it had N.A.S.A. using computer programs to merge two black holes showing what gravitational waves would look like if they merged. I thought to myself what if our universe is in a black hole. According to a friend of mine light stops at the edges of a black hole only mass enters so why would their be light in this universe if we were surrounded by a black hole it would be completely dark does this rule out our universe being surround by a black hole???

[Eclogite]

According to a friend of mine light stops at the edges of a black hole only mass enters

Either your friend is wrong or you have misunderstood her. Light cannot exit a black hole, there is nothing to stop it entering one.

so why would their be light in this universe if we were surrounded by a black hole it would be completely dark

Even if your friend were right there would still be light in the Universe for the same reason there is light in your home after the sun has gone down: the light does not come from outside, but from your internal electric lights. In the house-Universe analogy the lights are the stars.

does this rule out our universe being surround by a black hole???

Surrounded by a black hole makes no sense. Inside a black hole remains a possibility I believe.

[ldsoftwaresteve]

ryan2006:

I thought to myself what if our universe is in a black hole. According to a friend of mine light stops at the edges of a black hole only mass enters so why would their be light in this universe if we were surrounded by a black hole it would be completely dark does this rule out our universe being surround by a black hole???

The jury is still out on the actual nature of a black hole. Maybe light doesn't stop at the edge of a black hole. Maybe what we see as light is just stable configurations of fundamental particles so, instead of being 'pulled back in' to the black hole because of its immense 'gravitational pull', perhaps those configurations of particles just can't form within a black hole.

Particles are ejected from the poles of black holes.

I am of the opinion that light is a particle (see The Final Theory by Mark McCutcheon).

If McCutcheon is correct, then no, the universe is not surrounded by a black hole because matter inside of one doesn't behave the way it does outside of one.

[Harry Costas]

Hello pgrmdave

 

You said

"Harry, if you don't believe that the universe is expanding, then how do you explain the red shifting of the galaxies? If everything is moving away from everything else, does it not make the most sense that the space between them is expanding, not that they are moving? "

----------------------------------------------------------------

The universe by definition is "ALL" and all cannot expand or contract.

How can it get bigger or smaller?

 

The observable universe is another question.

 

I do not think in the overall sense that even this is expanding the reason being is that it has no reason to expand unless some parts are going through explosion and contraction process.

----------------------------------------------------------------

Links to dispute the expanding universe but not limited to these.

 

http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0509611

quote:

"Surface brightness data can distinguish between a Friedman-Robertson-Walker expanding universe and a non-expanding universe. For surface brightness measured in AB magnitudes per angular area, all FRW models, regardless of cosmological parameters, predict that surface brightness declines with redshift as (z+1)^-3, while any non-expanding model predicts that surface brightness is constant with distance and thus with z. High-z UV surface brightness data for galaxies from the Hubble Ultra Deep Field and low-z data from GALEX are used to test the predictions of these two models up to z=6. A preliminary analysis presented here of samples observed at the same at-galaxy wavelengths in the UV shows that surface brightness is constant, mu=kz^0.026+-0.15, consistent with the non-expanding model. This relationship holds if distance is linearly proportional to z at all redshifts, but seems insensitive to the particular choice of d-z relationship. Attempts to reconcile the data with FRW predictions by assuming that high-z galaxies have intrinsically higher surface brightness than low-z galaxies appear to face insurmountable problems. The intrinsic FUV surface brightness required by the FRW models for high-z galaxies exceeds the maximum FUV surface brightness of any low-z galaxy by as much as a factor of 40. Dust absorption appears to make such extremely high intrinsic FUV surface brightness physically impossible. If confirmed by further analysis, the impossibility of such high-surface-brightness galaxies would rule out all FRW expanding universe (big bang) models.

Full-text: PDF only"

 

http://home.pacbell.net/skeptica/edwinhubble.html

 

Most of todays’ astronomers/cosmologists have ignored and/or abandoned Hubble. This indicates that Hubble has not succeeded. For Hubble found that the observational data best fit a linear relation between redshift and distance. But to Hubble a linear relation did not mean an expanding universe. Before I explain the above statement further, let’s take a look at how Hubble considered the interpretation of redshifts as being velocity-shifts. From The Realm of the Nebulae, (In the early 20th century galaxies were referred to as nebulae.):

 

 

This explanation interprets red-shifts as Doppler effects, that is to say, as velocity-shifts, indicating actual motion of recession. It may be stated with some confidence that red-shifts are velocity-shifts or else they represent some hitherto unrecognized principle in physics. [...]

Meanwhile, red-shifts may be expressed on a scale of velocities as a matter of convenience. They behave as velocity-shifts behave and they are very simply represented on the same familiar scale, regardless of the ultimate interpretation. The term “apparent velocity” may be used in carefully considered statements, and the adjective always implied where it is omitted in general usage. --pp. 122-123

 

Because it was known that receding motion in the line of sight will produce a redshift (a blueshift if approaching) and because no other satisfactory understanding was available of how a redshift might be produced, the popular interpretation was to view redshifts as Doppler effects. In Hubble’s paper, “The Problem of the Expanding Universe,” as well as in many other of his writings, one can see his reasons for skepticism regarding the Doppler interpretation for galactic redshifts. In the section “The Interpretation of the Red Shifts,” Hubble writes:

 

 

The investigations were designed to determine whether or not red shifts represent actual recession. In principle, the problem can be solved; a rapidly receding light source appears fainter than a similar but stationary source at the same momentary distance....

For velocities of a few miles or a few hundred miles per second, the dimming factor is negligible. But for the extremely distant nebulae, where the apparent recessions reach tens of thousands of miles per second, the effects are large enough to be readily observed and measured. Hence, if the distances of the nebulae were known quite accurately we could measure their apparent faintness and tell at once whether or not they are receding at the rates indicated by red shifts.

Unfortunately, the problem is not so simple. The only general criterion of great distances is the very apparent faintness of the nebulae which we wish to test. Therefore, the proposed test involves a vicious circle, and the dimming factor merely leads to an error in distance. However, a possible escape from the vicious circle is found in the following procedure. Since the intrinsic luminosities of nebulae are known, their apparent faintness furnishes two scales of distance, depending upon whether we assume the nebulae to be stationary or receding. If, then, we analyze our data, if we map the observable region, using first one scale and then the other, we may find that the wrong scale leads to contradictions or at least to grave difficulties. Such attempts have been made and one scale does lead to trouble. It is the scale which includes the dimming factors of recession, which assumes that the universe is expanding. --pp. 108-109.

 

As to the question I opened with: Yes, Hubble was consistent. He, I believe, would have strongly challenged as totally unfounded statements like this one by Allan R. Sandage (Sandage is said to have taken over the work of Hubble): “The expansion of the entire universe is the most important single hard scientific fact of cosmology” (from The Hammond Barnhart Dictionary of Science, Barnhart Books, 1986, under the word cosmology). This is particularly curious coming from someone who in his closing sentence in his introduction to Hubble’s The Realm of the Nebulae (Dover, 1958) writes: “Hubble’s original approach to observational cosmology remains." Yet, obviously it doesn’t with astronomers like Allan Sandage. Hubble’s approach was one of caution, even skepticism, regarding the expanding universe idea. From the conclusion of Hubble’s “The Problem of the Expanding Universe”:

 

 

Thus the use of dimming corrections leads to a particular kind of universe, but one which most students are likely to reject as highly improbable. Furthermore, the strange features of this universe are merely the dimming corrections expressed in different terms. Omit the dimming factors, and the oddities vanish. We are left with the simple, even familiar concept of a sensibly infinite universe. All the difficulties are transferred to the interpretation of red shifts which cannot then be the familiar velocity shifts. [...]

Meanwhile, on the basis of the evidence now available, apparent discrepancies between theory and observation must be recognized. A choice is presented, as once before in the days of Copernicus, between a strangely small, finite universe and a sensibly infinite universe plus a new principle of nature.

 

It is not unusual to find astronomy and cosmology books that credit Hubble with the discovery of the expansion of the universe. As we now see this is inaccurate. Such talk doesn’t square very well with Hubble’s repeated declarations that “for a stationary universe, the law of red shifts is sensibly linear." And “The results may be stated simply. If the nebulae are stationary, the law of red shifts is sensibly linear; red shifts are a constant multiple of distances. In other words, each unit of light path contributes the same amount of red shift." (1)

 

It is frequently said that 1929 is the year Hubble discovered that our universe is expanding. Yet, six years later in the abstract of a paper he co-authored with Richard Tolman, they wrote that the data is “not yet sufficient to permit a decision between recessional or other causes for the red-shift." (2)

 

To the best of my knowledge Hubble’s 1929 paper (3) is the only published paper where the reader is left with the view by Hubble, and now apparently universally adopted, that the linear law of redshifts applies only as a velocity-distance relation. It is no wonder that this is the paper that is usually cited by itself in astronomy textbooks.

 

Big Bang critic, and radio astronomy pioneer Grote Reber desires to make it known that Hubble expressed “grave doubts about red shifts being caused by relative motion.” Reber asks us to see pages 2, 21, 26, 31, 43, 44, 54, 63 and 66 of Hubble’s 1937 book The Observational Approach to Cosmology. This book is excellent in showing Hubble’s doubts about redshifts being due to the Doppler effect. In a 1934 lecture with the title "Red-Shifts in the Spectra of Nebulae," Hubble writes:

 

 

The field is new, but it offers rather definite prospects not only of testing the form of the velocity-distance relation beyond the reach of the spectrograph, but even of critically testing the very interpretation of red-shifts as due to motion. With this possibility in view, the cautious observer refrains from committing himself to the present interpretation and prefers the colourless term “apparent velocity.” (4)

The field was still young, but not so new by the time Hubble died in 1953, so perhaps Hubble dropped his doubts by then. Yet even in 1953, in his last lecture before he died, Hubble still treated the linear velocity-distance relation as an apparent velocity-distance relation. In his George Darwin Lecture of 1953 with the title “The Law of Red-Shifts,” a graph is provided showing a linear relation of several galaxy groups. On the bottom corner of the graph are the words “NO RECESSION FACTOR." In other words, if the dimming factor for recession of the galaxies is not used, the relation between redshift (usually expressed as velocity) and apparent magnitude will be linear. And in Hubble’s words from the same lecture: “When no recession factors are included, the law will represent approximately a linear relation between red-shifts and distance." (5)

 

 

other links

http://redshift.vif.com/JournalFiles/V10NO1PDF/V10N1ANT.pdf

 

http://www.newtonphysics.on.ca/UNIVERSE/Universe.html

 

http://ourworld.compuserve.com/homepages/dp5/explode.htm

 

http://www.electric-cosmos.org/arp.htm

 

Halton C. Arp is a professional astronomer who, earlier in his career, was Edwin Hubble's assistant. He has earned the Helen B.Warner prize, the Newcomb Cleveland award and the Alexander von Humboldt Senior Scientist Award. For years he worked at the Mt. Palomar and Mt. Wilson observatories. While there, he developed his well known catalog of "Peculiar Galaxies" that are misshapen or irregular in appearance.

 

Arp discovered, by taking photographs through the big telescopes, that many pairs of quasars ("quasi-stellar objects") which have extremely high redshift z values (and are therefore thought to be receding from us very rapidly - and thus must be located at a great distance from us) are physically associated with galaxies that have low redshift and are known to be relatively close by. Arp has photographs of many pairs of high redshift quasars that are symmetrically located on either side of what he suggests are their parent, low redshift galaxies. These pairings occur much more often than the probabilities of random placement would allow. Mainstream astrophysicists try to explain away Arp's observations of connected galaxies and quasars as being "illusions" or "coincidences of apparent location". But, the large number of physically associated quasars and low red shift galaxies that he has photographed and cataloged defies that evasion. It simply happens too often

 

Because of Arp's photos, the assumption that high red shift objects have to be very far away - on which the "Big Bang" theory and all of "accepted cosmology" is based - is proven to be wrong! The Big Bang theory is therefore falsified.

 

NGC 4319 and Markarian 205

A prime example of Arp's challenge is the connected pair of objects NGC 4319 and Markarian 205.

 

Dr. Arp has shown in his book "Quasars, Redshifts and Controversies" that there is a physical connection between the barred spiral galaxy NGC 4319 and the quasar like object Markarian 205. This connection is between two objects that have vastly different redshift values. Mainstream astronomers deny

the existence of this physical link. They claim these two objects are not close together - they are "coincidentally aligned".

 

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

http://www.ingentaconnect.com/content/klu/astr/2003/00000285/00000002/05138613

 

Abstract:

 

The Lehto-Tifft redshift quantization model is used to predict the redshift distribution for certain classes of quasars, and for galaxies in the neighborhood of z=0.5. In the Lehto-Tifft model the redshift is presumed to arise from time dependent decay from an origin at the Planck scale; the decay process is a form of period doubling. Looking back in time reveals earlier stages of the process where redshifts should correspond to predictable fractions of the speed of light. Quasar redshift peaks are shown to correspond to the earliest simple fractions of c as predicted by the model. The sharp peaks present in deep field galaxy redshifts surveys are then shown to correspond to later stages in such a decay process. Highly discordant redshift associations are expected to occur and shown to be present in the deep field surveys. Peaks in redshift distributions appear to represent the spectrum of possible states at various stage of the decay process rather than physical structures.

 

------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

http://www.setterfield.org/staticu.html

Setterfield's Response

quote:

"In his rejection of this paper, Dr. Chaffin states, "I believe I have discovered a mistake in the logic concerning the comparison of the cosmological expansion to the gravitational binding effects. Once one realizes that this mistake is there, then I would think the author would wish to withdraw the paper, but in any case the editor would [be] obliged to reject the manuscript." This "mistake in logic" concerns the effects of cosmological expansion. In this current paper, it was pointed out that one of the explanations for the redshift was that, according to the Friedmann equations, the wavelengths of light were being stretched in transit as the fabric of space expanded. The logic is that if such things as small as the wavelengths of light are being stretched as the fabric of space expands, so also must things like atoms, our measuring devices, star systems, and galaxies. However, there are a number of problems that this introduces as discussed in the body of the paper. The usual way to overcome these problems and save the existing paradigm is to claim that expansion only occurs between clusters of galaxies. The explanation is that expansion does not occur on smaller scales due solely to the effect of gravity. This is the position taken by a number of theorists.

 

However, the problem is not nearly as settled as many believe. Cooperstock, Faraoni and Vollick acknowledged in 1998 "The recurrent attention paid to this issue indicates that to this point a definitive answer is still lacking." They point out that it was first raised by McVittie in 1933, by Jarnefelt in 1940 and 1942, then Pachner in 1963, Dicke and Peebles in 1964, plus both Callan et al. and Irvine in 1965 with Noerdlinger and Petrosian in 1971 and so on until the discussion conducted in 1995 by Anderson. In order to assist a decision on this matter, an equivalent system was then studied in 1996 by Bonnor who examined the distribution of pressureless charged dust in equilibrium between electrical repulsion and gravitational attraction. He concluded that the lesser systems participated in universal expansion despite gravitational acceleration. This led on to an admission by Cooperstock, Faraoni and Vollick in 1998 that the Friedmann equations do not dictate a scale for expansion, "and in principle, it could be present at the smallest practical scale as a real...expansion and observable in principle. ...Thus in this debate we are in agreement...that it is most reasonable to assume that the expansion does indeed proceed at all scales." However, if cosmologists accept these conclusions that atoms, stars and galaxies partake of universal expansion, Sumner's unacceptable result of a blue-shift of light from these atoms necessarily follows as explained in this current paper.

 

It is against this background that the alleged "mistake in logic" comes in. This current paper notes that the gravitational force between the clusters is 1010 times greater than the force exerted on the Sun by the Milky Way. Dr. Chaffin concedes this is correct. Consequently, one would expect that if the cosmological expansion force is not strong enough to overcome the gravitational force on the Sun by the Milky Way system, it will have even less effect on clusters of galaxies, even when the distance factor over which it operates is taken into account. In other words, the space between the clusters of galaxies should not expand either. But Dr. Chaffin (in a separate note he included in his letter of rejection) states that this "is like comparing apples and oranges since the mass of a galactic cluster is not the same as the mass of either the Sun or of a galaxy. A more relevant quantity is the magnitude of the accelerations caused by the gravitational binding compared to that caused by cosmic expansion." It is here that Dr. Chaffin calls attention to the paper by Cooperstock, Faraoni and Vollick, for which he is thanked. This calculates both the gravitational acceleration of the Sun by our Galaxy, and the acceleration between clusters of galaxies and compares them with the acceleration of the cosmological expansion. In this case, the cosmological acceleration is largest for the clusters of galaxies. The conclusion drawn from this by Dr. Chaffin was that only the space between clusters of galaxies would expand under these conditions in contradiction to the calculation performed in the current paper, therefore there exists a "mistake in logic."

 

But this is probably the wrong conclusion for Dr. Chaffin to draw for two reasons. First, in their 'Discussion and Conclusions' section, Cooperstock, Faraoni and Vollick examine the numerical results obtained for the magnitude of the correction to the acceleration of objects subject to external forces. They specifically conclude: "The numerical estimates obtained in Sec. 3 suggest that the correction is extremely small and unobservable for galaxy clusters, galaxies and the solar system, and negligible for smaller systems such as stars and even more so for molecules and atoms." The actual figures tell the story. For the best case, that is with galaxy clusters, the gravitational acceleration is about 8 x 10-11 metres per second per second, while the acceleration due to cosmological expansion is merely 5.6 x 10-18 metres per second per second. Thus, as Cooperstock, Faraoni and Vollick state, the correction is extremely small and unobservable. These figures indicate that the gravitational acceleration for galaxy clusters is 7 orders of magnitude greater than that of the cosmological acceleration, a point that Cooperstock, Faraoni and Vollick actually make. Despite the fact that it is the best result obtainable, they also state "it is still nevertheless essentially ignorable." In other words this calculation suggests that even when comparing the gravitational and cosmological accelerations, not only do the stars and galaxies not expand, it seems that even the space between clusters does not expand either. This does not contradict the conclusion reached in the current paper using the forces argument that if the atoms, stars, and galaxies do not expand, neither does the space between the clusters. So Dr. Chaffin appears to have come to the wrong conclusion.

 

There is a second reason why this may be the wrong conclusion for Dr. Chaffin to draw. Cooperstock, Faraoni and Vollick try to overcome their problem with the magnitude of the expansion effect by doing a different calculation using the local equations of motion applied to two bodies under Newtonian conditions. Here, the cumulative effect of cosmological expansion on the Sun-Earth system is essentially negligible. However, it becomes increasingly significant for larger systems over the lifetime of the cosmos. But there is then a problem, because Cooperstock, Faraoni and Vollick admit: "In this case, the approximation used in this paper becomes invalid." They finalise by saying: "As a conclusion, it is reasonable to assume that the expansion of the universe affects all scales, but the magnitude of the effect is essentially negligible for local systems, even at the scale of galactic clusters." In other words, if the gravitational binding argument is accepted at all, it leads to the conclusion that the expansion effect "is essentially negligible" even between clusters of galaxies, so there will never be any observational proof for cosmological expansion. In other words, it becomes an unfalsifiable theory. In this case, the weight of observational evidence presented in this current paper assumes a greater priority, and it all points in one specific direction. Under these circumstances, Dr Chaffin's rejection of this current paper on the basis of a "mistake in logic" seems unduly harsh.

 

Dr. Chaffin also asked in his additionally enclosed note "Would [cosmic expansion] become predominate at larger scales? I think the answer is yes. To say otherwise is to say that Friedmann and Lemaitre did their calculations wrong, and that many others who repeated these calculations, such as Landau & Lifshitz, 'Classical Theory of Fields', got the arithmetic wrong." Dr. Chaffin was kind enough to supply some relevant pages there. However, his comments seem undiscerning. Far from showing that cosmic expansion became predominate at large scales, Cooperstock, Faraoni and Vollick show that even at the scale of clusters of galaxies it is still "essentially negligible." Dr. Chaffin then makes the accusation that "To say otherwise is to say that Friedmann and Lemaitre did their calculations wrong," This is incorrect. Cooperstock, Faraoni and Vollick show that the cosmic expansion does not predominate in the way Dr. Chaffin expected, but their calculations are not therefore wrong. They merely show that the effect that Friedmann and Lemaitre theoretically envisioned was not behaving in the way they assumed.

 

However, there exists one final problem. Dr. Chaffin sent me the first three pages of the Cooperstock, Faraoni and Vollick article, upon which he based his rejection. I initially accepted this gratuity as an act of kindness, and was grateful. However, when the full article was obtained from the web, it became apparent that the other pages in the article largely counteract Dr. Chaffin's reasons for rejection as outlined above. Consequently, I am left to wonder at the rationale behind both his rejection of this current paper, and his forwarding of only three pages."

[Harry Costas]

sorry for the above it was meant to be edited.