Origin of the Universe,,,,Bang or no Bang

[modest]

G'day modest

 

How does this explain expansion of the universe?

 

Redshift supports expansion, but certainly doesn't explain it.

 

Please take another look at the stereo photo link...

 

The red shift is very obvious. The blue shift is negligible!

 

None of the Hubble Ultra Deep Field galaxies are blueshifted. Their size and brightness place them at the far reaches of the visible universe where everything is significantly redshifted.

 

My estimate is above 75% of these glaxies are red in color very few are blue!

 

The HUDF was taken using 4 color filters—blue, green, red, and near-infrared. While we can infer the bluer galaxies are mostly closer to us than the near-infrared galaxies, this is not scientifically rigorous. As far as I know, none of the HUDF galaxies have had their redshift measured directly.

 

A much more precise, rigorous, accurate, and meaningful way to look at galaxy distribution and distance is a redshift survey such as the Sloan Digital Sky Survey.

 

Setting that completely aside for a second, your method of creating a "stereo" image is very faulty. I've implemented the method I described earlier which can be seen here:

 

http://i227.photobucket.com/albums/dd216/modest4U/Hstereo.jpg

 

I did this for the purpose of showing what a proper stereo image of these galaxies might look like and proof of concept for what I explained before. But, I have no doubt it is very inaccurate.

 

If you want me to explain in more detail why your method is conceptually wrong, start a thread on stereo imaging or perspective techniques.

 

The Big Bang could never have produced this Universe, as pictured by Hubble!

 

Please support this claim.

 

Pluto

 

I ask another question, if the glaxies and stars that are red in the Stereo photo displayed by Modest, means they are going away, and the blue ones mean they are coming towards us...

 

Blue or red in color does not mean a galaxy is moving away or moving toward us. Redshift and blueshift are a shifting of the electromagnetic spectrum and cannot be simplified into 'red-things' and 'blue-things'. Astronomical objects have range and variability of color. Redshift needs to be measured directly to determine how fast something is moving toward or away from us. This has been done with about 1 million objects in the Sloan digital sky survey which I linked above.

 

Redshift - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

~modest

[Pluto]

G'day from the land of ozzzz

 

Fripro said

 

Remember what we were taught in school, red shift longer waves, and blue shift shorter wave.

 

The same as the railroad train's whistle. We have all heard its the dopler effect,as the train comes towards us then passes.

 

Maybe this is what you alluded to when you said WOW!

 

I understand that, the logic is there. BuT!!!!!!!!!

 

Modest said

 

None of the Hubble Ultra Deep Field galaxies are blueshifted. Their size and brightness place them at the far reaches of the visible universe where everything is significantly redshifted.

 

This is the part that I'm questioning.

It implies a point expansion and puts mother earth at the centre or so.

 

As per the BBT there were bangs all over the place at the same time. This would put objects at random and we should have equal blue and red.

 

Some other intrinisc property is effecting the data.

 

The formation of compact matter and jet formation maybe the cause of the intrinsic properties of red and blue. The trassition from one form of matter to the next such as normal matter to Neutron stars, quark stars and so on to the ulra dense so called black hole.

 

Hey! this doe not mean that I'm right.

But! I was reading these papers just before I came on.

 

[0808.3448] The Hydrodynamics of Gamma-Ray Burst Remnants

The Hydrodynamics of Gamma-Ray Burst Remnants

 

Authors: Enrico Ramirez-Ruiz, Andrew I. MacFadyen

(Submitted on 26 Aug 2008)

 

Abstract: This paper reports on the results of a numerical investigation designed to address how the initially anisotropic appearance of a GRB remnant is modified by the character of the circumburst medium and by the possible presence of an accompanying supernova (SN). Axisymmetric hydrodynamical calculations of light, impulsive jets propagating in both uniform and inhomogeneous external media are presented, which show that the resulting dynamics of their remnants since the onset of the non-relativistic phase is different from the standard self-similar solutions. Because massive star progenitors are expected to have their close-in surroundings modified by the progenitor winds, we consider both free winds and shocked winds as possible external media for GRB remnant evolution. Abundant confirmation is provided here of the important notion that the morphology and visibility of GRB remnants are determined largely by their circumstellar environments. For this reason, their detectability is highly biased in favor of those with massive star progenitors; although, in this class of models, the beamed component may be difficult to identify because the GRB ejecta is eventually swept up by the accompanying SN. The number density of asymmetric GRB remnants in the local Universe could be, however, far larger if they expand in a tenuous interstellar medium, as expected for some short GRB progenitor models. In these sources, the late size of the observable, asymmetric remnant could extend over a wide, possibly resolvable angle and may be easier to constrain directly.

 

 

and

 

[0805.1360] Infinite self-gravitating systems and cosmological structure formation

Infinite self-gravitating systems and cosmological structure formation

 

Authors: Michael Joyce

(Submitted on 9 May 2008)

 

Abstract: The usual thermodynamic limit for systems of classical self-gravitating point particles becomes well defined, as a {it dynamical} problem, using a simple physical prescription for the calculation of the force, equivalent to the so-called ``Jeans' swindle''. The relation of the resulting intrinsically out of equilibrium problem, of particles evolving from prescribed uniform initial conditions in an infinite space, to the one studied in current cosmological models (in an expanding universe) is explained. We then describe results of a numerical study of the dynamical evolution of such a system, starting from a simple class of infinite ``shuffled lattice'' initial conditions. The clustering, which develops in time starting from scales around the grid scale, is qualitatively very similar to that seen in cosmological simulations, which begin from lattices with applied correlated displacements and incorporate an expanding spatial background. From very soon after the formation of the first non-linear structures, a spatio-temporal scaling relation describes well the evolution of the two-point correlations. At larger times the dynamics of these correlations converges to what is termed ``self-similar'' evolution in cosmology, in which the time dependence in the scaling relation is specified entirely by that of the linearized fluid theory. We show how this statistical mechanical ``toy model'' can be useful in addressing various questions about these systems which are relevant in cosmology. Some of these questions are closely analagous to those currently studied in the literature on long range interactions, notably the relation of the evolution of the particle system to that in the Vlasov limit and the nature of approximately quasi-stationary states.

[FRIPRO]

Modest

 

I am impressed. Yes HSF members Modest is correct about the error in my stereo photo. However it has given us all reason for thought and speculation.

 

Modest has created a very interesting 3 D photo and the stars and galaxies just jump out of the screen. Far better than my 3 D photos.

 

It is amazing what one can learn on the HS Forum and the internet.

 

I must study Modest's 3 D photo more.

 

Again congratulations on a point well taken. Now I have to look into the red shift again, with respect to your 3 D photo

and the hypothisis that I was puting forth on this thread.

 

I am still of the believe that the Universe is rotating giving earth an all other bodies in the Universe--Gyroscopic gravity.

 

However I know your reconstruction of the 3 D photo may have caused me trouble in proving it as a valid Hypothesis.

 

I with draw my inaccurate guess of 75% to 25% red to blue shift statement above.

 

In fact I even questioned my own statement on the % of distrbution, at the time I pushed the SUBMIT REPLY button.

[FRIPRO]

G'day from the land of ozzzzzzzzz

 

Hello Maddog

 

I post links of interest and sometimes related to the topic.

 

It does not mean that I agree or disagree.

 

As for a rotating universe.

 

The total ebing infinite I do not the universe rotates.

 

But the parts within have a common movement and rotatiion.

 

We have a MW galaxy rotation that forms a part of the local group of galaxies that rotate around M87 and this local cluster forms part of a cluster of cluster of galaxies that also rorate, and so it goes on forming a super cluster of clusters of galaxies.

 

Where do you stop?

 

As for the BB creating the MW and other galaxies its just a theory, that I cannot vision it working.

 

Observations (Hubble deep field) shows us over 100 billion galaxies and within that super monsters of clusters of galaxies. Now getting them to form throughout the universe at the same time is more than a miracle and to top it off, do it in 13.7Gyrs.

 

Yes you can use ad hoc theories and make it work.

 

But at the end of the day the King does not wear invisible robes.

 

In all of the known Universe the bodies within it rotate without exception, this includes paths of astronomical mass and radiation--even the electron.

 

Even Hurricanes on/and including Earth rotate about their centrix etc.--why would rational thinkers see the Universe to be any different?

.

[FRIPRO]

The rules say:

 

I assume you refer to this link, which is fine. However, the link not being scientific in nature presents problems of a different sort.

 

For example, you say the images make a "distant Universe stereo photo". Such a claim seems very odd to me and your link doesn't have sourced information that would normally make such a claim falsifiable. The images you offer for cross-eyed viewing appear to be the HUDF. Where did you get them? Are the left and right images separately from ACS and NICMOS? Why are the two "stereo" photos scaled disproportionately horizontally? Is that editing you did? If so, why? Etc...

 

~modest

.

 

Yes they are the photos in question, however I have modified them again to show what I believe to be more correct view in stereo.

 

Check it out again on the reference you made.this link,

 

I can not buy an istrotopic or cosmology Universe. I must again point out the following observation that I have made on many Hubble Deep space photos....

 

The Red or cooler masses (galaxies/stars) are red shifted away from us, so therefore moving to the left of the Stereo photo.

 

The Blue stars (much hoter and perhaps also shifting as a blue shift to a higher frequency thus moving towards Hubble.

 

The white stars, galaxies etc. are in the background some possibly being seen through a transparent Universe seen with all radiations in the electromagnetic frequency/wave lengh scale from 1Hertz to Gama waves.

 

They are mostly white and at this point on the back side of the Universe's rotation. As the Universe rotates red shifts asway from Hubble through white to blue. Where the blues on the right come toward Hubble.

 

Many white's (stars galaxies etc) are much farther away then they have been measured, because they are on the back side of the rotating transparent Universe--if this Hypothesis is reasonable.

 

If all known bodies rotate from the microscopic to the macroscopic (including the electron, the Earth, the paths of comets about the Sun. Why should the Universe be any different in the scheme of the Universe's design?

 

Looking again at your link to the synthetic stereo photos (right or wrong) how could anyone continue to believe that the Big Bang created the Universe in 13.x m years out of the infinate void--even Pluto agrees to this.

 

[Pluto]

G'day

 

Fripro said

 

If all known bodies rotate from the microscopic to the macroscopic (including the electron, the Earth, the paths of comets about the Sun. Why should the Universe be any different in the scheme of the Universe's design?

 

I do not have a problem of the parts within the universe rotating to some extent. We do have galaxies rotating in different directions and at the same time are part of a cluster of galaxies that rotate around a super cluster. The universe as a total being "ALL" cannot rotate. It would become quite complicated to see which super cluster rotates where.

 

Looking again at your link to the synthetic stereo photos (right or wrong) how could anyone continue to believe that the Big Bang created the Universe in 13.x m years out of the infinate void--even Pluto agrees to this.

 

 

That is the part that I do not agree with. Imagine your one side of the observable universe and your 27 billion on the other side and you have 0ver 100 billions of galaxies forming and popping up at the same time all over the place.

 

The king does not wear invisible robes.

[modest]

I must again point out the following observation that I have made on many Hubble Deep space photos....

 

Your following were not observations, they were conclusions. In my very personal and humble opinion, your time would be much better-served by studying the science behind this data rather than trying to interpret it with a limited understanding. You can take that or leave it.

 

In my role as moderator, I must point out the site rules:

1. In general, back up your claims by using links or references.
   
2. If you make strange claims, please provide proof or at least backup of some kind.
   

 

The Red or cooler masses (galaxies/stars) are red shifted away from us, so therefore moving to the left of the Stereo photo.

 

Redshift does not equal red in color. In addition to highly-redshifted and very-distant galaxies, Hubble’s near-infrared camera is sensitive to intrinsically red objects such as elliptical galaxies, galaxies with a lot of dust, or even red dwarf stars. Luckily, redshift can be determined empirically by looking at absorption lines in the spectra. We can, therefore, determine how fast something is moving toward or away from us without looking at its color and guessing.

 

This has been done with millions of objects in the sky. Maps have been created with all this information on distance, speed, and location of galaxies. These are the redshift surveys that I keep talking about. It is a concerted effort and monumental undertaking that astronomy is putting forward—literally mapping the visible universe.

 

The consensus from all this is that the universe is largely isotropic. Everywhere we look in the sky is pretty much the same. Galaxies in every direction are moving away from us. The greater their distance, the faster they recede. The HUDF in no way disagrees with this evidence.

 

The Blue stars (much hoter and perhaps also shifting as a blue shift to a higher frequency thus moving towards Hubble.

 

Blueshift does not equal blue in color.

 

They are mostly white and at this point on the back side of the Universe's rotation. As the Universe rotates red shifts asway from Hubble through white to blue. Where the blues on the right come toward Hubble.

 

Many white's (stars galaxies etc) are much farther away then they have been measured, because they are on the back side of the rotating transparent Universe--if this Hypothesis is reasonable.

 

The Hubble Ultra Deep Field (the image you’re looking at) is a picture of a very, very small part of the sky. It is one tenth the size of the moon. The HUDF is isotropic, just like the rest of the sky. We don’t see blue dots and blue shift in one area of the sky (or image) with red dots and redshift in another area. We observe increasing redshift with increasing distance everywhere we look in the sky. What you are describing is completely unobserved and completely unsupported.

 

HubbleSite - NewsCenter - Hubble's Deepest View Ever of the Universe Unveils Earliest Galaxies (03/09/2004) - Release Text

 

~modest

[maddog]

As for a rotating universe.

The total ebing infinite I do not the universe rotates.

So does that mean for you "rotating universe" is/is not for you ?

I am ok either way. I found your paper interesting by deriving from Einstein's Metric Tensor.

But the parts within have a common movement and rotatiion.

We have a MW galaxy rotation that forms a part of the local group of galaxies that rotate around M87 and this local cluster forms part of a cluster of cluster of galaxies that also rorate, and so it goes on forming a super cluster of clusters of galaxies.

Is M87 really in our local cluster. I was aware not of that.

Where do you stop?

Good Question.

As for the BB creating the MW and other galaxies its just a theory, that I cannot vision it working.

That is ok with me too.

Observations (Hubble deep field) shows us over 100 billion galaxies and within that super monsters of clusters of galaxies. Now getting them to form throughout the universe at the same time is more than a miracle and to top it off, do it in 13.7Gyrs.

Not when you take into account Inflation. Not that I like Alan Guth's theory anymore that you do.

Yes you can use ad hoc theories and make it work.

But at the end of the day the King does not wear invisible robes.

Where I see things starting to behave somewhat "ad hoc" (borrowing your term) is when in BBT

we start to consider what is going at fractions of a sec after initial event

because of speculation in various GUT theories that have had only fractional sucess

(independent of String Theories...)

Even though most of the age paradox has been explained with updated data, there is still some sloppiness in the Hubble Constant -- not so ironed down. :)

 

maddog

[Pluto]

G'day maddog

 

You said

 

Even though most of the age paradox has been explained with updated data, there is still some sloppiness in the Hubble Constant -- not so ironed down.

 

Updated data????

[FRIPRO]

G'day

 

Fripro said

 

 

 

I do not have a problem of the parts within the universe rotating to some extent. We do have galaxies rotating in different directions and at the same time are part of a cluster of galaxies that rotate around a super cluster. The universe as a total being "ALL" cannot rotate. It would become quite complicated to see which super cluster rotates where.

 

 

 

 

That is the part that I do not agree with. Imagine your one side of the observable universe and your 27 billion on the other side and you have 0ver 100 billions of galaxies forming and popping up at the same time all over the place.

 

The king does not wear invisible robes.

 

I would only answer with in the many space photos of the deep Universe the Galaxies that you mention are at all different angles and distribution.

 

There are clusters of Galaxies and also the have a vortex design, as do the Huricanes in the Alantic ocean on Earth and on Jupiter's red spot, also Neptune has them and so does Saturn.

 

The deep space photos show interconnection of most of the galaxies. They are also visible in the stereo photos shown above URL by Modest. Color can not be dependent on the internet photos; but, doppler effect is valid for all wavelength coming and going thus the Universe's rotation is a valid Hypothesis.

 

It is a stronger Hypothesis than the Big Bang creating the Universe 13+billion light years ago. Which I will never accept as valid.

 

 

 

It seem to be a pattern for vortex arrangement of hurricane like galaxies at all levels of the cosmos.

 

The different angles of the galactic clusters in the deep space photos, also give credit to a rotating Universe.

 

Very similar to the Hurricanes that are on the Earths ocean's surface. If the Earth were transparent we could see similar construction. Of course the Earth rotates? So does our Milkey Way galaxy

.

[Pluto]

G'day

 

The cyclones on Earth are quite different to the jet formation from star bodies.

 

Jets that form create:

 

1) Vortex at high speed that remains uniform depending on its origin for time (T).

2) Degenerate matter

3) Compaction of the degenerate matter.

[FRIPRO]

G'day

 

The cyclones on Earth are quite different to the jet formation from star bodies.

 

Jets that form create:

 

1) Vortex at high speed that remains uniform depending on its origin for time (T).

2) Degenerate matter

3) Compaction of the degenerate matter.

 

Pluto

 

I agree with you there are billions of Jets that emit from black holes (the center of Galaxies and they do spawn vortexs new (galaxies) both rotating clockwise on one side and counter clockwise about another side and lighhouse beam flashing into the dark matter of the Universe.

 

THESE ROTATING GALAXIES ARE ON THE SURFACE OF THE ROTATING UNIVERSE (THE HYPOTHESIS?)

.

 

Further informaton from NASA states that the visible light from the distant Universe does not exist towards the 13.56 Billion light years thus only red and blue are recorded in deeper space. THEREFORE i WISH TO MODIFY A STATEMENT THAT I made about a rotating universe where I said the white light is in the background. This is wrong as there is no white light in the deepest photos by NASA only red and blue. This give me even more thought (hypothsis) that the Universe is rotating. FRIPRO

[Pluto]

G'day fripro

 

Mate I think you have quoted yourself.

 

Smile,,,,,,,

 

You said

 

THESE ROTATING GALAXIES ARE ON THE SURFACE OF THE ROTATING UNIVERSE (THE HYPOTHESIS?)

 

It becomes quite complicated.

 

Yes! all rotate.

 

I question whether they rotate as a total unit.

[Pluto]

G'day from the land of ozzzzzzz

 

It does not effect one way or another which theory is correct as to the origin or origins or ongoing universe.

 

What is interesting is that there are scientists who have other theories that are able to be backed by science.

 

"Big Bang Blasted!"

The Home of Tired Light. Redshift, the Hubble constant, Cosmic Microwave Background (CMB) and the Expanding Universe all explained.

 

 

Tired Light is an alternative theory to that of the expanding Universe. This theory explains the experimental evidence without resorting to the 'cosmological constants' or 'vacuum energy' that are essential to the theory of the expanding Universe.

 

Experiment tells us that photons of light from distant galaxies have a longer wavelength on arrival than when they set off. Since red light has a longer wavelength than blue light, we say that they have been 'redshifted'. The Theory of the Expanding Universe explains this as space expanding and stretching the photons as it does so. In Tired Light we say that the photons lost energy during their journey to us by bumping into electrons on the way.

 

The Tired Light Theory (that redshift is due to electron interaction) is supported by the fact that measured values of the Hubble constant, H are exactly equal to a combination of the parameters of the electron. This is known as 'Ashmore's Paradox'. If, in the expanding Universe, the expansion is not related to the electron then why is the Hubble constant found experimentally to be related to the electron?

 

 

 

 

http://www.lyndonashmore.com/preprintpdf.pdf

 

Recoil Interaction Between Photons and The Electrons In The Plasma Of Intergalactic Space Leading To The Hubble Constant And CMB

 

 

ABSTRACT:

The Hubble diagram for type Ia Supernovae gives the value of the Hubble constant, H as 64±3 km/s Mpc-1, which, in SI units, is equal to ‘hre/me per cubic metre of space’ (2.1x10-18 s-1). This coincidence could suggest a relationship between H and the electrons in the plasma of intergalactic space that act collectively and oscillate if displaced. The possibility that light from distant galaxies is absorbed and reemitted by the electrons is considered with the electron recoiling on both occasions. A double Mössbauer effect leads to a redshift in the transmitted light. Introduction of the photoabsorption cross section 2reλ leads to the relationship H = 2nehre/me giving H ≈ 12 km/s Mpc-1 when ne has the reported value of ne ≈ 0.1m-3. The small amount of energy transferred to the electron by recoil is radiated as bremsstrahlung with a wavelength in the

 

As I read I like to share my readings.

 

If I'm on the wrong track, than usually someone somewhere will tell me.

[simcha]

... Shalom to those within our Science-Forum,

no! i am Not trying to get myself shot, as I can appreciate Harry's viewpoint (i.e.: MOST, are not! as educated as they pride themselves with) ... BUT, Listen to me !!

Indeed you are All correct in what you say.

Indeed most of what you All declare, OH YES INDEED CAN!! be proven ... and,

indeed i do not have the energy to prove now what i'd like to add/ supplement, which is simply this:

 

1) The universe is BOTH "Closed-Parabolic-Finite" (... This is "Eternal") ... AND!

2) "Open-Hyperbolic-Eternal" (... THIS is "INFINITE") ...

 

... Now that wasn't too difficult to understand, ... was it ???

 

and as you are all re-loading ,... so will i.

all the best. ... Simcha.

[modest]

G'day from the land of ozzzzzzz

 

It does not effect one way or another which theory is correct as to the origin or origins or ongoing universe.

 

It really does. The same theory that we use to explain the behavior of satellites in orbit and the color of gold metal (i.e. relativity) also explains the history of the cosmos. If the history of the universe is significantly different than we think then we would need a new theory that works with local and cosmic observations.

 

Cosmologists and astronomers aren't just making up stories and random explanations for observations. They are using very exact theories that have been tested here on earth and extending them to the cosmos. Astronomers will either find that the data fits the theory or does not. The examples where the data does NOT fit the theory are very rare, but also very welcome.

 

What is interesting is that there are scientists who have other theories that are able to be backed by science.

 

"Big Bang Blasted!"

The Home of Tired Light. Redshift, the Hubble constant, Cosmic Microwave Background (CMB) and the Expanding Universe all explained.

 

 

Tired Light is an alternative theory to that of the expanding Universe. This theory explains the experimental evidence without resorting to the 'cosmological constants' or 'vacuum energy' that are essential to the theory of the expanding Universe.

 

Experiment tells us that photons of light from distant galaxies have a longer wavelength on arrival than when they set off. Since red light has a longer wavelength than blue light, we say that they have been 'redshifted'. The Theory of the Expanding Universe explains this as space expanding and stretching the photons as it does so. In Tired Light we say that the photons lost energy during their journey to us by bumping into electrons on the way.

 

The Tired Light Theory (that redshift is due to electron interaction) is supported by the fact that measured values of the Hubble constant, H are exactly equal to a combination of the parameters of the electron. This is known as 'Ashmore's Paradox'. If, in the expanding Universe, the expansion is not related to the electron then why is the Hubble constant found experimentally to be related to the electron?

The book "Big Bang Blasted" by Lyndon Ashmore and the theories it discusses are addressed extensively in the thread: 9931.

 

I've read a couple chapters of the book and could read no more. It's completely ridiculous.

 

http://www.lyndonashmore.com/preprintpdf.pdf

 

Recoil Interaction Between Photons and The Electrons In The Plasma Of Intergalactic Space Leading To The Hubble Constant And CMB

 

 

ABSTRACT:

The Hubble diagram for type Ia Supernovae gives the value of the Hubble constant, H as 64±3 km/s Mpc-1, which, in SI units, is equal to ‘hre/me per cubic metre of space’ (2.1x10-18 s-1). This coincidence could suggest a relationship between H and the electrons in the plasma of intergalactic space that act collectively and oscillate if displaced. The possibility that light from distant galaxies is absorbed and reemitted by the electrons is considered with the electron recoiling on both occasions. A double Mössbauer effect leads to a redshift in the transmitted light. Introduction of the photoabsorption cross section 2reλ leads to the relationship H = 2nehre/me giving H ≈ 12 km/s Mpc-1 when ne has the reported value of ne ≈ 0.1m-3. The small amount of energy transferred to the electron by recoil is radiated as bremsstrahlung with a wavelength in the

 

As I read I like to share my readings.

 

If I'm on the wrong track, than usually someone somewhere will tell me.

 

This is a good example of Ashmore's ridiculousness. He makes up a "paradox" and names it after himself: "Ashmore's Paradox". :) And, he doesn't seem to know what a paradox is. A paradox is some statement or situation that contradicts itself, "Ashmore's paradox" is actually a coincidence.

 

His coincidence points out the Hubble constant (i.e. Hubble time) expressed in one set of units is almost equal to Plank's constant multiplied by the mass of an electron divided by the radius of an electron in another set of units. This coincidence is completely ridiculous—it has no meaning whatsoever. It's like pointing out that George Bush is 63 years old and the Pyramid of the Sun in Mexico is 63 meters tall. That's not much of a paradox, and a pretty meaningless coincidence as well.

 

~modest

 

Moderation Note: Subsequent discussion regarding the relativistic effects of gold were moved to 17534

[Pluto]

G'day from the land of ozzzzzzz

 

Hello modest in reference to:

 

"Big Bang Blasted!"

The Home of Tired Light. Redshift, the Hubble constant, Cosmic Microwave Background (CMB) and the Expanding Universe all explained.

 

 

 

Tired Light is an alternative theory to that of the expanding Universe. This theory explains the experimental evidence without resorting to the 'cosmological constants' or 'vacuum energy' that are essential to the theory of the expanding Universe.

 

Experiment tells us that photons of light from distant galaxies have a longer wavelength on arrival than when they set off. Since red light has a longer wavelength than blue light, we say that they have been 'redshifted'. The Theory of the Expanding Universe explains this as space expanding and stretching the photons as it does so. In Tired Light we say that the photons lost energy during their journey to us by bumping into electrons on the way.

 

The Tired Light Theory (that redshift is due to electron interaction) is supported by the fact that measured values of the Hubble constant, H are exactly equal to a combination of the parameters of the electron. This is known as 'Ashmore's Paradox'. If, in the expanding Universe, the expansion is not related to the electron then why is the Hubble constant found experimentally to be related to the electron?

 

What is wrong with this logic?

 

Is this logic further than reality as explained by the BBT expansion of the universe via space/time without reference to actual observations.

 

==================================================

 

This paper is quite interesting

 

http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0401420

Redshift of photons penetrating a hot plasma

 

Authors: Ari Brynjolfsson

(Submitted on 21 Jan 2004 (v1), last revised 7 Oct 2005 (this version, v3))

 

Abstract: A new interaction, plasma redshift, is derived, which is important only when photons penetrate a hot, sparse electron plasma. The derivation of plasma redshift is based entirely on conventional axioms of physics. When photons penetrate a cold and dense plasma, they lose energy through ionization and excitation, Compton scattering on the individual electrons, and Raman scattering on the plasma frequency. But in sparse hot plasma, such as in the solar corona, the photons lose energy also in plasma redshift. The energy loss per electron in the plasma redshift is about equal to the product of the photon's energy and one half of the Compton cross-section per electron. In quiescent solar corona, this heating starts in the transition zone to the corona and is a major fraction of the coronal heating. Plasma redshift contributes also to the heating of the interstellar plasma, the galactic corona, and the intergalactic plasma. Plasma redshift explains the solar redshifts, the redshifts of the galactic corona, the cosmological redshifts, the cosmic microwave background, and the X-ray background. The plasma redshift explains the observed magnitude-redshift relation for supernovae SNe Ia without the big bang, dark matter, or dark energy. There is no cosmic time dilation. The universe is not expanding. The plasma redshift, when compared with experiments, shows that the photons' classical gravitational redshifts are reversed as the photons move from the Sun to the Earth. This is a quantum mechanical effect. As seen from the Earth, a repulsion force acts on the photons. This means that there is no need for Einstein's Lambda term. The universe is quasi-static, infinite, and everlasting.