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

[LaurieAG]

Hi all,

 

There was an article in todays Australian Newspaper,'Computer judgements v Human prejudices, about computer programs having a better success rate than humans at solving complex problems, that isn't on their website yet.

 

One of the reasons for this , and it highlights this difference between rules and standards, is that there is no doubt in my mind that the human being, as part of our biological inheritence, is programmed to think lineally, we can move from A to B to C to D, but when it comes to weighing up variables, the human mind cannot give them proper weighting. Cognitive psychologists over the past 20 or 30 years have shown quite conclusively that human beings, even experts in particular fields, are just not good at making predictions. They tend to concentrate on the variables they are most familiar with, give them most weight, and fail to give effect to other things. A multi-logit or multiple regression computer program based on experience of thousands of trials and events will get the weightings better than the human being.

 

The person quoted above is Australian High Court Justice Michael McHugh.

 

He goes on to explain the trend to legislate things rather than rely on common law by stating that this has been done, not in the name of certainty but to "specify conduct more precisely and to cover loopholes".

 

I have long wondered why the procedural experts in the legal system haven't used the tools generated by the IT profession in the past 40 years to improve their performance, now it looks like the ball is in the other court (pun intended).

[LaurieAG]

Hi Maddog,

 

I ask the question "Why must time be the Only infinite variable" ? [from your first sentence above] This is two questions really - Why must time be an infinite variable &

why must it be the "only" one ?

 

Unless you can prove that infinity can cohabit with finite variables without producing glaring anomalies or "loopholes" (refer to my post above and previous posts) that cause inconsistencies, the only way is to reduce the problem to a state where those inconsistencies and anomalies either do not exist or can be ignored due to the structure of the problem put forward itself.

[Pluto]

G'day from the land of ozzzzzz

 

Am I in the right forum and topic?

[coldcreation]

Greetings,

 

Maddog, earlier in this thread you wrote:

 

... Worse than this -- this article was copyrighted

in 2002 (bottom of each page), so even the paper is dated.

 

And then you wrote:

 

These papers were written by Halton Arp (c. 2000 or so)

 

Note, the authors that published papers after 1998-1999 were well aware of SNe Ia data that had already begun pouring in. Cosmology has changed little since then. While technological advances are constantly transpiring (viz Hubble Space Telescope) observations of natural phenomena change very little (if at all). So to dismiss a publication because it is seven years old makes no sense.

 

Had you written e.g., '...since a particular 2002 observation the HST has been turned toward that object and has shown no luminous bridge...and so the quasars are not connected to the galaxy'...etc. it would have made more sense. That is apparently what happened a while ago when HST was turned toward Markarian 205 and NGC 4319.

 

It was subsequently argued, by some, that the connection was not real. Yet others argued the connection was still present. See Arp rebuttal here...

 

...October 2002. The Space Science Telescope Institute issued a press release with a picture of NGC 4319/Mrk 205 showing no bridge and with the imputation that it never existed. After all these years we suddenly learn there was serious evidence which has now been finally refuted. But wait a minute! The picture actually does show the bridge. If you just down load the web image and increase the contrast at faint levels' date=' there it is! Actually the NASA "proof" picture was not even printed deeply enough to show the outer spiral arms of the galaxy! There is a narrower core to the bridge, a kind of umbilical cord which the higher resolution HST can now pick out. (Halton Arp)[/quote']

 

 

 

 

Arp was one of the authors

on the book (with Sandage) titled, "Redshift Controversy", publ. about 1983. I had until

now forgot on which side he stood (wrt Redshift).

 

Actually, if I recall, that book was authored by Halton Arp and John Bahcall (a theoretical astrophysicist at the Institute for Advanced Study, Princeton). It was a follow-up from the Symposium of the American Association for the Advancement of Science, Redshifts of Galaxies and Quasars (December 30, 1972, Washington, D.C.). See the Introduction of The Redshift Controversy here, by George B. Field.

 

 

 

 

The gist of these three papers implies that some anomalous Redshift values may indeed be local and not cosmological phenominae.

This does not in itself eliminate Redshift as a theory. Same goes for the other links from the above post.

 

Your above links are bonafide scientists for sure.

 

You are correct, Arp's findings do not eliminate the standard redshift interpretation. Not yet, anyway, but they could. There exist a large number of observed objects that appear lined up. Some are probably chance associations of background objects. But many may not be. Until the differing interpretations can be disentangled empirically, statistically the balance appears to be leaning towards Halton Arp. I spare you the details for now.

 

The point is, anomalous redshifts of the type discovered by Arp, Burbidge, et al, point to something larger than just local irregularities. Indeed there may be a cosmological component to these findings; one that could put into question the standard interpretation of z (a change in the scale factor to the metric). Space itself, along with the things in it may not be expanding. Sandage, whom you mentioned above wrote extensively on this possibility. His conclusion leaves room for doubt.

 

My opinion on redshift z is that there may be cosmological component (e.g., expansion due to an adiabatic, diabatic, or thermodynamical process) mixed in with a general relativistic curved spacetime effect (adding to the global redshift, since light passes through a curved spacetime manifold) in addition to intrinsic redshifts such as Doppler motion blue- and redshifts and gravitational redshifts.

 

So the scenario may be exceedingly complex. And the outcome of these overlapping shifts may not after all point to a Big Bang.

 

Confidence in the standard hiatus may be unfounded. Evidence comes in the form of vast quantities of dark matter and dark energy required by the concordance model to make observations agree with theory and interpretation.

 

 

Does this mean you side one way or another wrt BBT or wish to remain vaguely on the sidelines as an observer. I have been reading in various journals where the stock principle of Redshift may need some reevaluation...

 

Good question.

 

I'm not on the sidelines.

 

My position has always been the expansion is not real, the big bang is not part of the history of the cosmos. The BB event is man-made, artificial (like god), exists only on paper.

 

But recently, I've been thinking about the possibility mentioned above: that there may be some thermodynamic expansion operational, i.e., as the universe heats up (due to stellar emissions) it expands. With time, as more and more stars are formed the universe (the CMBR) increases in temperature and expands, like a gas, nonlinearly, making the expansion appear as if it is accelerating now (and slower in the past). Though I have yet to fully formulate this conjecture. Again, this redshift effect would only be one component of the cosmological redshift; the other is a relative one and it is based on the non-Euclidean nature of the spacetime vacuum continuum, in accord with GR, .

 

Most will agree that redshift z is the fractional amount by which features in the spectra of astronomical objects are shifted to longer wavelengths. From that must be cultivated its interpretation and meaning, or raison d’être. But that’s not all: too must be interpreted the anomalous redshifts observed and catalogued predominantly by Halton Arp. Last but not least, the dimness of distant type Ia supernovae can (and in my opinion should) be interpreted without dark energy or CDM.

 

 

 

 

 

CC

[Pluto]

G'day from the land of ozzzzzz

 

Hello Coldcreation you write with a science attitude.

 

It's great to see this science attitude in a world where people are just wanting to be right regardless of the evidence.

 

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

 

Another origin of cosmological redshifts

Authors: Michael A. Ivanov

(Submitted on 5 May 2004)

http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0405083

 

Abstract: If gravitons are super-strong interacting particles which fulfill a flat non-expanding universe, we would have another possibility to explain cosmological redshifts - in a frame of non-kinematic model. It is shown by the author that in this case SNe 1a data may be understood without any dark energy and dark matter. A value of relaxation factor is found in this paper. In this approach, we have Newton's law of gravity as a simplest consequence, and the connection between Newton's and Hubble's constants. A value of the latter may be theoretically predicted.

 

 

and can some one tell me whats wrong with the science in the following paper.

 

 

[astro-ph/0509611] Evidence for a Non-Expanding Universe: Surface Brightness Data From HUDF

Evidence for a Non-Expanding Universe: Surface Brightness Data From HUDF

 

Authors: Eric J. Lerner (Lawrenceville Plasma Physics)

(Submitted on 20 Sep 2005 (v1), last revised 26 Sep 2005 (this version, v2))

 

Abstract: 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.

 

 

When looking through all the galaxy images near and far there is a clustering effect that does not show any indication that the universe is expanding or accelerating as a UNIVERSE. Looking at the parts you can see the contracting objects via infalling matter and you can also see the jets that are created that eject matter near and far. Some super jets eject matter for millions of light years.

 

3C273:

Black Hole Spills a Kaleidoscope of Color

Chandra :: Photo Album :: 3C273 :: 20 Jun 06

Chandra Observes Cosmic Traffic Pile-Up In Energetic Quasar Jet

November 6, 2000

 

 

Chandra Press Room :: Chandra Observes Cosmic Traffic Pile-Up In Energetic Quasar Jet :: November 6, 2000

Chandra :: Photo Album :: 3C273 :: 20 Jun 06

 

 

'Death Star' Galaxy Black Hole Fires at Neighboring Galaxy

For Release: December 17, 2007

Chandra Press Room :: 'Death Star' Galaxy Black Hole Fires at Neighboring Galaxy :: 17 December 07

 

 

Spectacular X-ray Jet Points Toward Cosmic Energy Booster

June 6, 2000

Chandra Press Room :: Spectacular X-ray Jet Points Toward Cosmic Energy Booster :: June 6, 2000

 

 

Looking into deep field is like an eye openner in understanding the complexity and how eternal the universe is.

 

 

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

 

The Secret Lives of Galaxies Unveiled in Deep Survey

HubbleSite - NewsCenter - The Secret Lives of Galaxies Unveiled in Deep Survey (06/19/2003) - Release Images

 

The Universe "Down Under" is the Latest Target for Hubble's Latest Deep-View

HubbleSite - NewsCenter - The Universe "Down Under" is the Latest Target for Hubble's Latest Deep-View (11/23/1998) - Introduction

[modest]

Howdy Coldcreation. How fares the land of the bull?

 

My position has always been the expansion is not real, the big bang is not part of the history of the cosmos. The BB event is man-made, artificial (like god), exists only on paper.

 

But recently, I've been thinking about the possibility mentioned above: that there may be some thermodynamic expansion operational, i.e., as the universe heats up (due to stellar emissions) it expands. With time, as more and more stars are formed the universe (the CMBR) increases in temperature and expands, like a gas, nonlinearly, making the expansion appear as if it is accelerating now (and slower in the past). Though I have yet to fully formulate this conjecture. Again, this redshift effect would only be one component of the cosmological redshift; the other is a relative one and it is based on the non-Euclidean nature of the spacetime vacuum continuum, in accord with GR, .

 

I like the idea... I really do. What we need (if you don't mind me suggesting) is some way to relate radiation pressure (which is essentially what you're talking about with heating up stars) with gravity. We would need to say X amount of radiation pressure causes X amount of gravitational effects.

 

As you're generally a fan of General relativity I might point out a solution to said conundrum. In GR radiation pressure is a form of energy which bends spacetime in such a way as to attract mass in the radiation field. This, unfortunately, is the oppose of the effect you are giving it. This is very non-intuitive and my wording often adds to confusion so I'll quote a source,

 

Richard Tolman in the early 1930’s found that a universe containing only radiation behaves much like a universe containing only matter of low pressure, but with one important difference: a radiation universe of the same density as a matter universe has a greater deceleration. This is because the large radiation pressure acts as an additional source of gravity and the expansion slows down more quickly than in the matter universe...

 

Thus pressure has an effect opposite to what we might expect. Common sense suggests that pressure in an expanding universe should hasten the expansion. And in a collapsing universe pressure should slow the collapse, and even arrest the collapse when sufficiently great. But instead, pressure does the opposite; it causes slower expansion and faster collapse.

 

This unexpected result is because a uniform universe has no pressure gradients; furthermore, unlike a boiler, the universe has no walls against which pressure can push, and the only remaining dynamic effect of pressure is its contribution to the gravitational forces that control the universe.

 

Google Book—Cosmology By Edward Robert Harrison

 

If a universe were static and everything were made of matter then if it started heating up and matter turned into radiation it would have the effect of causing contraction rather than expansion.

 

Have you considered this? I have a feeling you have.

 

~modest

[Pluto]

G'day from the land of oz

 

Modest said

 

If a universe were static and everything were made of matter then if it started heating up and matter turned into radiation it would have the effect of causing contraction rather than expansion.

 

To understand the formation of jets and how they carry degenerate matter and reform into normal matter is the key to what you are saying. In this situation you would have a contraction/expansion process.

 

I will expand on this when I come back.

 

Off to a birthday.

 

oops I will post these for now

 

[0706.4031] Small effects of low-energy quantum gravity

Small effects of low-energy quantum gravity

 

Authors: Michael A. Ivanov

(Submitted on 27 Jun 2007)

 

Abstract: Small effects of quantum gravity on the scale $sim 10^{-3} eV$ and their cosmological consequences are discussed and compared with observations of supernovae 1a, gamma-ray bursts and galaxies.

 

and

 

[astro-ph/0609518] Hubble diagrams of soft and hard radiation sources in the graviton background: to an apparent contradiction between supernova 1a and gamma-ray burst observations

Hubble diagrams of soft and hard radiation sources in the graviton background: to an apparent contradiction between supernova 1a and gamma-ray burst observations

 

Authors: Michael A. Ivanov

(Submitted on 19 Sep 2006 (v1), last revised 10 Jan 2007 (this version, v4))

 

Abstract: In the sea of super-strong interacting gravitons, non-forehead collisions with gravitons deflect photons, and this deflection may differ for soft and hard radiations. As a result, the Hubble diagram would not be a universal function and it will have a different view for such sources as supernovae in visible light and gamma-ray bursts. Observations of these two kinds are compared here with the limit cases of the Hubble diagram.

 

 

 

and

 

[hep-th/0506189] Gravitons as super-strong interacting particles, and low-energy quantum gravity

Gravitons as super-strong interacting particles, and low-energy quantum gravity

 

Authors: Michael A. Ivanov

(Submitted on 22 Jun 2005 (v1), last revised 28 Jan 2006 (this version, v3))

 

Abstract: It is shown by the author that if gravitons are super-strong interacting particles and the low-temperature graviton background exists, the basic cosmological conjecture about the Dopplerian nature of redshifts may be false. In this case, a full magnitude of cosmological redshift would be caused by interactions of photons with gravitons. A new dimensional constant which characterizes one act of interaction is introduced and estimated. Non-forehead collisions with gravitons will lead to a very specific additional relaxation of any photonic flux. It gives a possibility of another interpretation of supernovae 1a data - without any kinematics. Of course, all of these facts may implicate a necessity to change the standard cosmological paradigm. Some features of a new paradigm are discussed here, too. A quantum mechanism of classical gravity based on an existence of this sea of gravitons is described for the Newtonian limit. This mechanism needs graviton pairing and "an atomic structure" of matter for working it, and leads to the time asymmetry. If the considered quantum mechanism of classical gravity is realized in the nature, than an existence of black holes contradicts to Einstein's equivalence principle. It is shown that in this approach the two fundamental constants - Hubble's and Newton's ones - should be connected between themselves. The theoretical value of the Hubble constant is computed. In this approach, every massive body would be decelerated due to collisions with gravitons that may be connected with the Pioneer 10 anomaly. It is shown that the predicted and observed values of deceleration are in good agreement. Some unsolved problems are discussed, so as possibilities to verify some conjectures in laser-based experiments.

[LaurieAG]

Hi Pluto,

 

When looking through all the galaxy images near and far there is a clustering effect that does not show any indication that the universe is expanding or accelerating as a UNIVERSE. Looking at the parts you can see the contracting objects via infalling matter and you can also see the jets that are created that eject matter near and far. Some super jets eject matter for millions of light years.

 

I hope none of them look like this doppler image.

[LaurieAG]

I really don't like any higher level Universe model that places the observer at the center of that models universe because it is an experimental observation limitation not a real model of what is actually happening. I could imagine a whole pile of big and little 'bangs' that were spread over a GBF area over a very long time and, being at the center of an observation limitation sphere, understand that we might be unable to see this, and conceptually regard this observation limitation as infinity in our minds and models.

 

BTW, Seconds from the BB is a finite model that contains no absolute BB and therefore no infinity.

[Pluto]

G'day from the land of ozzzzz

 

Hello LaurieAG

 

I think along the lines of static universe. As you know the BB model is the standard and because it's the standard it has to withstand the storm of questions and research and evidence and so on.

 

These links are quite interesting. I may have posted them before.

 

[0901.4169] No Evidence of Time Dilation in Gamma-Ray Burst Data

No Evidence of Time Dilation in Gamma-Ray Burst Data

 

Authors: David F. Crawford

(Submitted on 27 Jan 2009)

 

Abstract: Gamma-Ray Bursts have been observed out to very high redshifts and provide time measures that are directly related to intrinsic time scales of the burst. Einstein's theory of relativity is quite definite that if the universe is expanding then the observed duration of these measures will increase with redshift. Thus gamma-ray burst measures should show a time dilation proportional to redshift. An analysis of gamma-ray burst data shows that the hypothesis of time dilation is rejected with a probability of 4.4$times10^{-6}$ for redshifts out to z=6.6. Traditionally the lack of an apparent time dilation has been explained by an inverse correlation between luminosity and time measures together with strong luminosity selection as a function of redshift. It is shown that the inverse correlation between luminosity and some time measures is confirmed, but using concordance cosmology strong luminosity selection cannot be achieved. It may be possible to explain the apparent lack of time dilation with a combination of gamma-ray burst selection, some luminosity evolution and some time measure evolution. But this requires a remarkable coincidence in order to produce the apparent lack of time dilation. However the data are consistent with a static cosmology in a non-expanding universe.

 

 

and

 

[physics/0701104] Harmonizing General Relativity with Quantum Mechanics

Harmonizing General Relativity with Quantum Mechanics

 

Authors: Antonio Alfonso-Faus

(Submitted on 9 Jan 2007 (v1), last revised 19 May 2007 (this version, v2))

 

Abstract: Gravitation is the common underlying texture between General Relativity and Quantum Mechanics. We take gravitation as the link that can make possible the marriage between these two sciences. We use here the duality of Nature for gravitation: A continuous warped space, wave-like, and a discrete quantum gas, particle-like, both coexistent and producing an equilibrium state in the Universe. The result is a static, non expanding, spherical, unlimited and finite Universe, with no cosmological constant and no dark energy. The Principle of Mach is reproduced here by the convergence of the two cosmological equations of Einstein. From this a Mass Boom concept is born given by M = t, M the mass of the Universe and t its age. Also a decreasing speed of light is the consequence of the Mass Boom, c = 1/t, which explains the Supernovae Type Ia observations without the need of expansion (nor, of course, accelerated expansion). Our Mass Boom model completely wipes out the problems and paradoxes built in the Big Bang model, like the horizon, monopole, entropy, flatness, fine tuning, etc. It also eliminates the need for inflation. Finally the relation proposed by Weinberg in 1972 is here explained in terms of a gravitational cross section for all gravitational masses.

 

 

and

 

[astro-ph/0612155] Eppur si espande

Eppur si espande

 

Authors: Marek A. Abramowicz, Stanislaw Bajtlik, Jean-Pierre Lasota, Audrey Moudens

(Submitted on 6 Dec 2006 (v1), last revised 11 Apr 2007 (this version, v3))

 

Abstract: The rather wide-spread belief that cosmological expansion of a flat 3D--space (with spatial curvature k=0) cannot be observationally distinguished from a kinematics of galaxies moving in a flat and non-expanding space is erroneous. We suggest that the error may have its source in a non relativistic intuition that imagines the Universe not as a spacetime but separates space from time and pictures the cosmological expansion as space evolving in time. The physical reality, however, is fundamentally different -- the expanding Universe is necessarily a curved spacetime. We show here that the fact that the spacetime is curved implies that the interpretation of the observed cosmological redshift as being due to the expansion of the cosmological 3D--space is observationally verifiable. Thus it is impossible to mimic the true cosmological redshift by a Doppler effect caused by motion of galaxies in a non-expanding 3D-space, flat or curved. We summarize our points in simple spacetime diagrams that illustrate a gedanken experiment distinguishing between expansion of space and pure kinematics. We also provide all relevant mathematics. None of the previously published discussions of the issue, including a recent popular Scientific American article, offered a similarly clear way out of the confusion.

 

 

The BB model keeps on shifting the goal posts every time it has to explain and supoort the theory.

 

This creates variations in the model. Such as the change from on single BB to an infinite number of Big Bangs. Which creates the problem of TIME. How can all these BB come together at the same time over billions of light years. When we observe deep field images 13.2 Gyrs we see existing galaxies in various stages of evolution just like the local galaxies with metla properties. Most scientists have said this should not have been so. We should have seen the birth and young galaxies with minimum metal production.

Hubble site and Chandra site made these statements from deep field images.

 

The BB people will use ad hoc ideas to produce the end result, by saying the conditions of evolution were diffferent than and the speed of light was exceeded to produce the young universe.

 

We now live in the modern ERA where people can express their opinions without being jailed or their projects holted by current thinking.

Ok jail my be too far but people have lost their jobs and their projects stopped because they talked and provided evidence against the BBT.

[LaurieAG]

Hi Pluto,

 

Considering that our atomic models evolved from the growing understanding of how our solar system operates, surely we should see similar things in the macro as in the micro?

 

As our cosmological observations are subject to our interpretation and much manipulation, there is merit in the points you bring up.

 

You will probably be able to follow the following.

 

It's a pity that our observation points on earth have to compensate for 3 types of spin, rotational (around the earths axis), orbital (around the sun) and galactic (around our galactic center i.e. where the recently hypothesised massive black holes exist). I genuinely think it's a pity that the scientific community in general has no interest in getting a clear picture of our universe without the spin.

 

This would be easy to do with a space telescope that just stayed stationary on a point relative to our galactic center (and took 360 degree pictures at different view depths) even if they just did it in an orbit within our solar system. They actually tried something like this at one of the poles (antarctica I think) but gave up because they couldn't get any linear continuity between the different view depths (i.e. you should be able to join the dots from different view depths but too much distortion set in). Also, considering that our solar system was the 'model', so to speak, for the atom, shouldn't we expect to see some of these effects at the micro scale as well as the macro scale?

 

There are many other potential pitfalls in modern science due to this intimate relationship between the micro and the macro that can be used to determine where the scientist has to be very careful. Take FTL (faster than light). While recent experiments with prisms and microwaves can provide data that appears to indicate that faster than light speeds are attained, very little evidence is given about the micro interractions between the various elements of the model and how the FTL process occurs or appears to occur to us as macro observers. We should surely be able to see similar things when looking from the micro to the macro (telsecopes etc) and from the macro to the micro (microscopes etc).

 

The main agent used to dope the very dense glass used in the prisms (and most of our optical observational equipment either way) is Beryllium. Hydrogen, Helium, Lithium, Beryllium the 4th element. This element would be expected (as the lens was shaped under pressure) to pack differently at the edges of the prism than it would in other areas. Beryllium also has remarkable optical properties when struck by photons, Hmmm.

 

Back on the macro stage we get Beryllium clouds (the 4th element) being produced in massive quantities as the second set of galaxies (our galaxies, 4 billion LY ago, and our earth) evolve from the core of lower level elements produced from the BB (or seconds away from the BB).

 

Hmmm, so if we go from the micro to the macro we also get a dense edge of Beryllium (within a distinct density gradient) between us and (as per the micro model) the source of the wave we are observing. But, surely this would lead to expectations that some sort of FTL phenomena would appear in optical observations that wouldn't appear in other wave frequencies? How could we tell?

 

Because any valid observations of the BB (or close) are ultimately made through discrete points on a grid (like CCD's) surely we can imagine what it would look like, if you modelled a rotating point of light as the wave source for observations made through a continually distorting lens around the source. Incorporating FTL you'd probably observe something like what we call a spiral galaxy where the arms etc are just different views of the same light source over time. Use other wavelengths and you can check if your optical sensors are being fooled by the Beryllium into producing a quasi FTL state where more light is visible than should be.

 

Maybe the latest modifications to the Hubble Telescope will be able to tell us part of the answer to this topic.

[Pluto]

G'day Laurie

 

The papers that I post are limited beacuse of the ability to gather information either by tools or by process. It will be a number of years before our understanding of the internal process is reached to a level of understanding.

 

Most hope that the next telescope and the new probe to sun will aid with that information.

 

 

As for so called black holes.

 

We have several large one near the centre and a large one at the centre being several million Sun masses. In addition to all that we have stell black holes through out the Milky Way as defined by stella black holes ranging from several Sun Masses to thousand odd Sun massses that are found in clusters of stars.

 

Google or arXiv

Stellar Black holes Milky Way

 

Galactic Center Research

Galactic Center Research

 

 

 

Here is the Swarm of black holes at or near the centre

 

The Swarm

APOD: 2006 July 29 - The Swarm

[LaurieAG]

Hi Pluto,

 

The attached image is one of a series extended from my avatar image.

 

It's a black hole created in much the same way as we spot planets crossing stars except it probably hasn't got as much spin. It's a screen capture from an optical feedback loop.

[Pluto]

Hello Laurie

 

What type of a black hole is it?

 

Looks black

Looks like a hole

So it must be a black hole

 

???????????

[maddog]

Hi Maddog,

I ask the question "Why must time be the Only infinite variable" ? [from your first sentence above] This is two questions really - Why must time be an infinite variable & why must it be the "only" one ?

Unless you can prove that infinity can cohabit with finite variables without producing glaring anomalies or "loopholes" (refer to my post above and previous posts) that cause inconsistencies, the only way is to reduce the problem to a state where those inconsistencies and anomalies either do not exist or can be ignored due to the structure of the problem put forward itself.

 

1. I asked the question, you didn't answer (or even qualify).

2. You are now "demanding" that I "prove"... (I am not sure what ?)

 

I'm not sure we have the same usage for "anomalies", "loopholes".

 

As a representation, I can construct a coordinate system of "finite" dimension. Yet these

coordinates can approach infinity (a limiting value). Time is an abstraction yet a different

coordinate that spatial ones and is typically measured from 0. To have an "always"

time may sound good; Negative Infinity for time doesn't have much meaning.

 

maddog

[maddog]

Coldcreation,

Note, the authors that published papers after 1998-1999 were well aware of SNe Ia data that had already begun pouring in. Cosmology has changed little since then. While technological advances are constantly transpiring (viz Hubble Space Telescope) observations of natural phenomena change very little (if at all). So to dismiss a publication because it is seven years old makes no sense.

I think you misunderstand. I was not dismissing Halton Arp's papers. I was putting

in perspective with data that was since then.

Had you written e.g., '...since a particular 2002 observation the HST has been turned toward that object and has shown no luminous bridge...and so the quasars are not connected to the galaxy'...etc. it would have made more sense. That is apparently what happened a while ago when HST was turned toward Markarian 205 and NGC 4319.

I accept your amendment of my quote.

Actually, if I recall, that book was authored by Halton Arp and John Bahcall (a theoretical astrophysicist at the Institute for Advanced Study, Princeton). It was a follow-up from the Symposium of the American Association for the Advancement of Science, Redshifts of Galaxies and Quasars (December 30, 1972, Washington, D.C.). See the Introduction of The Redshift Controversy here, by George B. Field.

I am glad you liked it, I read it back in the 80s.

You are correct, Arp's findings do not eliminate the standard redshift interpretation. Not yet, anyway, but they could. There exist a large number of observed objects that appear lined up. Some are probably chance associations of background objects. But many may not be. Until the differing interpretations can be disentangled empirically, statistically the balance appears to be leaning towards Halton Arp. I spare you the details for now.

You seem to have an agenda with the purple comment above. Wrt to the other italicized

comment, I quite disagree. I see no "balance" tipping.

The point is, anomalous redshifts of the type discovered by Arp, Burbidge, et al, point to something larger than just local irregularities. Indeed there may be a cosmological component to these findings; one that could put into question the standard interpretation of z (a change in the scale factor to the metric). Space itself, along with the things in it may not be expanding. Sandage, whom you mentioned above wrote extensively on this possibility. His conclusion leaves room for doubt.

So I'll side with Sandage for the moment.

My opinion on redshift z is that there may be cosmological component (e.g., expansion due to an adiabatic, diabatic, or thermodynamical process) mixed in with a general relativistic curved spacetime effect (adding to the global redshift, since light passes through a curved spacetime manifold) in addition to intrinsic redshifts such as Doppler motion blue- and redshifts and gravitational redshifts.

So the scenario may be exceedingly complex. And the outcome of these overlapping shifts may not after all point to a Big Bang.

May, -- may not. Evidence to date is so far siding with may, AFAIK.

Confidence in the standard hiatus may be unfounded. Evidence comes in the form of vast quantities of dark matter and dark energy required by the concordance model to make observations agree with theory and interpretation.

I would like to know what Dark Matter & Dark Energy is as do other scientists.

My position has always been the expansion is not real, the big bang is not part of the history of the cosmos. The BB event is man-made, artificial (like god), exists only on paper.

Now, the true agenda comes out.

But recently, I've been thinking about the possibility mentioned above: that there may be some thermodynamic expansion operational, i.e., as the universe heats up (due to stellar emissions) it expands. With time, as more and more stars are formed the universe (the CMBR) increases in temperature and expands, like a gas, nonlinearly, making the expansion appear as if it is accelerating now (and slower in the past). Though I have yet to fully formulate this conjecture. Again, this redshift effect would only be one component of the cosmological redshift; the other is a relative one and it is based on the non-Euclidean nature of the spacetime vacuum continuum, in accord with GR, .

I will have to look into papers on this interpretation.

Most will agree that redshift z is the fractional amount by which features in the spectra of astronomical objects are shifted to longer wavelengths. From that must be cultivated its interpretation and meaning, or raison d’être. But that’s not all: too must be interpreted the anomalous redshifts observed and catalogued predominantly by Halton Arp. Last but not least, the dimness of distant type Ia supernovae can (and in my opinion should) be interpreted without dark energy or CDM.

At least you are honest in telling me it is your opinion. I appreciate that.

 

maddog

[maddog]

I really don't like any higher level Universe model that places the observer at the center of that models universe because it is an experimental observation limitation not a real model of what is actually happening. I could imagine a whole pile of big and little 'bangs' that were spread over a GBF area over a very long time and, being at the center of an observation limitation sphere, understand that we might be unable to see this, and conceptually regard this observation limitation as infinity in our minds and models.

Wheeler had speculated a Multiverse where all that you say would take place in.

BTW, Seconds from the BB is a finite model that contains no absolute BB and therefore no infinity.

I also have distate for getting "arbitrarily" close to the "event". Gets to be theory corroborating theory. Yechh!

 

maddog