Olber's Paradox only works for fields of constant density with range

[LaurieAG]

A cyclone is a region of low pressure. Highs tend to be clear skies :hint::hint:.

 

I'm talking about different perceptions kmarinas86, not the explanations behind them.

[kmarinas86]

Hello kmarinas86,

 

I agree, there should be a solution that doesn't require dark/anti matter.

 

I've always wondered why we perceive a galaxy as something like a hurricane/cyclone etc from above, when it looks like what we get if we trace light rays originating from a (rotating) point source that takes more than 1 complete rotation of the source before the light reaches the observation point.

 

Say you spin a sparkler around in a dark room you will see a flaming circle. If you increase the scale to galactic proportions would you expect to see the individual (discrete) points from the tip of the sparkler, or would you expect to see a full circle?

 

I would expect to see a full circle. But if I was a camera i would expect to see individual (discrete) points.

[LaurieAG]

I would expect to see a full circle. But if I was a camera :weather_storm: i would expect to see individual (discrete) points.

 

I suppose it comes down to what your camera (observation point) is collecting. If the camera is collecting incoming photons that have travelled 4 billion light years to the observation point, it should also pick up all incoming light that has travelled less than 4 billion light years as well.

 

In other words, we will see something that looks like a spiral galaxy if we collect all of the incoming light from a pair of solar systems rotating around a common center of gravity. And don't forget how reflecting bodies (planets etc) that orbit these discrete points will 'fuzzy' up the whole picture.

 

BTW, unless you can actually capture (or separate) only those photons that came from a discrete time (or period) in the past, you are actually looking at the sum of all the photons.

[Harry Costas]

Hello All

 

To begin with the BBT is just a theory built on ad hoc fantasy theories.

 

The spheres that exist out there are controlled by gravity and electromagnetic forces.

We see this in solar systems.

We see this in galaxies.

We see this in cluster of galaxies.

We see this in super cluster of galaxies and so on.

The objects at the ends of the spheres tend to be less dense than the objects at the centre.

 

The problem we have in this day and age is that the BBT has put us on the wrong track for many years. It's only in the last twenty years scientists have realized the non scientific approach with the Big Bang.

 

So! what do we have out there.

 

Endless ageless universe of infinite matter.

With finite objects within the universe recycling in an endless process. Transforming matter into varies phases.

[InfiniteNow]

That's a super hypothesis Harry, but you're wrong in the fact that you hold it as absolute. Sorry bro, it's something you do all the time.

[Pyrotex]

...Place a 100 watt light bulb 1 meter away. Now consider a spherical shell two meters away with four 100 W bulbs. The four will give off more light to the point of origin (the observer centered in the shell)....

Normally I do not attempt to "appeal to authority", but I think in this case it is relevant to say that I have a degree in Physics. I have been working with NASA on space and astronomy related tasks for 30 years. I know whereof I speak.

 

With all due respect, your example above is very simple and clear. But your conclusion is wrong. Using the "inverse square law" as you have done before leads to the conclusion that ANY ONE of the 4 bulbs at the 2-meter range will be observed as being 1/4 as bright as the the bulb at the 1-meter range.

 

But there are 4 bulbs at the 2-meter range. 4 x 1/4 = 1. So, the amount of light falling on the "observer centered in the shell" will be the same, as measured by, for example, photons/sec.

[Pyrotex]

Several points, Pyrotex,...For Olbers paradox to be operational the following assumptions are essential:

 

(1) The universe must be flat, i.e., there is no large-scale curvature, the universe is thus assumed Euclidean. This is not a deduction based on observational grounds...

I believe there have been several astronomical observations in the past 7 years that produced evidence for a "flat" universe. I will try to look them up. You said, "general relativity states the impossibility of a Euclidean universe", but in grad school I took GR and the list of "conclusions" did not include that. Space may be "puckered" around stars and other massive objects (even galaxy clusters) but on larger scales, I don't think GR demands a particular curvature.

(2) The cosmological principle is base on philosophical grounds, not observation.

It is based on one observation: "the night sky is dark". That IS an observation. Asking "why?" is not philosophy. However, concluding that this question is a serious question and deserves an answer IS philosophy.

...due to the velocity of light c...

Now, THIS may be relevant. We only have light from ~13 BLYr away: the "observable" universe. Olber assumed an "infinite" universe not because he thought it was, but as an assumption that made the paradox "work". [it's like physicists calculating which horse to bet on at the track; they assume "perfectly spherical horses" to make the math tractable B) ] That we cannot observe an "infinitely" receding set of "shells" is now a demonstrated fact.

...Place as many galaxies as you wish in a fixed spherical shell, say, at a distance of 1Gyr and the night sky will still be dark.

This is a very puzzling thing to say! B) :) B) You ask me to place as many as I like? It is trivial to calculate! The Andromeda Galaxy at 6MLYr has an overall brightness of about 6th magnitude. It would be as bright as a medium star if it were a point source (which it isn't; it's spread over about 1/4 square degree). At 1GLYr, that is 166.7 times as far away -- call it 200 for roundness.

 

At that distance, Andromeda would be 1/40,000 as bright. So, we place 40,000 Andromeda's in a region close around and behind the first one. We do this so that from Earth, all 40,000 cover an area of the sky of about 10 square minutes. Repeat this for the entire 2*pi Steradians of the Sky, populating every 10 min^2 patch with 40,000 Andromedas.

 

Every patch will now appear to be approximately as bright as a 6th magnitude star, but spread evenly over that patch. This is also the brightness of the Milky Way as we see it on a very dark night with no lights or Moon or pollution.

 

In other words, the entire sky would now appear as bright as the Milky Way, which is certainly brighter than "dark".

...So you see, the night sky is dark not because of expansion.

woops! Select one:

"The night sky is NOT DARK; because of expansion."

"The night sky is NOT 'dark because of expansion'."

Olbers paradox is not real. It was used to justify (by S. Hawking and the likes) the big bang expansion when faced with a menacing steady state group...

May I contribute something to you? Please? When discussing science and math, try for a little more precision in your speaking. Statements like "Olber's Paradox is not real." are NULL statements. They have no useful meaning and just get in the way of your logic and your evidence.

 

Olber's Paradox was a very powerful leap of insight for its day. It asks a serious question: Why is the night sky dark? It did not propose to ANSWER that question. What it did say was, "the answer is NOT obvious!" It did speculate that, given a few simple assumptions, it was plausible that the night sky should be visibly brighter. Olber was not trying to prove anything, nor was his Paradox ever used to prove anything. The value was in the question itself, and in the challenge to find a meaningfull way to answer it.

 

Many people have proffered answers to Olber's question. This is how Science is done. Some said it was dust that absorbed a lot of distant light. Others pointed out that interstellar gas can down-shift the color, and hence the energy of distant light. Others have pointed out the Red-Shift due to the expansion of Space-Time. You have pointed out that beyond a certain point, there should be fewer galaxies.

 

All these are good answers to Olber's question. That doesn't make the question "doo-doo", or stupid, or obnoxious, or kaput. Olber asked a powerful question that demonstrated a certain degree of genius. After all, he was the first to ask it. And after centuries of pondering his question, we have come up with many insightful answers. This is the heart and nature of Science. This is how Science works.

 

PS: And Olber's math was correct. Else nobody would have ever taken his question seriously.

[kmarinas86]

I believe there have been several astronomical observations in the past 7 years that produced evidence for a "flat" universe. I will try to look them up. You said, "general relativity states the impossibility of a Euclidean universe", but in grad school I took GR and the list of "conclusions" did not include that. Space may be "puckered" around stars and other massive objects (even galaxy clusters) but on larger scales, I don't think GR demands a particular curvature.It is based on one observation: "the night sky is dark". That IS an observation. Asking "why?" is not philosophy. However, concluding that this question is a serious question and deserves an answer IS philosophy.Now, THIS may be relevant. We only have light from ~13 BLYr away: the "observable" universe. Olber assumed an "infinite" universe not because he thought it was, but as an assumption that made the paradox "work". [it's like physicists calculating which horse to bet on at the track; they assume "perfectly spherical horses" to make the math tractable B) ] That we cannot observe an "infinitely" receding set of "shells" is now a demonstrated fact.This is a very puzzling thing to say! B) :) B) You ask me to place as many as I like? It is trivial to calculate! The Andromeda Galaxy at 6MLYr has an overall brightness of about 6th magnitude. It would be as bright as a medium star if it were a point source (which it isn't; it's spread over about 1/4 square degree). At 1GLYr, that is 166.7 times as far away -- call it 200 for roundness.

 

At that distance, Andromeda would be 1/40,000 as bright. So, we place 40,000 Andromeda's in a region close around and behind the first one. We do this so that from Earth, all 40,000 cover an area of the sky of about 10 square minutes. Repeat this for the entire 2*pi Steradians of the Sky, populating every 10 min^2 patch with 40,000 Andromedas.

 

Every patch will now appear to be approximately as bright as a 6th magnitude star, but spread evenly over that patch. This is also the brightness of the Milky Way as we see it on a very dark night with no lights or Moon or pollution.

 

In other words, the entire sky would now appear as bright as the Milky Way, which is certainly brighter than "dark".woops! Select one:

"The night sky is NOT DARK; because of expansion."

"The night sky is NOT 'dark because of expansion'."May I contribute something to you? Please? When discussing science and math, try for a little more precision in your speaking. Statements like "Olber's Paradox is not real." are NULL statements. They have no useful meaning and just get in the way of your logic and your evidence.

 

Olber's Paradox was a very powerful leap of insight for its day. It asks a serious question: Why is the night sky dark? It did not propose to ANSWER that question. What it did say was, "the answer is NOT obvious!" It did speculate that, given a few simple assumptions, it was plausible that the night sky should be visibly brighter. Olber was not trying to prove anything, nor was his Paradox ever used to prove anything. The value was in the question itself, and in the challenge to find a meaningfull way to answer it.

 

Many people have proffered answers to Olber's question. This is how Science is done. Some said it was dust that absorbed a lot of distant light. Others pointed out that interstellar gas can down-shift the color, and hence the energy of distant light. Others have pointed out the Red-Shift due to the expansion of Space-Time. You have pointed out that beyond a certain point, there should be fewer galaxies.

 

All these are good answers to Olber's question. That doesn't make the question "doo-doo", or stupid, or obnoxious, or kaput. Olber asked a powerful question that demonstrated a certain degree of genius. After all, he was the first to ask it. And after centuries of pondering his question, we have come up with many insightful answers. This is the heart and nature of Science. This is how Science works.

 

PS: And Olber's math was correct. Else nobody would have ever taken his question seriously.

 

His math was correct because the assumption was that of a universe of constant density. That how you arrive at x^2 times as many objects each of x^-2 times the brightness at x times the distance. But if the number of stars within a radius is less than proportional to x^2 (e.g. x^1.9, x^1.8, etc.), then slope of decreasing stellar density is sufficient to allow for dark sky even if there was an infinite horizon.

 

With galaxies with flat rotation curves, it is x^1 (M proportional to R as in constant v^2=GM/R) - actually less than that because a lot of the "matter" is dark not shining.

 

The math that shows this is located here:

Olbers' paradox - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[Pyrotex]

His math was correct because the assumption was that of a universe of constant density. That how you arrive at x^2 times as many objects each of x^-2 times the brightness at x times the distance...

Correct. Olber assumed an infinite universe of constant density. And that was a perfectly rational thing to do, even though the night sky is obviously patchy with some parts dark and some parts (the Milky Way) bright.

 

That doesn't make Olber wrong or bad, however. Any time you want to analyze a complex problem, it is valid to simplify aspects of the problem. Then you state your assumptions up front.

 

We now know that on scales larger than a galaxy but smaller than a galaxy cluster, the universe is obviously NOT of constant density. But at scales larger than a galaxy cluster but much smaller than the total observable universe, the universe does appear to be more or less of constant density, with lots of bumps and holes. On scales greater than half the observable universe, the density appears to fall off.

 

However, the so-called Dark Matter has not been mapped sufficiently to say whether or not it changes anything. We shall see. We shall see.

[coldcreation]

Normally I do not attempt to "appeal to authority", but I think in this case it is relevant to say that I have a degree in Physics. I have been working with NASA on space and astronomy related tasks for 30 years. I know whereof I speak.

 

With all due respect, your example above is very simple and clear. But your conclusion is wrong. Using the "inverse square law" as you have done before leads to the conclusion that ANY ONE of the 4 bulbs at the 2-meter range will be observed as being 1/4 as bright as the the bulb at the 1-meter range.

 

But there are 4 bulbs at the 2-meter range. 4 x 1/4 = 1. So, the amount of light falling on the "observer centered in the shell" will be the same, as measured by, for example, photons/sec.

 

The eccess brightness in photons/sec must have been due to the refelected light (off the wall).

[coldcreation]

 

Originally Posted by coldcreation

Several points, Pyrotex,...For Olbers paradox to be operational the following assumptions are essential:

 

(1) The universe must be flat, i.e., there is no large-scale curvature, the universe is thus assumed Euclidean. This is not a deduction based on observational grounds... ..

 

 

I believe there have been several astronomical observations in the past 7 years that produced evidence for a "flat" universe. I will try to look them up. You said, "general relativity states the impossibility of a Euclidean universe", but in grad school I took GR and the list of "conclusions" did not include that. Space may be "puckered" around stars and other massive objects (even galaxy clusters) but on larger scales, I don't think GR demands a particular curvature. .

 

Einstein states "the space time continuum cannot be regarded as a Euclidean one." for good reasons: the mass-energy density of the universe is not zero.

 

One would think that Einstein might have spared himself the trouble of using ten nonlinear second-order (hyperbolic) partial differential equations for the ten components or variables of the metric tensor, the gravitational force field or connection coefficients have fourty, the Rienmann tensor that determines the curvature of spacetime has twenty, and so one, to come up with a flat universe when simple Euclidean geometry would have sufficed.

 

It is ironic indeed that today (thanks to inflation, a new cosmological constant and some miraculous fine-tunning) that a flat universe has been predicted. Ironic because there seems to be a perfect balance between the rate of expansion, a dark repulsive force and the gravitational potential of all the mass, energy and positive pressure and in the universe. Yet a stationary universe appears impossible because it would have to be finely tunned.

 

Quote:

(2) The cosmological principle is base on philosophical grounds, not observation. ..

 

It is based on one observation: "the night sky is dark". That IS an observation. Asking "why?" is not philosophy. However, concluding that this question is a serious question and deserves an answer IS philosophy..

 

I repeat, because your answer had nothing to do with the cosmological principle. The cosmological principle is base on philosophical grounds, not observation. It is assumed that the universe is everywhere the same, now. homogenous and isotropic. That is not an observed fact at all. And so, Olbers paradox could only partially be used to justify expansion, the standard model.

 

Quote:

...due to the velocity of light c.....

 

Now, THIS may be relevant. We only have light from ~13 BLYr away: the "observable" universe. Olber assumed an "infinite" universe not because he thought it was, but as an assumption that made the paradox "work". ...snip...] That we cannot observe an "infinitely" receding set of "shells" is now a demonstrated fact..

 

A demonstrated fact it is absolutely not. There is no guarantee that the shells are receding. Even in an infinite universe where there is no expansion, the night sky will be dark, exactly as is observed now. There is still a horizon beyond which light fizzles out.

 

Quote:

...Place as many galaxies as you wish in a fixed spherical shell, say, at a distance of 1Gyr and the night sky will still be dark. ..

 

This is a very puzzling thing to say! :cup: B) You ask me to place as many as I like? It is trivial to calculate! The Andromeda Galaxy at 6MLYr has an overall brightness of about 6th magnitude. It would be as bright as a medium star if it were a point source (which it isn't; it's spread over about 1/4 square degree). At 1GLYr, that is 166.7 times as far away -- call it 200 for roundness..

 

At that distance, Andromeda would be 1/40,000 as bright. So, we place 40,000 Andromeda's in a region close around and behind the first one. We do this so that from Earth, all 40,000 cover an area of the sky of about 10 square minutes. Repeat this for the entire 2*pi Steradians of the Sky, populating every 10 min^2 patch with 40,000 Andromedas.

 

Every patch will now appear to be approximately as bright as a 6th magnitude star, but spread evenly over that patch. This is also the brightness of the Milky Way as we see it on a very dark night with no lights or Moon or pollution..

 

Now we are getting somewhere. In a stationary universe, the night sky will never be brighter than the Milky Way (more or less), you gave a great example. Add another shell say one billion light years out further, and so on, and so on, and so on and eventually the light becomes insignificant. This has been my point from the outset. Conclusion below.

 

In other words, the entire sky would now appear as bright as the Milky Way, which is certainly brighter than "dark".woops!.

 

Brighter than dark? That is a far cry from "the night sky would be ablaze like the surface of the sun" would you not agree?

 

Quote:

...So you see, the night sky is dark not because of expansion. ..

 

Select one:

"The night sky is NOT DARK; because of expansion."

"The night sky is NOT 'dark because of expansion'..

 

You're not making sense. The sky at night is dark for other reasons than Olbers had posited in his query, and so, the justification of expansion as the sky being dark (as an answer to the paradox) is faulty, i.e., it is not the correct answer.

 

Olbers paradox is not real. It was used to justify (by S. Hawking and the likes) the big bang expansion when faced with a menacing steady state group... ..

 

"May I contribute something to you? Please? When discussing science and math, try for a little more precision in your speaking. Statements like "Olber's Paradox is not real." are NULL statements. They have no useful meaning and just get in the way of your logic and your evidence..

 

I thought it was clear enough. 'Olbers paradox is not real' means that the night sky should not be bright as the surface of the sun (or even close) in an infinite stationary universe, and so there is no paradox.

 

 

Many people have proffered answers to Olber's question. This is how Science is done. Some said it was dust that absorbed a lot of distant light. Others pointed out that interstellar gas can down-shift the color, and hence the energy of distant light. Others have pointed out the Red-Shift due to the expansion of Space-Time. You have pointed out that beyond a certain point, there should be fewer galaxies..

 

All these are good answers to Olber's question. That doesn't make the question "doo-doo", or stupid, or obnoxious, or kaput. Olber asked a powerful question that demonstrated a certain degree of genius. After all, he was the first to ask it. And after centuries of pondering his question, we have come up with many insightful answers. This is the heart and nature of Science. This is how Science works..

 

I don't recall anyone writing "doo-doo." Who are you quoting? There is nothing wrong with the word kaput, it is used as the word invalid, or dead, nothing more, nothing less.

 

PS: And Olber's math was correct. Else nobody would have ever taken his question seriouslyc..

 

This just shows how math (always a valuable tool) can sometime lead astray those who rely too heavily on it for answers (or questions) regarding fundamentally important questions (or answers) about the nature of the universe in which we live.

 

Regards

Coldcreation

[Pyrotex]

...This just shows how math (always a valuable tool) can sometime lead astray those who rely too heavily on it for answers (or questions) regarding fundamentally important questions (or answers) about the nature of the universe in which we live...

Well, no. Actually, it doesn't.

 

It is interesting to note that Newton's equations are now known to be accurate to at least 8 digits, a far greater accuracy than Newton could have measured. Einstein's equations are now known to be accurate to at least 16 digits, a far greater accuracy than was measurable in his day, and only now measurable with the most modern technology.

 

I have never heard or read of even a single instance where a scientist built a mathematical model of some aspect of the universe -- a model that was accepted by peer review -- and it later turned out that the math misled everybody. Not one.

 

However, the myth that mathematics and knowledge and genius "blind" the unwary regarding "the fundamentally important nature of the universe" appears to be rapidly spreading in the US. Oddly enough, this myth is not accepted in Europe and other developed countries. Oddly enough, math illiteracy is not the problem there that it is in the US.

[coldcreation]

Well, no. Actually, it doesn't.

 

It is interesting to note that Newton's equations are now known to be accurate to at least 8 digits, a far greater accuracy than Newton could have measured. Einstein's equations are now known to be accurate to at least 16 digits, a far greater accuracy than was measurable in his day, and only now measurable with the most modern technology.

 

I have never heard or read of even a single instance where a scientist built a mathematical model of some aspect of the universe -- a model that was accepted by peer review -- and it later turned out that the math misled everybody. Not one.

 

However, the myth that mathematics and knowledge and genius "blind" the unwary regarding "the fundamentally important nature of the universe" appears to be rapidly spreading in the US. Oddly enough, this myth is not accepted in Europe and other developed countries. Oddly enough, math illiteracy is not the problem there that it is in the US.

 

 

The subject of this thread is Olbers paradox, and it was not a cosmological model. Of all that I wrote in my last post, you chose the easy bit to respond to. I hope you had some intention of responding to the important sections: such as, at 1Gyr you placed as many galaxies as you wished into a nonexpanding sphere and you came out with a night sky as bright as the Milky Way. But too, the assumtion of isotropy as philosophical, the assumtion that spacetime is flat, etc.

 

So you see, the paradox is no paradox. The question, and his math, albeit, well done for the time, are irrelevant today. That is my entire point to make with regard to the subject of this thread, and your math has proved the point. Under no reasonable circumstances (in a nonexpanding universe) is the night sky ablaze like the surface of a star (or any brighter than the Milky Way on a dark night). And thus, the term 'kaput' was introduced.

 

 

Finally, with respect to your last comments above, there is at least one instance where a scientist built a mathematical model of some aspect of the universe -- a model that was accepted by peer review -- and it later turned out that the math misled everybody:

 

The scientist A. Friedmann, the models known as the Friedmann models, were held as the standard model for modern cosmology for over 3/4 of a century. The 1998 SNe Ia survey(s) found observational evidence that neither of the three Friedmann models was tenable. The "acceleration" was not predicted by any of those mathematical models, the favored of which as you know was the coasting model, where the universe expands at a constant rate (that is a free-fall when the clocks are reversed), an exact balance, a fine tunning not observed.

 

So you have now at least one example where the equations were good (Eisntein's; yet Newton's would have sufficed for all three models), but the interpretation or adaptation to a world model, to the natural world, was faulty (in this case 20% off the mark). That is enough deviation from the subject for now. If you please though, I will find more examples and we can start a new thread to discuss them.

[Pyrotex]

The subject of this thread is Olbers paradox, and it was not a cosmological model. Of all that I wrote in my last post, you chose the easy bit to respond to. I hope you had some intention of responding to the important sections: such as, at 1Gyr you placed as many galaxies as you wished into a nonexpanding sphere and you came out with a night sky as bright as the Milky Way....So you see, the paradox is no paradox. ....

You are right. I have not responded to the really, really big issues here. I tried twice to use simple math to make a very simple point -- I wasn't being contentious or snarly at all -- and you, well... dismissed the math. Then you made another statement about the light "fizzling out", and it was clear that though I can prove mathematically (a little simple calculus) that the light function diverges to an arbitrarily large value, it would be a waste of my time.

 

I would dearly love to discuss (not argue) cosmology with you. It is such fun. But without a mutual respect for the underlying mathematical models, I feel there is no basis for a reasonable discussion and the fun just goes away for me.

 

And yes, the night sky is not blindingly bright. I took a look at it last night, in fact. Right again, coldcreation! :hihi: :eek:

 

Bye. See ya 'round.

[coldcreation]

You are right. I have not responded to the really, really big issues here. I tried twice to use simple math to make a very simple point -- I wasn't being contentious or snarly at all -- and you, well... dismissed the math. Then you made another statement about the light "fizzling out", and it was clear that though I can prove mathematically (a little simple calculus) that the light function diverges to an arbitrarily large value, it would be a waste of my time.

 

I would dearly love to discuss (not argue) cosmology with you. It is such fun. But without a mutual respect for the underlying mathematical models, I feel there is no basis for a reasonable discussion and the fun just goes away for me.

 

And yes, the night sky is not blindingly bright. I took a look at it last night, in fact. Right again, coldcreation! :cup: :umno:

 

Bye. See ya 'round.

 

You are correct. Let's keep cosmology fun.

I think the tone of a message does not pass well online. My posts are passionate, perhaps, but not meant to be anything anything less. I hope you didn't misinterpret an attitude other than that.

 

In the case of Olbers paradox, between you and me, there is no resolution possible, for this it is frustrating, I understand. For the record, you held math as the ultimate arbitrator. I gave you one example where the math was impecable (the underlying mathematics was sound, it was Einstein's after all), but the interpretation and adaptation to the universe, in the case of the Friedmann models, was a monumental failure in that none of what they predicted was observed in nature. The problem in cosmology is not math, it is interpretation of observations. And in the case of Olbers paradox, the problem circles around the answer that expansion is responsible for the darkness at night.

 

My point also: the math behind Olbers paradox is not faulty, but the argument that the night sky should be light in an infinite (static) universe is untenable. Of course he had not known about the redshift and its interpretation(s). His assumptions were too wide-ranging.

 

By the way, it appears the one who initiated this thread has all but disappeared. Perhaps he/she was just advertizing his/her webpage.

[coldcreation]

I may be missing something, but I don't see which of the phenomena you mention above are observed in nature, in the universe.

 

If that is the case, tell me which of your tenets are observed, or which in principle could be observed.

 

(1) How do you explain the origin of the CMB and its current (local) thermal spectrum.

 

(2) When, where, were created the light elements, their isotopes and the heavy elements. How do you justify their abundances.

 

(3) How does the observed redshift z in the spectra of distant objects today interpreted as a change in the scale factor to the metric fit into the mix.

 

(4) And too, how do the deviations (20% or so) from a smooth (linear) Hubble flow observed (throughout the 1990s) in the spectra (z along with light curves) of extremely distant SNe Ia jive with your hypothesis.

 

These four point are perhaps the most important that any theory challenging the standard model (or not) will have to face up to, then come the predictions...

 

CC

 

kmarinas86, you around?

[kmarinas86]

I may be missing something, but I don't see which of the phenomena you mention above are observed in nature, in the universe.

 

If that is the case, tell me which of your tenets are observed, or which in principle could be observed.

 

Prediction: The fuzzy boundary between blue young galaxies and evolved galaxies will involve a discorrelation between angular size and redshift observable as long as the two spots of comparison are separated considerable degrees in the sky (e.g. 120 degrees).

Reason: The boundary at which z=2 (for instance) will be nonspherical and will be extruded at the gaps between the Gly (giga lightyear) objects.

 

(1) How do you explain the origin of the CMB and its current (local) thermal spectrum.

 

The emission of the Gly objects could in part explain it. The effect of gravitational bending of light in front of the objects could explain why the emission fills the whole sky. Being situated at a specific redshift, pressure, temperature, and density would result in even emission. This would be a boundary that seperates the opaque with the transparent. It signifies a change in the phase of fundamental matter whose binding energy decreases by net absorption of radiation from stars and incoming cosmic background radiation. The physics of Gly objects themselves is not fully clarified, but they are most likely similar to proposed Gravastars.

 

(2) When, where, were created the light elements, their isotopes and the heavy elements. How do you justify their abundances.

 

The restoration of light elements from heavy elements by reducing the binding energy of matter. The restoration takes place where the radiation absorption is greater than the radiation emission (i.e. light flowing from the hotter vacuum to the colder (time dilated) medium). This will take place beneath the boundary that seperates the opaque medium from the transparent medium... the boundary at which cosmic background radiation is produced.

 

(3) How does the observed redshift z in the spectra of distant objects today interpreted as a change in the scale factor to the metric fit into the mix.

 

The scale factor would be an enlarging of object in front of or beside of the Gly objects, corresponding to an increase in the angular diameter. The large-scale redshift would be due to an Einstein shift rather than a cosmological redshift.

 

(4) And too, how do the deviations (20% or so) from a smooth (linear) Hubble flow observed (throughout the 1990s) in the spectra (z along with light curves) of extremely distant SNe Ia jive with your hypothesis.

 

The anisotropy of the redshift with respect to the angular diameter distance would imply deviations in the Hubble flow.

 

These four point are perhaps the most important that any theory challenging the standard model (or not) will have to face up to, then come the predictions...

 

CC