Nimblebrain Forums - Not logged in
Forum Help Search Chat Register Login
Previous Next Up Topic Cosmology / Alternative Cosmology / Curvature Cosmology (15010 hits)
By Jade Annand Date 2010-08-15 07:23
I started reading David Crawford's book on account of it seeming a little less on the crazy side than some.

It's an interesting take on things. The premise is to take General Relativity in a curved universe - in this case, a curved static universe, and generate frequency losses wherever something does not follow its geodesic. In the curved universe cases, lines are not parallel to one another... they will eventually intersect. Crawford takes that and posits that the reduced cross-section will affect the angular momentum which, because it is quantized and cannot smoothly decrease, will end up emitting photons.

That's his general "tired light" scenario along with other cases involving plasmas pushing off their geodesics, etc.

My description does not really do the book justice. He spends some decent time deriving the equations, making a few other predictions, and taking into account some of our "favourites" in the evidence arena: Tolman tests, Ly-alpha forest, lack of quasar time dilation and what have you.

He could very well be barking up the wrong tree, but it is a pretty decent attempt from first principles, and in many ways is less fanciful than Hoyle's derivation of QSSC.

I'll give some further thoughts as I continue reading.
By lyndonashmore Date 2010-08-25 18:25
My description does not really do the book justice. He spends some decent time deriving the equations, making a few other predictions, and taking into account some of our "favourites" in the evidence arena: Tolman tests, Ly-alpha forest, lack of quasar time dilation and what have you.


favourites? favourites?
Lyman alpha forest !! Thats mine.

lyman alpha forest
Or does he do something else than show they are (on average) evenly spaced?
I upgraded my internet connection and eight an d a half weeks later I am back online!
By RussT Date 2010-08-26 10:51

High z Hydrogen cloud separation can be used to give an independent estimate on the lower limit of the age of the universe in an expanding model and it is found that the age must be far greater than the presently accepted value of 13.8 billion years — if the H1 clouds are to achieve their present separations without some mechanism other than inflation being involved.


What if I told you that "Science" cannot determine an age for our Universe? Would that upset you greatly?

You guys do NOT think that there was a "Big Bang", which means that there was NO Plank Era/Point Singularity and that that the "surface of last scattering" does NOT exist as a Horizon, which brings into question all the other Horizons...whether they be expanding or contracting....and the Static State has already been completely falsified by mainstream itself...;)
By lyndonashmore Date 2010-08-26 20:58
where did the quote come from?
Sounds like my paper
By RussT Date 2010-08-26 22:58 Edited 2010-08-27 05:03
Yes....of course that is straight from your abstract ;)

SOOOOOOO, how old do you think Our Universe is???
By Mike Petersen Date 2010-08-27 10:58
The answer is 42.
By lyndonashmore Date 2010-08-27 20:20
Thats all right then!
It took me years to get my head around those lyman alpha lines and what they meant!
How old is the universe?
A lot older than mainstream thinks it is.
In an infinite universe, is there no beginning? if so where did it all come from? if 'God' made it where did 'God ' come from?
My local priest says, "Lyndon , if you are really , really good you will be rewarded with eternal life"
If life is 'eternal' then aren't i already in it? So does he mean that I am altready in eternal life and if I am bad my membership will be cancelled?
eternal life must be eternal - can't start now can it?
The universe must have come from somewhere, but where - and when?
So how much older than the 13.5 ish billion year/
A lot. And i dont mean a few extra billion or so , i mean 10, 20...  100 times older than this - if not more.

I think that the age problem will become an embarassment to the Bb as bigger and better telescopes look further and further back in time and find far too many objects older than the Hubble law prediction - but i will be long gone by then.
Sorry to be philosophical especially when i am stone cold sober! but i will try to do some numbers for you on the Hydrogen clouds.
cheers
lyndon
By RussT Date 2010-08-28 11:35
Lyndon said:


In an infinite universe, is there no beginning? if so where did it all come from? if 'God' made it where did 'God ' come from?
My local priest says, "Lyndon , if you are really , really good you will be rewarded with eternal life"
If life is 'eternal' then aren't i already in it? So does he mean that I am altready in eternal life and if I am bad my membership will be cancelled?
eternal life must be eternal - can't start now can it?
The universe must have come from somewhere, but where - and when?

Lyndon said:


Sorry to be philosophical especially when i am stone cold sober!


I have been clean and sober for 13 + years and doing the "philosophical" is just plain and simple NOT 'scientific' :-((

"Science" cannot determine the answers to those questions...period.

Lyndon said:


So how much older than the 13.5 ish billion year/
A lot. And i dont mean a few extra billion or so , i mean 10, 20...  100 times older than this - if not more.


I agree with you 100% here Lyndon, However....starting from the premise that the Universe is "Infinite" in either 'space'/distance or 'age' is just philosophy, because we simply cannot tell how far the Clusters in between the Huge Voids extends...which is why "We" should be using the "Pefect Cosmological Principle" and NOT the Big Bangs.

The key to understanding this though is understanding that the "Singularity" of GR is NOT just the Point everything is supposed to shrink down to, but also includes the expanding or contracting Horizons...

In Other words, mainstream thinks they are covering every eventuality of how the Universe is working when they consider the "Static", "Open", or "Closed" Universe...when in reality NONE of those even exist as a possibility!!!

Naked Singularities do NOT exist...there was NO Big Bang!

The Universe has NEVER been in danger of collapsing in on itself!

I know this leaves a lot to explain (and I can) but Do you see what I mean???

and here is 100% support for this, IF you just take it seriously ;))

I understand it completely!!!

http://www.bautforum.com/showthread.php/56088-Fractal-Universe?highlight=RussT+Fractal

"The universe is not a fractal," Hogg insists, "and if it were a fractal it would create many more problems that we currently have." A universe patterned by fractals would throw all of cosmology out the window. Einstein's cosmic equations would be tossed first, with the big bang and the expansion of the universe following closely behind.

Hogg's team feel that until there's a theory to explain why the galaxy clustering is fractal, there's no point in taking it seriously. "My view is that there's no reason to even contemplate a fractal structure for the universe until there is a physical fractal model," says Hogg. "Until there's an inhomogeneous fractal model to test, it's like tilting at windmills."

Pietronero is equally insistent. "This is fact," he says. "It's not a theory." He says he is interested only in what he sees in the data and argues that the galaxies are fractal regardless of whether someone can explain why.
By lyndonashmore Date 2010-08-28 19:56
I have been clean and sober for 13 + years and doing the "philosophical" is just plain and simple NOT 'scientific' :-((

"Science" cannot determine the answers to those questions...period.

i have the greatest respect for philosophy. It provides a good starting point to 'what to look for'.
In the UK the original name for Physics was Natural philosophy and this is what one studied if one wanted to do physics.
I did a research degree in solar cell technology and what did i get??
A degree of 'Master of Philosophy!' two thirds of a doctorate in scientific terms! It was taking too long!
The Greeks ripping their pieces of paper in two or fish swimming up stream gave us the atom.
Olbers paradox gives insight into the universe in 1700??.
BUt.... The philosophy raises questions that need to be answered and then backed up with scientific method and facts.
To get back to the science
I agree with you 100% here Lyndon, However....starting from the premise that the Universe is "Infinite" in either 'space'/distance or 'age' is just philosophy, because we simply cannot tell how far the Clusters in between the Huge Voids extends...which is why "We" should be using the "Pefect Cosmological Principle" and NOT the Big Bangs.


Huge voids and clusters, Where did you get that from.

Don't you read any of my papers?
The plasma in Hydrogen clouds gives a big jump in the redshift. the 'clusters of galaxies' is a result of the new tired light theory.
Each H cloud gives a junp in redshift. so the redshifts are quantised into the photons travlling through one cloud, two clouds , three clouds etc. Didn't i show that the periodicity of H1 clouds was the same as the periodicity of the 'huge voids and clusters?

Cheers,
lyndon
By Jade Annand Date 2010-08-30 04:14
Lyndon said:

I upgraded my internet connection and eight and a half weeks later I am back online!


Welcome back, Lyndon! :)

Lyndon said:

Or does he do something else than show they are (on average) evenly spaced?


Actually, he does not go into detail on the spacing. He spends his time on the widening of the lines and how his particular principle could explain it.

It's too bad he didn't notice the details on cloud spacing, truly, since his hypothesis is of the kind that uses the same 'weird' observations that we find the most interesting.

Lyndon said:

So how much older than the 13.5 ish billion year?
A lot. And i dont mean a few extra billion or so , i mean 10, 20...  100 times older than this - if not more.


I know QSSC estimates about 85 billion years, but it seems likely to be older. If there is a recycling principle, then it could be incredibly old. If there is not, then there is probably a limit.

I'd like to know, personally :)
By RussT Date 2010-08-30 10:55 Edited 2010-08-30 10:58
RussT said:


What if I told you that "Science" cannot determine an age for our Universe? Would that upset you greatly?


Guess the answer to this is "YES!!!

Lyndon...the supposed expansion is the Voids between the galaxy clusters expanding...the clusters themselves are Bound...

BUT,,, what I am trying to get you guys to understand is that even those those Voids are expanding,,,the Universe was NEVER contracted down to a point singularity....and the singularity "Includes" the Horizons.

Cosmic Censorship means that Naked Singuarities do NOT exist...

So the Voids between the galaxy clusters could go out to distances of 50/100/1000/1000^10 Etc Etc....we cannot scientifically know how far they extend!!! ;)

AND, I am absolutely convinced, based on correctly falsifying many different things, that the ONLY answer to the recycling is 'Spaghettification' of Matter going through Black Holes and coming out the "Other End" as a "Constant"....that is the "Aether", which IS the CMB, traveling at "c" in every/all directions and going right through ALL baryonic Matter as a "Steady State" "Open System"  MultiVerse!!!
By lyndonashmore Date 2010-08-30 20:35
Actually, he does not go into detail on the spacing. He spends his time on the widening of the lines and how his particular principle could explain it.

It's too bad he didn't notice the details on cloud spacing, truly, since his hypothesis is of the kind that uses the same 'weird' observations that we find the most interesting.

The trouble with the widening is that it goes the wrong way. Lines from nearby hydrogen clouds are wider than those further away. I will be honest, in tired light this is a problem as one would expect it to go the other way by pure statistics. The line width has many variables , degree of disturbance, temperature and in mainstream, as i showed in my paper at port Angeles, it looks like the universe is heating up rather than cooling down - which is against mainstream itself.
One of the reasons against tired light by stephen hawking is that as the photons lose energy, the universe would heat up and glow - well is this what the lines show?
From a purely statistical reason in tired light the lines should narrow - so the jury is out on this. ie Are the lines narrower from statistics but even wider due to the energy loss of the photons?
from my extremely boring statisical mechanics 'one' course at uni (to be followed by even worse courses 2 & 3) I vaguely remember that for velocities of particles in a gas, as the numbers increase, they all tend to the mean ie narrower. BuT I can't find anywhere were this is so. maybe I was just dreaming.
Cheers,
lyndon
By lyndonashmore Date 2010-08-30 20:41
Russ,
Lyndon...the supposed expansion is the Voids between the galaxy clusters expanding...the clusters themselves are Bound...

BUT,,, what I am trying to get you guys to understand is that even those those Voids are expanding,,,the Universe was NEVER contracted down to a point singularity....and the singularity "Includes" the Horizons.

WRONG
Voids are measured not by distance but by redshift which i keep telling everyone is not purely a distance indicator.
YES, if electrons in plasma are evenly distributed the redshift is proportional to distance (but exponential on the large scale - hence distant supernovae being dimmer than expected and the wrong conclusion of acceleration)
However plasma in H clouds is discrete which will give rise to quantised 'jumps' in the redshift which mistaken scientists take as voids.
There are 'this' many galaxies behind one cloud, 'this' many behind 2 clouds and so on as the 'clusters build up.
By RussT Date 2010-08-31 10:24
Lyndon said:


However plasma in H clouds is discrete which will give rise to quantised 'jumps' in the redshift which mistaken scientists take as voids.


So are you saying that mainstream has got it wrong and that there are NO Voids of 10 to 25 Mpc's between Galaxy Clusters???
By lyndonashmore Date 2010-08-31 18:46
Basically, yes.
How are these voids measured?
By parallax?
By Hertzsprung - Russell fitting?
By Cepheid variables?
No by redshift.
A 'void' just means a jump in redshift which I think may well be caused by plasma in an intervening Hydrogen cloud.
One has the 'normal Tired  light redshift' which gives Hubble's law and the extra bit due to the plasma in the intervening Hydrogen clouds.
I showed the at frequency of the H1 clouds is the same as the frequency of the galaxy groupings.
So mainstream has got to change its minds and say that the H1 clouds are associated (attached) to the galaxy clusters (presently they seek to think that they are separate) or have the clouds inbetween the galaxy clusters giving the jump in redshift as i am thinking
Cheers,
lyndon
By RussT Date 2010-08-31 22:41
What do you think Ritchie???
By Jade Annand Date 2010-09-01 19:26
Well, shrinking the 'voids' might obviate the virial theorem explanations for the "Fingers Of God" effect.

I remember reading once that astronomers did not expect to see all that far out into the universe because galaxies should rightly be out of observable range by then-current theory... but I don't remember where I read or heard that, or whether it was apocryphal.

In any case, quasars are certainly likely to be nearer than posited, and probably any number of objects producing 'superluminal ejections'. I expect the voids to tighten up just on that basis alone.

Lyndon said:

From a purely statistical reason in tired light the lines should narrow - so the jury is out on this. ie Are the lines narrower from statistics but even wider due to the energy loss of the photons? from my extremely boring statisical mechanics 'one' course at uni (to be followed by even worse courses 2 & 3) I vaguely remember that for velocities of particles in a gas, as the numbers increase, they all tend to the mean ie narrower. BuT I can't find anywhere were this is so. maybe I was just dreaming.


I'd like to find out a little bit more about that, really, though it might be hard to track down.

It wouldn't be related to something like this, would it?

Abstract said:

The averaging effect of velocity-changing collisions reduces the Doppler broadening of isolated spectral lines and leads to one type of collisional narrowing.


Would this be an effect in the emitting material, the absorbing material, or both?
By RussT Date 2010-09-02 05:55

Large empty regions in the nearby Universe
Astronomers have known for a number of years that there are regions in the Universe where no galaxies, stars or gas can be seen by optical telescopes. In professional language, such `holes' are commonly referred to as `voids' . For some time, astronomers around the world have tried to detect at least some galaxies in these voids by using larger and more sensitive telescopes. Amazingly, only few such galaxies have ever been found, even by use of the best available equipment.


http://www.eso.org/public/news/eso9631/

Those Voids extend to ALL distances and WE Cannot determine *Scientifically* how far those distances extend!!!

Mainstream wishes those Voids did NOT exist, as their expansion would be much easier to explain, SO they had to concoct the Virial Theorum to try and account for them!!!

As soon as they use the "Hubble Flow" and the Simulations...they are WRONG!!!

Since Hoyle was Correct, and Mini-Bangs are the Birth Cry of New Galaxies being *born* one at a time....then the hydrogen did NOT clump into the clusters and proto-galaxies the way that is currently portrayed!

Here is the way I look at it...

Was the Universe ever the size of a grapefruit/basketball ETC ETC ETC./...NO!!!

So, ~13.7 Billion years ago, when the Universe was 'supposedly' that size...what was 'outside' the grapefruit skin??? thats right....Our Universe...

and when the Milky Way was just being "Born" ~13.7 Billion years ago (In a Long GRB ~120 seconds as Sgr A* our SMBH was coming into existance, and the electrons/positron were being created, which allowed the Protons/Neutrons to be created, which allowed the first HI/He for the first generation of stars for our galaxy) was the M87 we see NOW.....then like Stephan's Quintet???
By lyndonashmore Date 2010-09-02 20:37
See fig 17 page 1059 and you will see what i mean by the quantisation. The frequency of the galaxies is the same as the frequency of the hydrogen clouds within 5% as i showed.
Colless, m et al 2001

ashmore
cheers lyndon
By RussT Date 2010-09-14 03:35 Edited 2010-09-15 05:10
More Evidence that the Voids between Galaxy Clusters does indeed exist us is very prevelent throighout the Universe!!!


The void regions, nearly empty, three-dimensional fields hundreds of millions of light-years across, fill half of the universe.


http://www.newswise.com/articles/view/530520/

Sorry Lyndon...

The Fractal Universe I have linked numerous times is all about this!!! As well as the ESO Local Voids...

Here is more on these...

In the 8th post are his papers....heres one...
http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/9611197

My Model DOES explain this and is completely Consistent!

Here is more on the Voids between the Galaxy Clusters too, Mr Duffy.

http://www.eso.org/public/news/eso9631/
By RussT Date 2010-09-15 05:12
So, what do you think Lyndon....have I provided enough evidence that the Voids really do exist???

Ritchie...same question... is it enough evidence???
By lyndonashmore Date 2010-09-17 20:15
Sorry Russ - you haven't provided any evidence at all that these voids exist.
To prove the voids one would have to show distance measurements by a direct method. Otherwise all you have is quantised redshifts on a large scale something that Arp has been arping on about for a long time.
BTW voids or no voids it makes no difference to me. If the voids exist then all it means is that the H1 clouds are associated with the galaxies. This is something i corrected mainstream on 2 years ago - and I now see that two arXiv papers in 2010 agree with.
However, they are all equally spaced on average and that shows a static universe and this is my point.
Cheers,
lyndon
By RussT Date 2010-09-20 11:12
Lyndon said:


BTW voids or no voids it makes no difference to me. If the voids exist then all it means is that the H1 clouds are associated with the galaxies


Yes, of course the HI clouds are associated with galaxies, as the HI "Dark Galaxies" as well as the LSB galaxies are mostly "Field Galaxies" IE: they are "Born" out toward the edge of the Voids and are beginning the infall toward the Cluster and its center.

Now, because they can detect the Blue Shift for nearby cluster galaxies, they can and have correctly determined that some galaxies are coming toward us and others in the same cluster are moving away...so galaxies are somewhat orbiting a central Elliptical galaxy...which I am assuming happens all throughout the Universe

And, if you really understand those papers, the Local Voids are "Known" and as you go farther and farther out, where there is NO "peculiar Motion" detectable, then any motion at all is "Inferred Motion" anyways.

That is why the Fractal guy is showing that the universe is NOT isotropic and homogenous out to the distance he has determined!!!

BUT....IFFFFFFFFFFF the Big Bang never happened then there NEVER was a Grapefruit sized Universe to begin with and therefore the "Singualrity" has NEVER had the possibility of expanding!!!

It is Clusters and Voids ad Nauseum out to 1000^1000 light years and beyond,,,NO Hubble Flow(No "Surface of last scattering" Horizon or any other horizon has ever existed) has ever taken place...there was NO T=0 for the Universe...Only for Galaxies is there a T=0 ;>))
By RussT Date 2010-09-23 11:02
Only for Galaxies is there a T=0 ;>))

And, I believe that it has been shown and confirmed that the Milky Way still has its Bar at the galaxies core, which I say means that our galaxy is a "Teenager" at roughly 10 to 13 Billion years of age...maybe even a little more IF there are stars/clusters of stars older than the 'supposed' age of the Universe.

Now...according to mainstream, IF the Universe is 13.7 Billion years old, and the Milky Way is definitely a "Early Galaxy", formed when the Universe was supposedly at its smallest...

Then does that mean that galaxies evolve their Bars at their oldest stages OR OR OR...

Do galaxies have their bars at their younger stages and then "wind Up" their Bars so they basically disappear...

IE: Did M51 have a Bar Before and has "wound it up" OR is M51 evolving toward developing its Bar???

http://www.astrocruise.com/galaxies/m51.htm
By RussT Date 2010-09-25 10:42
Some how you guys just refuse to understand this...

IF.... you start with Quasars being "Young/New Galaxies"...which mainstream does (But NOT as white holes...they just insist that there MUST be an answer to how SMBH's can reach Billions of Sol masses so quickly)  and which all alternative Cosmologies do as well...albeit for different reasons (Vague Ideas about "White Holes"!!!)

Then you are wrong, because then the Galaxies are "Evolving" backwards, where the masses of SMBH's diminish down to the Milky Way size, rather than SMBH's (Or whatever Massive Object is at the core of Galaxies) increasing in mass over time....just NOT an increase over "Time/age" of the Universe....there simply is NO scientific 'observation'/way to determibe the age of the Universe IFFFFFF there was NO BIG BANG!!!
By lyndonashmore Date 2010-09-25 16:09
Some how you guys just refuse to understand this...


Why not start a new thread and take us through your ideas slowly.
"Lets start at the very beginning . Avery good place to start.
Doe a deer a female deer......"
By RussT Date 2010-09-25 23:21
Excellent Idea so long as many are willing to participate and have a willingness to have their core beliefs changed/altered...;<)

Let's start with the most obvious...

What "Must" be "false"....IFFFFFFFFF

The Big Bang NEVER happened!!!
Previous Next Up Topic Cosmology / Alternative Cosmology / Curvature Cosmology (15010 hits)

Powered by mwForum 2.15.0 © 1999-2008 Markus Wichitill