What do we know about Redshifts?
Sometimes we read up on many topics and because it is written, so it must be true.
90% of what we read is somewhat false.
========================================
http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0509611
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))
QUOTE
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.
===========================================
http://arxiv.org/abs/0804.0818
Effect of Distance Errors: Applications to SDSS Early-Type Galaxies
Authors: Graziano Rossi, Ravi K. Sheth
(Submitted on 4 Apr 2008)
Abstract: Noisy distance estimates associated with photometric rather than spectroscopic redshifts lead to a mis-estimate of the luminosities, and produce a correlated mis-estimate of the sizes. We consider a sample of early-type galaxies from the SDSS DR6 and apply the generalization of the V_max method to correct for these biases. We show that our technique recovers the true redshift, magnitude and size distributions, as well as the true size-luminosity relation. Regardless the specific application outlined here, our method impacts a broader range of studies, when at least one distance-dependent quantity is involved.
=========================================
http://arxiv.org/abs/0802.1944
A test of the nature of cosmic acceleration using galaxy redshift distortions
Authors: L. Guzzo, M. Pierleoni, B. Meneux, E. Branchini, O. Le Fevre, C. Marinoni, B. Garilli, J. Blaizot, G. De Lucia, A. Pollo, H. J. McCracken, D. Bottini, V. Le Brun, D. Maccagni, J. P. Picat, R. Scaramella, M. Scodeggio, L. Tresse, G. Vettolani, A. Zanichelli, C. Adami, S. Arnouts, S. Bardelli, M. Bolzonella, A. Bongiorno, A. Cappi, S. Charlot, P. Ciliegi, T. Contini, O. Cucciati, S. de la Torre, K. Dolag, S. Foucaud, P. Franzetti, I. Gavignaud, O. Ilbert, A. Iovino, F. Lamareille, B. Marano, A. Mazure, P. Memeo, R. Merighi, L. Moscardini, S. Paltani, R. Pello, E. Perez-Montero, L. Pozzetti, M. Radovich, D. Vergani, G. Zamorani, E. Zucca
(Submitted on 13 Feb 2008)
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| 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. |
===========================================
http://arxiv.org/abs/0804.0818
Effect of Distance Errors: Applications to SDSS Early-Type Galaxies
Authors: Graziano Rossi, Ravi K. Sheth
(Submitted on 4 Apr 2008)
Abstract: Noisy distance estimates associated with photometric rather than spectroscopic redshifts lead to a mis-estimate of the luminosities, and produce a correlated mis-estimate of the sizes. We consider a sample of early-type galaxies from the SDSS DR6 and apply the generalization of the V_max method to correct for these biases. We show that our technique recovers the true redshift, magnitude and size distributions, as well as the true size-luminosity relation. Regardless the specific application outlined here, our method impacts a broader range of studies, when at least one distance-dependent quantity is involved.
=========================================
http://arxiv.org/abs/0802.1944
A test of the nature of cosmic acceleration using galaxy redshift distortions
Authors: L. Guzzo, M. Pierleoni, B. Meneux, E. Branchini, O. Le Fevre, C. Marinoni, B. Garilli, J. Blaizot, G. De Lucia, A. Pollo, H. J. McCracken, D. Bottini, V. Le Brun, D. Maccagni, J. P. Picat, R. Scaramella, M. Scodeggio, L. Tresse, G. Vettolani, A. Zanichelli, C. Adami, S. Arnouts, S. Bardelli, M. Bolzonella, A. Bongiorno, A. Cappi, S. Charlot, P. Ciliegi, T. Contini, O. Cucciati, S. de la Torre, K. Dolag, S. Foucaud, P. Franzetti, I. Gavignaud, O. Ilbert, A. Iovino, F. Lamareille, B. Marano, A. Mazure, P. Memeo, R. Merighi, L. Moscardini, S. Paltani, R. Pello, E. Perez-Montero, L. Pozzetti, M. Radovich, D. Vergani, G. Zamorani, E. Zucca
(Submitted on 13 Feb 2008)
Abstract: Observations of distant supernovae indicate that the Universe is now in a phase of accelerated expansion the physical cause of which is a mystery. Formally, this requires the inclusion of a term acting as a negative pressure in the equations of cosmic expansion, accounting for about 75 per cent of the total energy density in the Universe. The simplest option for this "dark energy" corresponds to a cosmological constant, perhaps related to the quantum vacuum energy. Physically viable alternatives invoke either the presence of a scalar field with an evolving equation of state, or extensions of general relativity involving higher-order curvature terms or extra dimensions. Although they produce similar expansion rates, different models predict measurable differences in the growth rate of large-scale structure with cosmic time. A fingerprint of this growth is provided by coherent galaxy motions, which introduce a radial anisotropy in the clustering pattern reconstructed by galaxy redshift surveys. Here we report a measurement of this effect at a redshift of 0.8. Using a new survey of more than 10,000 faint galaxies, we measure the anisotropy parameter b = 0.70 +/- 0.26, which corresponds to a growth rate of structure at that time of f = 0.91 +/- 0.36. This is consistent with the standard cosmological-constant model with low matter density and flat geometry, although the error bars are still too large to distinguish among alternative origins for the accelerated expansion. This could be achieved with a further factor-of-ten increase in the sampled volume at similar redshift.
================================================
http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0702175
Clues to the nature of high-redshift OVI absorption systems from their (lack of) small-scale structure
Authors: S. Lopez (UCh), S. Ellison (UVIC), S. D'Odorico (ESO), T.-S. Kim (AIP)
(Submitted on 6 Feb 2007 (v1), last revised 13 Mar 2007 (this version, v2))
QUOTE
Abstract: We present results of the first survey of high-redshift (<z> ~ 2.3) OVI absorption systems along parallel lines of sight toward two lensed QSOs. After a careful and well-defined search, we find ten intervening OVI systems. Within the errors, all OVI systems appear at the same redshift and have similar line strengths in front of both QSO images, whereas in most cases CIV or SiIV show more differences across the lines of sight, either in radial velocity or line strength. We conclude that (1) the coherence length of OVI must be much larger than ~ 1 kpc, and (2) an important fraction of the CIV absorbers may not reside in the same volume as OVI. Since Doppler parameters are consistent with photoionization, we propose a model in which CIV occurs in two different photoionized phases, one large, with characteristic sizes of a few hundred kpc and bearing OVI, and another one a factor of ten smaller and containing CIII. This model is able to explain the various transverse differences observed in column density and kinematics. We apply the model successfully to 2 kinds of absorbers, with low and high metallicity. In the low-metallicity regime, [C/H] \~ -2, we find that [C/O] ~ -0.7 is required to explain the observations, which hints at late (z < 6) rather than early metal enrichment. In the high-metallicity regime, the observed dissociation between OVI and CIV gas might be produced by galactic outflows. Altogether, the relative abundances, inhomogeneous CIV and featureless OVI are consistent with gas that has been processed recently before the absorption occurred (thus close to star-forming regions). Finally, we discuss briefly three associated systems (z_abs ~ z_em) that also show OVI. (abridged)
=============================================
http://arxiv.org/abs/0801.2965
Cosmology and Cosmogony in a Cyclic Universe
Authors: Jayant V. Narlikar, Geoffrey Burbidge, R.G. Vishwakarma
(Submitted on 18 Jan 2008)
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| Abstract: We present results of the first survey of high-redshift (<z> ~ 2.3) OVI absorption systems along parallel lines of sight toward two lensed QSOs. After a careful and well-defined search, we find ten intervening OVI systems. Within the errors, all OVI systems appear at the same redshift and have similar line strengths in front of both QSO images, whereas in most cases CIV or SiIV show more differences across the lines of sight, either in radial velocity or line strength. We conclude that (1) the coherence length of OVI must be much larger than ~ 1 kpc, and (2) an important fraction of the CIV absorbers may not reside in the same volume as OVI. Since Doppler parameters are consistent with photoionization, we propose a model in which CIV occurs in two different photoionized phases, one large, with characteristic sizes of a few hundred kpc and bearing OVI, and another one a factor of ten smaller and containing CIII. This model is able to explain the various transverse differences observed in column density and kinematics. We apply the model successfully to 2 kinds of absorbers, with low and high metallicity. In the low-metallicity regime, [C/H] \~ -2, we find that [C/O] ~ -0.7 is required to explain the observations, which hints at late (z < 6) rather than early metal enrichment. In the high-metallicity regime, the observed dissociation between OVI and CIV gas might be produced by galactic outflows. Altogether, the relative abundances, inhomogeneous CIV and featureless OVI are consistent with gas that has been processed recently before the absorption occurred (thus close to star-forming regions). Finally, we discuss briefly three associated systems (z_abs ~ z_em) that also show OVI. (abridged) |
=============================================
http://arxiv.org/abs/0801.2965
Cosmology and Cosmogony in a Cyclic Universe
Authors: Jayant V. Narlikar, Geoffrey Burbidge, R.G. Vishwakarma
(Submitted on 18 Jan 2008)
Abstract: In this paper we discuss the properties of the quasi-steady state cosmological model (QSSC) developed in 1993 in its role as a cyclic model of the universe driven by a negative energy scalar field. We discuss the origin of such a scalar field in the primary creation process first described by F. Hoyle and J. V. Narlikar forty years ago. It is shown that the creation processes which takes place in the nuclei of galaxies are closely linked to the high energy and explosive phenomena, which are commonly observed in galaxies at all redshifts.
The cyclic nature of the universe provides a natural link between the places of origin of the microwave background radiation (arising in hydrogen burning in stars), and the origin of the lightest nuclei (H, D, He$^3$ and He$^4$). It also allows us to relate the large scale cyclic properties of the universe to events taking place in the nuclei of galaxies. Observational evidence shows that ejection of matter and energy from these centers in the form of compact objects, gas and relativistic particles is responsible for the population of quasi-stellar objects (QSOs) and gamma-ray burst sources in the universe.
In the later parts of the paper we briefly discuss the major unsolved problems of this integrated cosmological and cosmogonical scheme. These are the understanding of the origin of the intrinsic redshifts, and the periodicities in the redshift distribution of the QSOs.
Thanks Harry
yes there is a lot of BS being propagated.... but if you say it as it is, then posters can't cope, and just lay on harassment
It was always inconceivable that the Universe had just begin for us... x billion years ago !!! LOL
It was always obvious that everything loses energy the further it goes.... and this applies to light
yes there is a lot of BS being propagated.... but if you say it as it is, then posters can't cope, and just lay on harassment
It was always inconceivable that the Universe had just begin for us... x billion years ago !!! LOL
It was always obvious that everything loses energy the further it goes.... and this applies to light
Red-shift is distant indicator only. My friend from Singapore is looking for sponsors. Experiment needs much money.
QUOTE
Red-shift is distant indicator only
not quite
The amount of red shift is an indication of the number and strength of the spinning Poynting energy fields (surrounding cosmic systems) that the oncoming light has passed through to be seen by us.
Yes, it is related to distance... ie the greater the distance the more the cosmic spinning fields have "bent" the oncoming light and drained its energy.
Redshifts have nothing to do with the expansion of "nothing", because 'nothing' just does not exist.... in the so called nothing of space are massive electric-magnetic cross fields... all spinning and driving others...... Space is not full of NOTHING !!!!!!
get real you guys... science really has to make sense... you can not just make up whatever fantasy you like.....
Look into so called "gravitational lensing"..... these aberrations are created by spin fields.... much as rotated, flipped etc images are seen on the floor of a swimming pool in sunlight.
Sorry, you are right...
In physics and astronomy, redshift occurs when the electromagnetic radiation, usually visible light, that is emitted from or reflected off an object is shifted towards the (less energetic) red end of the electromagnetic spectrum. More generally, redshift is defined as an increase in the wavelength of electromagnetic radiation received by a detector compared with the wavelength emitted by the source. This increase in wavelength corresponds to a decrease in the frequency of the electromagnetic radiation. Conversely, a decrease in wavelength is called blue shift. Any increase in wavelength is called "redshift", even if it occurs in electromagnetic radiation of non-optical wavelengths, such as gamma rays, x-rays and ultraviolet.
Usually as a result cyclonic merging and gravitational demolition of two or few spiral galaxies almost stabile elliptical galaxies are formed. Because in the M87 NASA can observe seldom how “A giant black hole has been caught red-handed dipping into a cosmic cookie jar of star” by Galaxy Evolution Explorer. Movements of stars have no order there. The stars orbiting on the chaotic orbits around centre of the M87, and sometimes hit to one-another are gravitated by quasar. The seldom hit event creates seldom feeding event by the quasar.
(From link of NASA) A spectrum of M87 obtained in the 1150-2000 A spectral range by the IUE is discussed. The visual and UV energy distribution of the nucleus of M87 reveals an essentially continuous curve from 1300 to 10,500 A, and a turnup in flux below 2200 A. It is shown that this turnup is not a consequence of scattered light in the instrument, while a plot of the deconvolved M87 UV profile and the visual profile shows that the radiation in the 1300-2200 A spectral regions is distributed in the same way as the visual radiation it is not a point source. In addition, there is evidence in the UV for the emission line of C IV the relative strengths of C IV, H beta, and the forbidden O III lines at 4959 and 5007 A are consistent with those seen in planetary nebulae, but the forbidden O II line at 3727 A is much too strong.
(cosmogeological explanation) Forbidden O II line at 3727 A is evidence of huge planetary meal by quasar. Higher consistence of oxygen is only into planets. Planets are exploding to the quasar. Permanently explosion stars and its planets are creating surrounded fiery clouds. Without permanently nuclear explosions demolished stellar and planetary masses, quasar could rapidly absorb surrounded fiery clouds and we have never seen shocked forbidden lines in its spectrum. Permanently explosion stars and its planets are evidence of huge radiation and rapid variation of brightens displayed by many quasars.
Each physicist can understand this discovery. Quasar is surrounded by red-hot nuclear and molecular clouds. There are almost all main chemical elements of planetary bodies and stars. Evidence is spectrum of quasar. Shocked forbidden lines are evidence. Chemical elements into clouds are absorbing huge radiation from ultra dense nucleus of the quasar. Demolition stellar and planetary chemical elements to the level of protons and neutrons are reason a lot of nuclear reactions and huge radiations. Huge radiations of exploded stellar and planetary chemical elements from ultra dense nucleus of quasar are absorbing by same chemical elements of huge red-hot nuclear and molecular clouds surrounded the quasar.
Usually as a result cyclonic merging and gravitational demolition of two or few spiral galaxies almost stabile elliptical galaxies are formed. Because in the M87 NASA can observe seldom how “A giant black hole has been caught red-handed dipping into a cosmic cookie jar of star” by Galaxy Evolution Explorer. Movements of stars have no order there. The stars orbiting on the chaotic orbits around centre of the M87, and sometimes hit to one-another are gravitated by quasar. The seldom hit event creates seldom feeding event by the quasar.
(From link of NASA) A spectrum of M87 obtained in the 1150-2000 A spectral range by the IUE is discussed. The visual and UV energy distribution of the nucleus of M87 reveals an essentially continuous curve from 1300 to 10,500 A, and a turnup in flux below 2200 A. It is shown that this turnup is not a consequence of scattered light in the instrument, while a plot of the deconvolved M87 UV profile and the visual profile shows that the radiation in the 1300-2200 A spectral regions is distributed in the same way as the visual radiation it is not a point source. In addition, there is evidence in the UV for the emission line of C IV the relative strengths of C IV, H beta, and the forbidden O III lines at 4959 and 5007 A are consistent with those seen in planetary nebulae, but the forbidden O II line at 3727 A is much too strong.
(cosmogeological explanation) Forbidden O II line at 3727 A is evidence of huge planetary meal by quasar. Higher consistence of oxygen is only into planets. Planets are exploding to the quasar. Permanently explosion stars and its planets are creating surrounded fiery clouds. Without permanently nuclear explosions demolished stellar and planetary masses, quasar could rapidly absorb surrounded fiery clouds and we have never seen shocked forbidden lines in its spectrum. Permanently explosion stars and its planets are evidence of huge radiation and rapid variation of brightens displayed by many quasars.
Each physicist can understand this discovery. Quasar is surrounded by red-hot nuclear and molecular clouds. There are almost all main chemical elements of planetary bodies and stars. Evidence is spectrum of quasar. Shocked forbidden lines are evidence. Chemical elements into clouds are absorbing huge radiation from ultra dense nucleus of the quasar. Demolition stellar and planetary chemical elements to the level of protons and neutrons are reason a lot of nuclear reactions and huge radiations. Huge radiations of exploded stellar and planetary chemical elements from ultra dense nucleus of quasar are absorbing by same chemical elements of huge red-hot nuclear and molecular clouds surrounded the quasar.
Hello all
My view on the cosmological redshift is that the "time rate" in the past was slower than it is today. Matter affects "time rates". The more matter present the slower the "time rate" (higher gravity) is. Matter is converted into energy (EM radiation) within stars. So, over time, the "time rate" changes. The farther you look back in time the slower the "time rate" is. The expansion of the universe is an expansion of the "time rates". Any variances in the "red shift" are just changes in the rates of matter conversion. The distance between galaxies, etc. would not be expanding in this model.
While there is evidence that gravity/time gradients affect light, there is no evidence (that I have found) that light affects gravity/time gradients. So saying that light/energy has the same effect as mass on gravity/time gradients is entirely theoretical.
Thoughtful comments or discussion welcome.
My view on the cosmological redshift is that the "time rate" in the past was slower than it is today. Matter affects "time rates". The more matter present the slower the "time rate" (higher gravity) is. Matter is converted into energy (EM radiation) within stars. So, over time, the "time rate" changes. The farther you look back in time the slower the "time rate" is. The expansion of the universe is an expansion of the "time rates". Any variances in the "red shift" are just changes in the rates of matter conversion. The distance between galaxies, etc. would not be expanding in this model.
While there is evidence that gravity/time gradients affect light, there is no evidence (that I have found) that light affects gravity/time gradients. So saying that light/energy has the same effect as mass on gravity/time gradients is entirely theoretical.
Thoughtful comments or discussion welcome.
http://www.spaceandmotion.com/cosmic-micro...d-radiation.htm
"When forced to summarize the general theory of relativity in one sentence:
Time and space and gravitation have no separate existence from matter."
(Albert Einstein)
g.
"When forced to summarize the general theory of relativity in one sentence:
Time and space and gravitation have no separate existence from matter."
(Albert Einstein)
g.
G'day from the land of ozzzzzzz
Time and space have no seperate existence from matter.
What is time? Time is a measure of motion, but time is not dependent on motion.
How do we communicate? By clock, light etc If these are affected by acceleration or by extreme gravity or electromagnetic fields than their recording of time will change, this does not mean actual time changes.
Can time be expanded or slowed or changed? Not actual time. Relative time can be changed.
===========================================
Distance - Time - Relativity
http://www.unitytheory.info/distance_time_relativity.html
===========================================
Einstein's Special Relativity
Time Dilation, Lorentz Contraction, and Other Relativity Effects
© Paul A. Heckert
http://physics.suite101.com/article.cfm/ei...cial_relativity
===========================================
Einstein's Special Relativity
Time Dilation, Lorentz Contraction, and Other Relativity Effects
© Paul A. Heckert
http://physics.suite101.com/article.cfm/ei...cial_relativity
his assumption that any observer moving at any constant velocity will measure the same value for the speed of light led to special relativity. Basically if the speed of light can't change for different observers moving at different speeds, some other things, such as length and time, must change. Einstein found a number of surprising consequences to this assumption.
Special relativity theory
Einstein published his Special Theory of Relativity in 1905. Some of the major points are:
=Space-time - Space and time are fundamentally interrelated rather than two distinctly different quantities. Time is essentially a fourth dimension complementing the three spatial dimensions.
=Simultaneous events - Whether or not two events are simultaneous depends on the observer. One observer might see two events as occurring simultaneously, another as one of the events occurring first, and a third as the other event occurring first.
=Lorentz contraction - An object moving near the speed of light will appear shorter as seen by an outside observer at rest. The amount of contraction depends on its speed, and its length approaches zero as its speed approaches the speed of light. To an observer moving along with the object its length appears normal.
=Time dilation - As seen by an outside observer at rest, time will move more slowly for an object moving close to the speed of light. At the speed of light, time will stop as seen by an outside observer. To an observer moving along with the object all appears normal
=Mass increase - The mass of an object moving close to the speed of light will increase as seen by an outside observer. The mass will approach infinity as the speed approaches the speed of light. Again to an observer moving along with the object the mass remains the same.
=Speed of light limit - As an objects speed approaches the speed of light its mass approaches infinity. Therefore it would take an infinite external force to accelerate any object with mass to the speed of light. Therefore light, and anything else with no mass, can travel at the speed of light. But an object with mass can not reach the speed of light. The best it can do is come arbitrarily close. Nothing can travel faster than the speed light travels in a vacuum. The speed of light in a vacuum is the ultimate speed limit in the universe.
=E=mc2 - E represents energy, m represents mass, and c2 represents the speed of light squared. According to this famous equation mass and energy are interchangeable. Matter can change to energy and vice versa. The equations is sort of a conversion factor telling us how much matter corresponds to a certain amount of energy. For example, in nuclear reactions some of the mass is converted to energy according to this equation.
These relativistic effects seem strange to us because they only become significant at speeds of at least 10% the speed of light, which is 300,000 km/s. Because we have never traveled anywhere close to these speeds, we have never experienced these effects. However experiments in which subatomic particles are accelerated to these high speeds have so far confirmed all predictions Einstein's from special relativity theory. About a decade later, Einstein published his general theory of relativity.
=============================================
Back to red shift
http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0701671
Intrinsic galaxy alignments from the 2SLAQ and SDSS surveys: luminosity and redshift scalings and implications for weak lensing surveys
Authors: Christopher M. Hirata, Rachel Mandelbaum, Mustapha Ishak, Uros Seljak, Robert Nichol, Kevin A. Pimbblet, Nicholas P. Ross, David Wake
(Submitted on 24 Jan 2007 (v1), last revised 28 Oct 2007 (this version, v2))
=============================================
Back to red shift
http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0701671
Intrinsic galaxy alignments from the 2SLAQ and SDSS surveys: luminosity and redshift scalings and implications for weak lensing surveys
Authors: Christopher M. Hirata, Rachel Mandelbaum, Mustapha Ishak, Uros Seljak, Robert Nichol, Kevin A. Pimbblet, Nicholas P. Ross, David Wake
(Submitted on 24 Jan 2007 (v1), last revised 28 Oct 2007 (this version, v2))
Abstract: Correlations between intrinsic shear and the density field on large scales, a potentially important contaminant for cosmic shear surveys, have been robustly detected at low redshifts with bright galaxies in SDSS data. Here we present a more detailed characterization of this effect, which can cause anti-correlations between gravitational lensing shear and intrinsic ellipticity (GI correlations). This measurement uses 36278 Luminous Red Galaxies (LRGs) from the SDSS spectroscopic sample with 0.15<z<0.35, split by redshift and luminosity; 7758 LRGs from the 2SLAQ Survey at 0.4<z<0.8; and a variety of other SDSS samples from previous, related work. We find >3sigma detections of the effect for all galaxy subsamples within the SDSS LRG sample; for the 2SLAQ sample, we find a 2sigma detection for a bright subsample, and no detection for a fainter subsample. Fitting formulae are provided for the scaling of the GI correlations with luminosity, transverse separation, and redshift. We estimate contamination in the measurement of sigma_8 for future cosmic shear surveys on the basis of the fitted dependence of GI correlations on galaxy properties. We find contamination to the power spectrum ranging from -1.5 (optimistic) to -33 per cent (pessimistic) for a toy cosmic shear survey using all galaxies to a depth of R=24 using scales l~500. This corresponds to a bias in sigma_8 of Delta sigma_8=-0.004 (optimistic), -0.02 (central), or -0.10 (pessimistic). We provide a prescription for inclusion of this error in cosmological parameter estimation codes. The principal uncertainty is in the treatment of the L<=L* blue galaxies. Characterization of the tidal alignments of these galaxies, especially at redshifts relevant for cosmic shear, should be a high priority for the cosmic shear community. (Abridged)
http://arxiv.org/abs/0705.0367
Is there Evidence for a Hubble bubble? The Nature of Type Ia Supernova Colors and Dust in External Galaxies
Authors: A. Conley, R. G. Carlberg, J. Guy, D. A. Howell, S. Jha, A. G. Riess, M. Sullivan
(Submitted on 2 May 2007 (v1), last revised 3 Jul 2007 (this version, v2))
and thankyou Zarkov for your non-established view... and all the wondrous and fantastic outcomes that your mind can conjure up...
the benefit of the established view is that it can be independently verified. the measurement is reproducible ie different telescopes at different times obtain the same result eg the radial velocity arcturus, the rotation of galaxy UGC 2936 etc
the non-established view can not be verified. can you please present your data that supports your claims and the independent verification?
for the benefit of those who visit these forums in the hope of understanding science in general an important point is raised in this thread. if others can replicate the observation you can say it exists. if others can not replicate the observation, why should it be considered to exist?
With the known mechanisms of redshift and the observation that the more distant a galaxy the larger the redshift, i am have placed my confidence in the interpretation that the universe appears to be expanding.
The facts remain the same.... the established interpretation is such and such, and based upon certain conjectures (equations).... ie gravity=..... gravity affects=, red shifts =, etc.... now all these results (ie = result) are total conjecture !!! and made up to fit the facts... oh you can be kink and call them the fabric of a theory.... but all have been made up to fit
The non established view, would be foolish to claim different if it did not have a FACTUAL starting point that was different to the conjecture of all the established equations (here an established equation is for example:- gravity = 'result' )
I claim from factual/mathematical evidence that ALL THE ESTABLISHED EQUATIONS are all based upon an incorrect analysis/conceptualisation !!
simple, get your foundation concepts correct and the observed facts fit in, without contortion.
LOL, but suck eggs.... I am not going to lay out the pertinent math...
But nevertheless I will explain the consequences of a reinterpretation of the observed facts.
I do not care if you understand/believe.... this planet is doomed earthlings.... and when I go I go alone, and I will take what I know.... no one will follow.
Time and space have no seperate existence from matter.
What is time? Time is a measure of motion, but time is not dependent on motion.
How do we communicate? By clock, light etc If these are affected by acceleration or by extreme gravity or electromagnetic fields than their recording of time will change, this does not mean actual time changes.
Can time be expanded or slowed or changed? Not actual time. Relative time can be changed.
===========================================
Distance - Time - Relativity
http://www.unitytheory.info/distance_time_relativity.html
QUOTE
However, the wrinkled epoch of our expanding space has significant differences with an abstract Euclidean space. In our space geometry, the concept of distance also has different properties than the concept of distance in an abstract geometry, and other basic physical concepts of time and mass emerges as a function of the physical distance. As a result, these concepts are intrinsically connected to each other, whose relations are described by Einsteinian relativity.
Einstein’s theory of special relativity is based on two postulates:
- The speed of light is constant for all observers,
- The laws of physics are the same in any inertial frame of reference.
In fact, Einstein’s principle is not very different from Galileo’s except that it includes the postulate of constancy of speed of light, and formulates relativistic transformations at high speeds.
By following these postulates, Einstein formulated correct description of motion of relativistic objects and transformations between arbitrary coordinate orientations. These transformations are based on Lorentz gamma factor. On the other hand, although special relativity suggests mathematics for relativistic transformations, it does not suggest a full reason for the constancy of speed of light as a phenomenon.
Einstein’s theory of special relativity is based on two postulates:
- The speed of light is constant for all observers,
- The laws of physics are the same in any inertial frame of reference.
In fact, Einstein’s principle is not very different from Galileo’s except that it includes the postulate of constancy of speed of light, and formulates relativistic transformations at high speeds.
By following these postulates, Einstein formulated correct description of motion of relativistic objects and transformations between arbitrary coordinate orientations. These transformations are based on Lorentz gamma factor. On the other hand, although special relativity suggests mathematics for relativistic transformations, it does not suggest a full reason for the constancy of speed of light as a phenomenon.
===========================================
Einstein's Special Relativity
Time Dilation, Lorentz Contraction, and Other Relativity Effects
© Paul A. Heckert
http://physics.suite101.com/article.cfm/ei...cial_relativity
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| However, the wrinkled epoch of our expanding space has significant differences with an abstract Euclidean space. In our space geometry, the concept of distance also has different properties than the concept of distance in an abstract geometry, and other basic physical concepts of time and mass emerges as a function of the physical distance. As a result, these concepts are intrinsically connected to each other, whose relations are described by Einsteinian relativity. Einstein’s theory of special relativity is based on two postulates: - The speed of light is constant for all observers, - The laws of physics are the same in any inertial frame of reference. In fact, Einstein’s principle is not very different from Galileo’s except that it includes the postulate of constancy of speed of light, and formulates relativistic transformations at high speeds. By following these postulates, Einstein formulated correct description of motion of relativistic objects and transformations between arbitrary coordinate orientations. These transformations are based on Lorentz gamma factor. On the other hand, although special relativity suggests mathematics for relativistic transformations, it does not suggest a full reason for the constancy of speed of light as a phenomenon. |
===========================================
Einstein's Special Relativity
Time Dilation, Lorentz Contraction, and Other Relativity Effects
© Paul A. Heckert
http://physics.suite101.com/article.cfm/ei...cial_relativity
his assumption that any observer moving at any constant velocity will measure the same value for the speed of light led to special relativity. Basically if the speed of light can't change for different observers moving at different speeds, some other things, such as length and time, must change. Einstein found a number of surprising consequences to this assumption.
Special relativity theory
Einstein published his Special Theory of Relativity in 1905. Some of the major points are:
=Space-time - Space and time are fundamentally interrelated rather than two distinctly different quantities. Time is essentially a fourth dimension complementing the three spatial dimensions.
=Simultaneous events - Whether or not two events are simultaneous depends on the observer. One observer might see two events as occurring simultaneously, another as one of the events occurring first, and a third as the other event occurring first.
=Lorentz contraction - An object moving near the speed of light will appear shorter as seen by an outside observer at rest. The amount of contraction depends on its speed, and its length approaches zero as its speed approaches the speed of light. To an observer moving along with the object its length appears normal.
=Time dilation - As seen by an outside observer at rest, time will move more slowly for an object moving close to the speed of light. At the speed of light, time will stop as seen by an outside observer. To an observer moving along with the object all appears normal
=Mass increase - The mass of an object moving close to the speed of light will increase as seen by an outside observer. The mass will approach infinity as the speed approaches the speed of light. Again to an observer moving along with the object the mass remains the same.
=Speed of light limit - As an objects speed approaches the speed of light its mass approaches infinity. Therefore it would take an infinite external force to accelerate any object with mass to the speed of light. Therefore light, and anything else with no mass, can travel at the speed of light. But an object with mass can not reach the speed of light. The best it can do is come arbitrarily close. Nothing can travel faster than the speed light travels in a vacuum. The speed of light in a vacuum is the ultimate speed limit in the universe.
=E=mc2 - E represents energy, m represents mass, and c2 represents the speed of light squared. According to this famous equation mass and energy are interchangeable. Matter can change to energy and vice versa. The equations is sort of a conversion factor telling us how much matter corresponds to a certain amount of energy. For example, in nuclear reactions some of the mass is converted to energy according to this equation.
These relativistic effects seem strange to us because they only become significant at speeds of at least 10% the speed of light, which is 300,000 km/s. Because we have never traveled anywhere close to these speeds, we have never experienced these effects. However experiments in which subatomic particles are accelerated to these high speeds have so far confirmed all predictions Einstein's from special relativity theory. About a decade later, Einstein published his general theory of relativity.
QUOTE
Additionally, one of the fundamental assertions of Einstein's relativity is that lengths and time can be measured by a set of imaginary arbitrary elements called "measuring rods" and "clocks". Unfortunately, these elements do not have proper metrics based on physical reality, because Einsteinian relativity do not discuss what basic concepts of distance, time, and mass are, and how the relativistic mechanism is ensured in the smallest scale.
=============================================
Back to red shift
http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0701671
Intrinsic galaxy alignments from the 2SLAQ and SDSS surveys: luminosity and redshift scalings and implications for weak lensing surveys
Authors: Christopher M. Hirata, Rachel Mandelbaum, Mustapha Ishak, Uros Seljak, Robert Nichol, Kevin A. Pimbblet, Nicholas P. Ross, David Wake
(Submitted on 24 Jan 2007 (v1), last revised 28 Oct 2007 (this version, v2))
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| Additionally, one of the fundamental assertions of Einstein's relativity is that lengths and time can be measured by a set of imaginary arbitrary elements called "measuring rods" and "clocks". Unfortunately, these elements do not have proper metrics based on physical reality, because Einsteinian relativity do not discuss what basic concepts of distance, time, and mass are, and how the relativistic mechanism is ensured in the smallest scale. |
=============================================
Back to red shift
http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0701671
Intrinsic galaxy alignments from the 2SLAQ and SDSS surveys: luminosity and redshift scalings and implications for weak lensing surveys
Authors: Christopher M. Hirata, Rachel Mandelbaum, Mustapha Ishak, Uros Seljak, Robert Nichol, Kevin A. Pimbblet, Nicholas P. Ross, David Wake
(Submitted on 24 Jan 2007 (v1), last revised 28 Oct 2007 (this version, v2))
Abstract: Correlations between intrinsic shear and the density field on large scales, a potentially important contaminant for cosmic shear surveys, have been robustly detected at low redshifts with bright galaxies in SDSS data. Here we present a more detailed characterization of this effect, which can cause anti-correlations between gravitational lensing shear and intrinsic ellipticity (GI correlations). This measurement uses 36278 Luminous Red Galaxies (LRGs) from the SDSS spectroscopic sample with 0.15<z<0.35, split by redshift and luminosity; 7758 LRGs from the 2SLAQ Survey at 0.4<z<0.8; and a variety of other SDSS samples from previous, related work. We find >3sigma detections of the effect for all galaxy subsamples within the SDSS LRG sample; for the 2SLAQ sample, we find a 2sigma detection for a bright subsample, and no detection for a fainter subsample. Fitting formulae are provided for the scaling of the GI correlations with luminosity, transverse separation, and redshift. We estimate contamination in the measurement of sigma_8 for future cosmic shear surveys on the basis of the fitted dependence of GI correlations on galaxy properties. We find contamination to the power spectrum ranging from -1.5 (optimistic) to -33 per cent (pessimistic) for a toy cosmic shear survey using all galaxies to a depth of R=24 using scales l~500. This corresponds to a bias in sigma_8 of Delta sigma_8=-0.004 (optimistic), -0.02 (central), or -0.10 (pessimistic). We provide a prescription for inclusion of this error in cosmological parameter estimation codes. The principal uncertainty is in the treatment of the L<=L* blue galaxies. Characterization of the tidal alignments of these galaxies, especially at redshifts relevant for cosmic shear, should be a high priority for the cosmic shear community. (Abridged)
http://arxiv.org/abs/0705.0367
Is there Evidence for a Hubble bubble? The Nature of Type Ia Supernova Colors and Dust in External Galaxies
Authors: A. Conley, R. G. Carlberg, J. Guy, D. A. Howell, S. Jha, A. G. Riess, M. Sullivan
(Submitted on 2 May 2007 (v1), last revised 3 Jul 2007 (this version, v2))
QUOTE
Abstract: We examine recent evidence from the luminosity-redshift relation of Type Ia Supernovae (SNe Ia) for the $\sim 3 \sigma$ detection of a ``Hubble bubble'' -- a departure of the local value of the Hubble constant from its globally averaged value \citep{Jha:07}. By comparing the MLCS2k2 fits used in that study to the results from other light-curve fitters applied to the same data, we demonstrate that this is related to the interpretation of SN color excesses (after correction for a light-curve shape-color relation) and the presence of a color gradient across the local sample. If the slope of the linear relation ($\beta$) between SN color excess and luminosity is fit empirically, then the bubble disappears. If, on the other hand, the color excess arises purely from Milky Way-like dust, then SN data clearly favors a Hubble bubble. We demonstrate that SN data give $\beta \simeq 2$, instead of the $\beta \simeq 4$ one would expect from purely Milky-Way-like dust. This suggests that either SN intrinsic colors are more complicated than can be described with a single light-curve shape parameter, or that dust around SN is unusual. Disentangling these possibilities is both a challenge and an opportunity for large-survey SN Ia cosmology.
Costas, you’ve written “time is not dependent on motion”. When we are writing about universe, we have to know motion is relativity measure. For example: you can see “immovable” iron box but it has relatively velocity about 600 km/s, 51.84 million km per day, or more than 18.9 billion km per year to the andromeda galaxy, for recycling renewing and evolution new matter.
Hey K.M
we are standing still... LOL
only out there, the Universe, moves !!!!
LOL
we are standing still... LOL
only out there, the Universe, moves !!!!
LOL
Зарков ты русский эмигрант?
for the benefit of those who visit these forums in the hope of understanding some physics (yes people do, for i am one), redshift is a very important tool for those who try to understand the universe.
here is how redshift is used to determine the radial velocity of a star, radial velocity of a galaxy, rotation of a star, rotation of a galaxy, orbital motion of a star due to a planet
give it a go yourself
PS if you want then to see how the use of redshift led to the discovery of an expanding universe then follow this
here is how redshift is used to determine the radial velocity of a star, radial velocity of a galaxy, rotation of a star, rotation of a galaxy, orbital motion of a star due to a planet
give it a go yourself
PS if you want then to see how the use of redshift led to the discovery of an expanding universe then follow this
Thanks kjw for the established view... and all the wondrous and fantastic outcomes that the human mind can conjure up... great SciFi LOL
Back a long long time ago, earthlings realised that they were the most important creatures in the universe, because the Universe revolved around THEM> !
God so did love HIS people that he made the Earth the centre of HIS Universe....
and low and behold, it is still true today.... Allah Akbar.
Back a long long time ago, earthlings realised that they were the most important creatures in the universe, because the Universe revolved around THEM> !
God so did love HIS people that he made the Earth the centre of HIS Universe....
and low and behold, it is still true today.... Allah Akbar.
G'day from the land of ozzzzzzzz
Kjw you said:
Thank you Kjw, so tell me how confident are you in redshift giving us expansion of the universe.
Hello Margiani
Time adds the 4th dimension to the physical 3 dimension. It shows the motion from A to B.
Kjw you said:
QUOTE
here is how redshift is used to determine the radial velocity of a star, radial velocity of a galaxy, rotation of a star, rotation of a galaxy, orbital motion of a star due to a planet
Thank you Kjw, so tell me how confident are you in redshift giving us expansion of the universe.
Hello Margiani
Time adds the 4th dimension to the physical 3 dimension. It shows the motion from A to B.
QUOTE
Zarkov Posted: Today at 10:07 AM Thanks kjw for the established view... and all the wondrous and fantastic outcomes that the human mind can conjure up... great SciFi LOL
and thankyou Zarkov for your non-established view... and all the wondrous and fantastic outcomes that your mind can conjure up...
the benefit of the established view is that it can be independently verified. the measurement is reproducible ie different telescopes at different times obtain the same result eg the radial velocity arcturus, the rotation of galaxy UGC 2936 etc
the non-established view can not be verified. can you please present your data that supports your claims and the independent verification?
for the benefit of those who visit these forums in the hope of understanding science in general an important point is raised in this thread. if others can replicate the observation you can say it exists. if others can not replicate the observation, why should it be considered to exist?
QUOTE
Harry Costas Posted: Today at 10:16 AM Thank you Kjw, so tell me how confident are you in redshift giving us expansion of the universe.
that is a poorly constructed sentence, particularly when you are asking for me to place a level of confidence in it meanings, however, if i interpret it correctly then, With the known mechanisms of redshift and the observation that the more distant a galaxy the larger the redshift, i am have placed my confidence in the interpretation that the universe appears to be expanding.
Hello Kjw
Smile
It sure is,
thats what happens when you do not check .
Also I suffer from dislexia, it gets worse sometimes.
You said
Theoretically it seems to be expanding, but observations tell us its not.
Google for non expanding universe.
Smile
It sure is,
thats what happens when you do not check .
Also I suffer from dislexia, it gets worse sometimes.
You said
QUOTE
With the known mechanisms of redshift and the observation that the more distant a galaxy the larger the redshift, i am have placed my confidence in the interpretation that the universe appears to be expanding.
Theoretically it seems to be expanding, but observations tell us its not.
Google for non expanding universe.
QUOTE
the non-established view can not be verified. can you please present your data that supports your claims and the independent verification?
The facts remain the same.... the established interpretation is such and such, and based upon certain conjectures (equations).... ie gravity=..... gravity affects=, red shifts =, etc.... now all these results (ie = result) are total conjecture !!! and made up to fit the facts... oh you can be kink and call them the fabric of a theory.... but all have been made up to fit
The non established view, would be foolish to claim different if it did not have a FACTUAL starting point that was different to the conjecture of all the established equations (here an established equation is for example:- gravity = 'result' )
I claim from factual/mathematical evidence that ALL THE ESTABLISHED EQUATIONS are all based upon an incorrect analysis/conceptualisation !!
simple, get your foundation concepts correct and the observed facts fit in, without contortion.
LOL, but suck eggs.... I am not going to lay out the pertinent math...
But nevertheless I will explain the consequences of a reinterpretation of the observed facts.
I do not care if you understand/believe.... this planet is doomed earthlings.... and when I go I go alone, and I will take what I know.... no one will follow.
QUOTE
kjw Posted on Today at 7:19 AM i am have placed my confidence in the interpretation that the universe appears to be expanding.
opps...QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| kjw Posted on Today at 7:19 AM i am have placed my confidence in the interpretation that the universe appears to be expanding. |
opps...
Harry Costas Posted on Today at 7:41 AM Google for non expanding universe.
Harry Costas Posted on Today at 7:41 AM Google for non expanding universe.
i did and i do not understand it. could you please explain it. and could you please show the relation that
any non-expanding model predicts that surface brightness is constant with distance and thus with z
works for blueshifted objects
any non-expanding model predicts that surface brightness is constant with distance and thus with z
works for blueshifted objects
for the benefit of those who visit these forums in the hope of understanding science in general, please note the reaction of Zarkov when asked for evidence to substantiate the claims made.
for the benefit of those who have an interest in the difference in meaning between that which exists and that which is real, look here
Explain how 'time' is not dependent on motion, Harry.
You have just created a 'paradox' that does not exist outside of your 'understanding'.
g.
QUOTE
Zarkov Posted on Today at 7:44 AM LOL, but suck eggs....
why choose not to display evidence ? surely independent verification is the trump card in deciding what exists. what would make someone choose to make the comment "suck eggs" instead of presenting a case for independent verification? i would see this as to mean independent verification is not possible. what do you consider this to imply?for the benefit of those who have an interest in the difference in meaning between that which exists and that which is real, look here
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| Zarkov Posted on Today at 7:44 AM LOL, but suck eggs.... |
why choose not to display evidence ? surely independent verification is the trump card in deciding what exists. what would make someone choose to make the comment "suck eggs" instead of presenting a case for independent verification? i would see this as to mean independent verification is not possible. what do you consider this to imply?
for the benefit of those who have an interest in the difference in meaning between that which exists and that which is real, look here
Zarkov Posted on Today at 7:44 AM this planet is doomed earthlings.... and when I go I go alone, and I will take what I know.... no one will follow.
for the benefit of those who have an interest in the difference in meaning between that which exists and that which is real, look here
Zarkov Posted on Today at 7:44 AM this planet is doomed earthlings.... and when I go I go alone, and I will take what I know.... no one will follow.
to Zarkov that these things are real. in the same way that an hallucination is real. however does the hallucination have existance ie can the hallucination be independently verified ? we can show that while, the hallucination is experienced by one person, the hallucination is not experienced by all. the reality that Zarkov presents here does not exist.
QUOTE
What is time? Time is a measure of motion, but time is not dependent on motion.
Explain how 'time' is not dependent on motion, Harry.
You have just created a 'paradox' that does not exist outside of your 'understanding'.
g.
Hello KjW
You will need to do a bit of reading on Redshift and non expanding universe.
Its easy to go with mainstream, even a dead log can float down mainstream.
NEW THEORY OF NON-EXPANDING UNIVERSE
http://sharma-upt.com/NonexpandingUniverse.aspx
http://www.citebase.org/abstract?identifie...shits=cocitedby
Measurements of the Cosmological Parameters Omega and Lambda from the First 7 Supernovae at z >= 0.35 [ Abstract, 531 Cites,
http://arxiv.org/abs/0704.1671
Very Massive Stars in High-Redshift Galaxies
Authors: Mark Dijkstra, Stuart Wyithe (Melbourne)
(Submitted on 12 Apr 2007 (v1), last revised 27 Jun 2007 (this version, v2))
http://arxiv.org/abs/0704.1631
Further Evidence that the Redshifts of AGN Galaxies May Contain Intrinsic Components
Authors: M. B. Bell
(Submitted on 12 Apr 2007 (v1), last revised 21 Aug 2007 (this version, v2))
http://arxiv.org/abs/0704.1631
Further Evidence that the Redshifts of AGN Galaxies May Contain Intrinsic Components
Authors: M. B. Bell
(Submitted on 12 Apr 2007 (v1), last revised 21 Aug 2007 (this version, v2))
Abstract: In the decreasing intrinsic redshift (DIR) model galaxies are assumed to be born as compact objects that have been ejected with large intrinsic redshift components, z_(i), out of the nuclei of mature AGN galaxies. As young AGN (quasars) they are initially several magnitudes sub-luminous to mature galaxies but their luminosity gradually increases over 10^8 yrs, as z_(i) decreases and they evolve into mature AGN (Seyferts and radio galaxies). Evidence presented here that low- and intermediate-redshift AGN are unquestionably sub-luminous to radio galaxies is then strong support for this model and makes it likely that the high-redshift AGN (quasars) are also sub-luminous, having simply been pushed above the radio galaxies on a logz-m_(v) plot by the presence of a large intrinsic component in their redshifts. An increase in luminosity below z = 0.06 is also seen. It is associated in the DIR model with an increase in luminosity as the sources mature but, if real, is difficult to interpret in the cosmological redshift (CR) model since at this low redshift it is unlikely to be associated with a higher star formation rate or an increase in the material used to build galaxies. Whether it might be possible in the CR model to explain these results by selection effects is also examined.
http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0702101
A Census of Intrinsic Narrow Absorption Lines in the Spectra of Quasars at z=2-4
Authors: T. Misawa, J. C. Charlton, M. Eracleous, R. Ganguly, D. Tytler, D. Kirkman, N. Suzuki, D. Lubin
(Submitted on 4 Feb 2007)
http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0701912
Predicted and observed evolution in the mean properties of Type Ia supernovae with redshift
Authors: D. Andrew Howell, Mark Sullivan, Alex Conley, Ray Carlberg (University of Toronto)
(Submitted on 31 Jan 2007 (v1), last revised 1 Aug 2007 (this version, v2))
http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0701912
Predicted and observed evolution in the mean properties of Type Ia supernovae with redshift
Authors: D. Andrew Howell, Mark Sullivan, Alex Conley, Ray Carlberg (University of Toronto)
(Submitted on 31 Jan 2007 (v1), last revised 1 Aug 2007 (this version, v2))
Abstract: Recent studies indicate that Type Ia supernovae (SNe Ia) consist of two groups - a "prompt" component whose rates are proportional to the host galaxy star formation rate, whose members have broader lightcurves and are intrinsically more luminous, and a "delayed" component whose members take several Gyr to explode, have narrower lightcurves, and are intrinsically fainter. As cosmic star formation density increases with redshift, the prompt component should begin to dominate. We use a two-component model to predict that the average lightcurve width should increase by 6% from z=0-1.5. Using data from various searches we find an 8.1% +/- 2.7% increase in average lightcurve width for non-subluminous SNe Ia from z=0.03 - 1.12, corresponding to an increase in the average intrinsic luminosity of 12%. To test whether there is any bias after supernovae are corrected for lightcurve shape we use published data to mimic the effect of population evolution and find no significant difference in the measured dark energy equation of state parameter, w. However, future measurements of time-variable w will require standardization of SN Ia magnitudes to 2% up to z=1.7, and it is not yet possible to assess whether lightcurve shape correction works at this level of precision. Another concern at z=1.5 is the expected order of magnitude increase in the number of SNe Ia that cannot be calibrated by current methods.
A Proposed Mechanism for the Intrinsic Redshift and its Preferred Values Purportedly Found in Quasars Based on the Local-Ether Theory
Authors: Ching-Chuan Su
(Submitted on 16 Aug 2006)
The redshift distribution of SWIFT Gamma-Ray Bursts: evidence for evolution
Authors: F. Daigne (1), E.M. Rossi (2), R. Mochkovitch (1) ((1) Institut d'Astrophysique de Paris - UMR 7095 CNRS et Universite Pierre et Marie Curie, (2) JILA, University of Colorado, Boulder)
(Submitted on 27 Jul 2006)
The redshift distribution of SWIFT Gamma-Ray Bursts: evidence for evolution
Authors: F. Daigne (1), E.M. Rossi (2), R. Mochkovitch (1) ((1) Institut d'Astrophysique de Paris - UMR 7095 CNRS et Universite Pierre et Marie Curie, (2) JILA, University of Colorado, Boulder)
(Submitted on 27 Jul 2006)
Abstract: We predict the redshift distribution of long Gamma-Ray Bursts (GRBs) with Monte Carlo simulations. Our improved analysis constrains free parameters with three kinds of observation: (i) the log(N)-log(P) diagram of BATSE bursts; (ii) the peak energy distribution of bright BATSE bursts; (iii) the HETE2 fraction of X-ray rich GRBs and X-ray flashes. The statistical analysis of the Monte Carlo simulation results allow us to carefully study the impact of the uncertainties in the GRB intrinsic properties on the redshift distribution. The comparison with SWIFT data then leads to the following conclusions. The Amati relation should be intrinsic, if observationally confirmed by SWIFT. The progenitor and/or the GRB properties have to evolve to reproduce the high mean redshift of SWIFT bursts. Our results favor an evolution of the efficiency of GRB production by massive stars, that would be ~6-7 times higher at z~7 than at z~2. We finally predict around 10 GRBs detected by SWIFT at redshift z>6 for a three year mission. These may be sufficient to open a new observational window over the high redshift Universe.
http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0607050
On the Signatures of Gravitational Redshift: The Onset of Relativistic Emission Lines
Authors: Andreas Mueller, Margrethe Wold
(Submitted on 4 Jul 2006)
http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0509611
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))
http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0509611
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.
yes i understand that these things are in your reality, but as explained befor, personal reality does not equal existance.
PS i prefer poached eggs, on buttered wholemeal bread, pepper, no salt
do you get paid by the amount of links you provide ? at least this time they seem relevant to your point.
as stated befor
do you get paid by the amount of links you provide ? at least this time they seem relevant to your point.
as stated befor
kjw Posted on Yesterday at 7:53 AM
i would like you to explain the idea of a non-expanding universe, by the use of your own words.
i would like you to explain the idea of a non-expanding universe, by the use of your own words.
And do you know what expansion means?
as in this expansion, yes.
there will be an increase in the distance between galaxies, that are not influenced by mutual gravitation, over time.
there will be an increase in the distance between galaxies, that are not influenced by mutual gravitation, over time.
and what scientific evidence supports it.
atomic absorption/emission identification of elements in earth bound laboratories
doppler redshift verified in earth bound laboratories
doppler redshift tweaked by special relativity, specifically time dilation. experimentally verified
general relativity meets the cosmological principle and predicts an expanding universe
doppler redshift observations interpreted as dynamic space
hubble's law
i apologize if i have butchered history
Hello Harry Costas
Many think they know what non expansion is
Please explain:
What do you think it is?
and what scientific evidence supports it.
You will need to do a bit of reading on Redshift and non expanding universe.
Its easy to go with mainstream, even a dead log can float down mainstream.
NEW THEORY OF NON-EXPANDING UNIVERSE
http://sharma-upt.com/NonexpandingUniverse.aspx
http://www.citebase.org/abstract?identifie...shits=cocitedby
Measurements of the Cosmological Parameters Omega and Lambda from the First 7 Supernovae at z >= 0.35 [ Abstract, 531 Cites,
http://arxiv.org/abs/0704.1671
Very Massive Stars in High-Redshift Galaxies
Authors: Mark Dijkstra, Stuart Wyithe (Melbourne)
(Submitted on 12 Apr 2007 (v1), last revised 27 Jun 2007 (this version, v2))
QUOTE
Abstract: A significant fraction of Lyman Alpha (Lya) emitting galaxies (LAEs) at z> 5.7 have rest-frame equivalent widths (EW) greater than ~100 Angstrom. However only a small fraction of the Lya flux produced by a galaxy is transmitted through the IGM, which implies intrinsic Lya EWs that are in excess of the maximum allowed for a population-II stellar population having a Salpeter mass function. In this paper we study characteristics of the sources powering Lya emission in high redshift galaxies. We propose a simple model for Lya emitters in which galaxies undergo a burst of very massive star formation that results in a large intrinsic EW, followed by a phase of population-II star formation with a lower EW. We confront this model with a range of high redshift observations and find that the model is able to simultaneously describe the following eight properties of the high redshift galaxy population with plausible values for parameters like the efficiency and duration of star formation: i-iv) the UV and Lya luminosity functions of LAEs at z=5.7 and 6.5, v-vi) the mean and variance of the EW distribution of Lya selected galaxies at z=5.7, vii) the EW distribution of i-drop galaxies at z~6, and viii) the observed correlation of stellar age with EW. Our modeling suggests that the observed anomalously large intrinsic equivalent widths require a burst of very massive star formation lasting no more than a few to ten percent of the galaxies star forming lifetime. This very massive star formation may indicate the presence of population-III star formation in a few per cent of i-drop galaxies, and in about half of the Lya selected galaxies.
http://arxiv.org/abs/0704.1631
Further Evidence that the Redshifts of AGN Galaxies May Contain Intrinsic Components
Authors: M. B. Bell
(Submitted on 12 Apr 2007 (v1), last revised 21 Aug 2007 (this version, v2))
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| Abstract: A significant fraction of Lyman Alpha (Lya) emitting galaxies (LAEs) at z> 5.7 have rest-frame equivalent widths (EW) greater than ~100 Angstrom. However only a small fraction of the Lya flux produced by a galaxy is transmitted through the IGM, which implies intrinsic Lya EWs that are in excess of the maximum allowed for a population-II stellar population having a Salpeter mass function. In this paper we study characteristics of the sources powering Lya emission in high redshift galaxies. We propose a simple model for Lya emitters in which galaxies undergo a burst of very massive star formation that results in a large intrinsic EW, followed by a phase of population-II star formation with a lower EW. We confront this model with a range of high redshift observations and find that the model is able to simultaneously describe the following eight properties of the high redshift galaxy population with plausible values for parameters like the efficiency and duration of star formation: i-iv) the UV and Lya luminosity functions of LAEs at z=5.7 and 6.5, v-vi) the mean and variance of the EW distribution of Lya selected galaxies at z=5.7, vii) the EW distribution of i-drop galaxies at z~6, and viii) the observed correlation of stellar age with EW. Our modeling suggests that the observed anomalously large intrinsic equivalent widths require a burst of very massive star formation lasting no more than a few to ten percent of the galaxies star forming lifetime. This very massive star formation may indicate the presence of population-III star formation in a few per cent of i-drop galaxies, and in about half of the Lya selected galaxies. |
http://arxiv.org/abs/0704.1631
Further Evidence that the Redshifts of AGN Galaxies May Contain Intrinsic Components
Authors: M. B. Bell
(Submitted on 12 Apr 2007 (v1), last revised 21 Aug 2007 (this version, v2))
Abstract: In the decreasing intrinsic redshift (DIR) model galaxies are assumed to be born as compact objects that have been ejected with large intrinsic redshift components, z_(i), out of the nuclei of mature AGN galaxies. As young AGN (quasars) they are initially several magnitudes sub-luminous to mature galaxies but their luminosity gradually increases over 10^8 yrs, as z_(i) decreases and they evolve into mature AGN (Seyferts and radio galaxies). Evidence presented here that low- and intermediate-redshift AGN are unquestionably sub-luminous to radio galaxies is then strong support for this model and makes it likely that the high-redshift AGN (quasars) are also sub-luminous, having simply been pushed above the radio galaxies on a logz-m_(v) plot by the presence of a large intrinsic component in their redshifts. An increase in luminosity below z = 0.06 is also seen. It is associated in the DIR model with an increase in luminosity as the sources mature but, if real, is difficult to interpret in the cosmological redshift (CR) model since at this low redshift it is unlikely to be associated with a higher star formation rate or an increase in the material used to build galaxies. Whether it might be possible in the CR model to explain these results by selection effects is also examined.
http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0702101
A Census of Intrinsic Narrow Absorption Lines in the Spectra of Quasars at z=2-4
Authors: T. Misawa, J. C. Charlton, M. Eracleous, R. Ganguly, D. Tytler, D. Kirkman, N. Suzuki, D. Lubin
(Submitted on 4 Feb 2007)
QUOTE
Abstract: We use Keck/HIRES spectra of 37 optically bright quasars at z=2-4 to study narrow absorption lines that are intrinsic to the quasars (intrinsic NALs, produced in gas that is physically associated with the quasar central engine). We identify 150 NAL systems, that contain 124 C IV, 12 N V, and 50 Si IV doublets, of which 18 are associated systems (within 5,000 km/s of the quasar redshift). We use partial coverage analysis to separate intrinsic NALs from NALs produced in cosmologically intervening structures. We find 39 candidate intrinsic systems, (28 reliable determinations and 11 that are possibly intrinsic). We estimate that 10-17% of C IV systems at blueshifts of 5,000-70,000 km/s relative to quasars are intrinsic. At least 32% of quasars contain one or more intrinsic C IV NALs. Considering N V and Si IV doublets showing partial coverage as well, at least 50% of quasars host intrinsic NALs. This result constrains the solid angle subtended by the absorbers to the background source(s). We identify two families of intrinsic NAL systems, those with strong N V absorption, and those with negligible absorption in N V, but with partial coverage in the C IV doublet. We discuss the idea that these two families represent different regions or conditions in accretion disk winds. Of the 26 intrinsic C IV NAL systems, 13 have detectable low-ionization absorption lines at similar velocities, suggesting that these are two-phase structures in the wind rather than absorbers in the host galaxy. We also compare possible models for quasar outflows, including radiatively accelerated disk-driven winds, magnetocentrifugally accelerated winds, and pressure-driven winds, and we discuss ways of distinguishing between these models observationally.
http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0701912
Predicted and observed evolution in the mean properties of Type Ia supernovae with redshift
Authors: D. Andrew Howell, Mark Sullivan, Alex Conley, Ray Carlberg (University of Toronto)
(Submitted on 31 Jan 2007 (v1), last revised 1 Aug 2007 (this version, v2))
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| Abstract: We use Keck/HIRES spectra of 37 optically bright quasars at z=2-4 to study narrow absorption lines that are intrinsic to the quasars (intrinsic NALs, produced in gas that is physically associated with the quasar central engine). We identify 150 NAL systems, that contain 124 C IV, 12 N V, and 50 Si IV doublets, of which 18 are associated systems (within 5,000 km/s of the quasar redshift). We use partial coverage analysis to separate intrinsic NALs from NALs produced in cosmologically intervening structures. We find 39 candidate intrinsic systems, (28 reliable determinations and 11 that are possibly intrinsic). We estimate that 10-17% of C IV systems at blueshifts of 5,000-70,000 km/s relative to quasars are intrinsic. At least 32% of quasars contain one or more intrinsic C IV NALs. Considering N V and Si IV doublets showing partial coverage as well, at least 50% of quasars host intrinsic NALs. This result constrains the solid angle subtended by the absorbers to the background source(s). We identify two families of intrinsic NAL systems, those with strong N V absorption, and those with negligible absorption in N V, but with partial coverage in the C IV doublet. We discuss the idea that these two families represent different regions or conditions in accretion disk winds. Of the 26 intrinsic C IV NAL systems, 13 have detectable low-ionization absorption lines at similar velocities, suggesting that these are two-phase structures in the wind rather than absorbers in the host galaxy. We also compare possible models for quasar outflows, including radiatively accelerated disk-driven winds, magnetocentrifugally accelerated winds, and pressure-driven winds, and we discuss ways of distinguishing between these models observationally. |
http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0701912
Predicted and observed evolution in the mean properties of Type Ia supernovae with redshift
Authors: D. Andrew Howell, Mark Sullivan, Alex Conley, Ray Carlberg (University of Toronto)
(Submitted on 31 Jan 2007 (v1), last revised 1 Aug 2007 (this version, v2))
Abstract: Recent studies indicate that Type Ia supernovae (SNe Ia) consist of two groups - a "prompt" component whose rates are proportional to the host galaxy star formation rate, whose members have broader lightcurves and are intrinsically more luminous, and a "delayed" component whose members take several Gyr to explode, have narrower lightcurves, and are intrinsically fainter. As cosmic star formation density increases with redshift, the prompt component should begin to dominate. We use a two-component model to predict that the average lightcurve width should increase by 6% from z=0-1.5. Using data from various searches we find an 8.1% +/- 2.7% increase in average lightcurve width for non-subluminous SNe Ia from z=0.03 - 1.12, corresponding to an increase in the average intrinsic luminosity of 12%. To test whether there is any bias after supernovae are corrected for lightcurve shape we use published data to mimic the effect of population evolution and find no significant difference in the measured dark energy equation of state parameter, w. However, future measurements of time-variable w will require standardization of SN Ia magnitudes to 2% up to z=1.7, and it is not yet possible to assess whether lightcurve shape correction works at this level of precision. Another concern at z=1.5 is the expected order of magnitude increase in the number of SNe Ia that cannot be calibrated by current methods.
A Proposed Mechanism for the Intrinsic Redshift and its Preferred Values Purportedly Found in Quasars Based on the Local-Ether Theory
Authors: Ching-Chuan Su
(Submitted on 16 Aug 2006)
QUOTE
Abstract: Quasars of high redshift may be ejected from a nearby active galaxy of low redshift. This physical association then leads to the suggestion that the redshifts of quasars are not really an indication of their distances. In this investigation, it is argued that the high redshift can be due to the gravitational redshift as an intrinsic redshift. Based on the proposed local-ether theory, this intrinsic redshift is determined solely by the gravitational potential associated specifically with the celestial object in which the emitting sources are placed. During the process with which quasars evolve into ordinary galaxies, the fragmentation of quasars and the formation of stars occur and hence the masses of quasars decrease. Thus their gravitational potentials and hence redshifts become smaller and smaller. This is in accord with the aging of redshift during the evolution process. In some observations, the redshifts of quasars have been found to follow the Karlsson formula to exhibit a series of preferred peaks in their distributions. Based on the quasar fragmentation and the local-ether theory, a new formula is presented to interpret the preferred peaks quantitatively.
The redshift distribution of SWIFT Gamma-Ray Bursts: evidence for evolution
Authors: F. Daigne (1), E.M. Rossi (2), R. Mochkovitch (1) ((1) Institut d'Astrophysique de Paris - UMR 7095 CNRS et Universite Pierre et Marie Curie, (2) JILA, University of Colorado, Boulder)
(Submitted on 27 Jul 2006)
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| Abstract: Quasars of high redshift may be ejected from a nearby active galaxy of low redshift. This physical association then leads to the suggestion that the redshifts of quasars are not really an indication of their distances. In this investigation, it is argued that the high redshift can be due to the gravitational redshift as an intrinsic redshift. Based on the proposed local-ether theory, this intrinsic redshift is determined solely by the gravitational potential associated specifically with the celestial object in which the emitting sources are placed. During the process with which quasars evolve into ordinary galaxies, the fragmentation of quasars and the formation of stars occur and hence the masses of quasars decrease. Thus their gravitational potentials and hence redshifts become smaller and smaller. This is in accord with the aging of redshift during the evolution process. In some observations, the redshifts of quasars have been found to follow the Karlsson formula to exhibit a series of preferred peaks in their distributions. Based on the quasar fragmentation and the local-ether theory, a new formula is presented to interpret the preferred peaks quantitatively. |
The redshift distribution of SWIFT Gamma-Ray Bursts: evidence for evolution
Authors: F. Daigne (1), E.M. Rossi (2), R. Mochkovitch (1) ((1) Institut d'Astrophysique de Paris - UMR 7095 CNRS et Universite Pierre et Marie Curie, (2) JILA, University of Colorado, Boulder)
(Submitted on 27 Jul 2006)
Abstract: We predict the redshift distribution of long Gamma-Ray Bursts (GRBs) with Monte Carlo simulations. Our improved analysis constrains free parameters with three kinds of observation: (i) the log(N)-log(P) diagram of BATSE bursts; (ii) the peak energy distribution of bright BATSE bursts; (iii) the HETE2 fraction of X-ray rich GRBs and X-ray flashes. The statistical analysis of the Monte Carlo simulation results allow us to carefully study the impact of the uncertainties in the GRB intrinsic properties on the redshift distribution. The comparison with SWIFT data then leads to the following conclusions. The Amati relation should be intrinsic, if observationally confirmed by SWIFT. The progenitor and/or the GRB properties have to evolve to reproduce the high mean redshift of SWIFT bursts. Our results favor an evolution of the efficiency of GRB production by massive stars, that would be ~6-7 times higher at z~7 than at z~2. We finally predict around 10 GRBs detected by SWIFT at redshift z>6 for a three year mission. These may be sufficient to open a new observational window over the high redshift Universe.
http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0607050
On the Signatures of Gravitational Redshift: The Onset of Relativistic Emission Lines
Authors: Andreas Mueller, Margrethe Wold
(Submitted on 4 Jul 2006)
QUOTE
Abstract: Aims. We quantify the effect of gravitational redshift on emission lines to explore the transition region from the Newtonian to the Einsteinian regime. With the emitting region closer to the Kerr black hole, lines are successively subjected to a stronger gravitationally induced shift and distortion. Simulated lines are compared to broad, optical emission lines observed in Mrk 110. Methods. We simulate relativistic emission line profiles by using Kerr ray tracing techniques. Emitting regions are assumed to be thin equatorial rings in stationary Keplerian rotation. The emission lines are characterised by a generalized Doppler factor or redshift associated with the line core. Results. With decreasing distance from the black hole, the gravitational redshift starts to smoothly deviate from the Newtonian Doppler factor: Shifts of the line cores reveal an effect at levels of 0.0015 to 60% at gravitational radii ranging from 10^{5} to 2. This corresponds to fully relativistic Doppler factors of 0.999985 to 0.4048. The intrinsic line shape distortion by strong gravity i.e. very asymmetric lines occur at radii smaller than roughly ten gravitational radii. Conclusions. Due to the asymptotical flatness of black hole space-time, GR effects are ubiquitous and their onset can be tested observationally with sufficient spectral resolution. With a resolving power of ~100000, yielding a resolution of ~0.1 Angstroems for optical and near-infrared broad emission lines like H\beta, HeII and Pa\alpha, the gravitational redshift can be probed out to approximately 75000 gravitational radii. [abridged]
http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0509611
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))
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| Abstract: Aims. We quantify the effect of gravitational redshift on emission lines to explore the transition region from the Newtonian to the Einsteinian regime. With the emitting region closer to the Kerr black hole, lines are successively subjected to a stronger gravitationally induced shift and distortion. Simulated lines are compared to broad, optical emission lines observed in Mrk 110. Methods. We simulate relativistic emission line profiles by using Kerr ray tracing techniques. Emitting regions are assumed to be thin equatorial rings in stationary Keplerian rotation. The emission lines are characterised by a generalized Doppler factor or redshift associated with the line core. Results. With decreasing distance from the black hole, the gravitational redshift starts to smoothly deviate from the Newtonian Doppler factor: Shifts of the line cores reveal an effect at levels of 0.0015 to 60% at gravitational radii ranging from 10^{5} to 2. This corresponds to fully relativistic Doppler factors of 0.999985 to 0.4048. The intrinsic line shape distortion by strong gravity i.e. very asymmetric lines occur at radii smaller than roughly ten gravitational radii. Conclusions. Due to the asymptotical flatness of black hole space-time, GR effects are ubiquitous and their onset can be tested observationally with sufficient spectral resolution. With a resolving power of ~100000, yielding a resolution of ~0.1 Angstroems for optical and near-infrared broad emission lines like H\beta, HeII and Pa\alpha, the gravitational redshift can be probed out to approximately 75000 gravitational radii. [abridged] |
http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0509611
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.
QUOTE
Zarkov Posted on Yesterday at 10:12 AM I imply that I know some things that could revolutionise space travel.... and I intend to use them.... earthlings go suck eggs.... so I will not divulge specifics.... if you get on the right course, fine by me...you maybe are worth it then
but my experience with earthlings shows that extinction is the preferred outcome.
but my experience with earthlings shows that extinction is the preferred outcome.
yes i understand that these things are in your reality, but as explained befor, personal reality does not equal existance.
PS i prefer poached eggs, on buttered wholemeal bread, pepper, no salt
QUOTE
Harry Costas Posted: Yesterday at 9:58 AM
Hello KjW
You will need to do a bit of reading on Redshift and non expanding universe.
Its easy to go with mainstream, even a dead log can float down mainstream.
Hello KjW
You will need to do a bit of reading on Redshift and non expanding universe.
Its easy to go with mainstream, even a dead log can float down mainstream.
do you get paid by the amount of links you provide ? at least this time they seem relevant to your point.
as stated befor
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| Harry Costas Posted: Yesterday at 9:58 AM Hello KjW You will need to do a bit of reading on Redshift and non expanding universe. Its easy to go with mainstream, even a dead log can float down mainstream. |
do you get paid by the amount of links you provide ? at least this time they seem relevant to your point.
as stated befor
kjw Posted on Yesterday at 7:53 AM
QUOTE
Harry Costas Posted on Today at 7:41 AM Google for non expanding universe.
i did and i do not understand it. could you please explain it. point form please
Hello Kjw
What point do you want?
That the Universe is expanding or non - expanding.
And do you know what expansion means?
What point do you want?
That the Universe is expanding or non - expanding.
And do you know what expansion means?
QUOTE
Harry Costas Posted on Today at 6:24 PM What point do you want? That the Universe is expanding or non - expanding.
i would like you to explain the idea of a non-expanding universe, by the use of your own words.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| Harry Costas Posted on Today at 6:24 PM What point do you want? That the Universe is expanding or non - expanding. |
i would like you to explain the idea of a non-expanding universe, by the use of your own words.
And do you know what expansion means?
as in this expansion, yes.
Hello Kjw
Many think they know what expansion is.
Please explain:
What do you think it is?
and what scientific evidence supports it.
Many think they know what expansion is.
Please explain:
What do you think it is?
and what scientific evidence supports it.
QUOTE
Harry Costas Posted: Yesterday at 9:43 AM
Many think they know what expansion is.
Please explain:
What do you think it is?
Many think they know what expansion is.
Please explain:
What do you think it is?
there will be an increase in the distance between galaxies, that are not influenced by mutual gravitation, over time.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| Harry Costas Posted: Yesterday at 9:43 AM Many think they know what expansion is. Please explain: What do you think it is? |
there will be an increase in the distance between galaxies, that are not influenced by mutual gravitation, over time.
and what scientific evidence supports it.
atomic absorption/emission identification of elements in earth bound laboratories
doppler redshift verified in earth bound laboratories
doppler redshift tweaked by special relativity, specifically time dilation. experimentally verified
general relativity meets the cosmological principle and predicts an expanding universe
doppler redshift observations interpreted as dynamic space
hubble's law
i apologize if i have butchered history
Hello Harry Costas
Many think they know what non expansion is
Please explain:
What do you think it is?
and what scientific evidence supports it.
Hello Kjw
Maybe if you could read this link
http://www.cosmology.info/newsletter/2007_year_end.htm
You will find many papers that are based on science.
You said
There are some galaxies moving away from each other due to gravity sinks. Thats in the normal process of motion due to gravity vectors. This does not mean an expansion of the universe.
The general process is for galaxies to form clusters, stars to form clusters, compact matter cores (so called black hole) merge and become larger. All these we can observe.
What scientific evidence supports expansion of the universe.
You said
There are some galaxies moving away from each other due to gravity sinks. Thats in the normal process of motion due to gravity vectors. This does not mean an expansion of the universe.
The general process is for galaxies to form clusters, stars to form clusters, compact matter cores (so called black hole) merge and become larger. All these we can observe.
What scientific evidence supports expansion of the universe.
You said
atomic absorption/emission identification of elements in earth bound laboratories
doppler redshift verified in earth bound laboratories
doppler redshift tweaked by special relativity, specifically time dilation. experimentally verified
general relativity meets the cosmological principle and predicts an expanding universe
doppler redshift observations interpreted as dynamic space
hubble's law
Now show me the scientific links that can support expansion.
=============================================
Alternative Cosmology Group Newsletter - 2007 Year End Review
http://www.cosmology.info/newsletter/2007_year_end.htm
You need to read up on it.
The Universe is what exists. If it were to 'collapse', it would mean leaving 'nothing' it is place, which is nonsensical. It is not 'expanding' for the same reason...We are misconceptualising the inherent motion of Space, which is everywhere; is what exists.
The Universe is what exists. If it were to 'collapse', it would mean leaving 'nothing' it is place, which is nonsensical. It is not 'expanding' for the same reason...We are misconceptualising the inherent motion of Space, which is everywhere; is what exists.
or are you preferring to take the stance the universe is static ?
People must define what they mean by the terms they use, and not just repeat that which has been used in error from the past. 'Static' is a description of a necessary state of being, so what do we mean by 'static'?
Dictionary.com Unabridged (v 1.1) - Cite This Source - Share This
stat·ic Audio Help /ˈstćtɪk/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[stat-ik] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation
–adjective Also, stat·i·cal.
1. pertaining to or characterized by a fixed or stationary condition.
2. showing little or no change: a static concept; a static relationship.
3. lacking movement, development, or vitality: The novel was marred by static characterizations, especially in its central figures.
4. Sociology. referring to a condition of social life bound by tradition.
5. Electricity. pertaining to or noting static electricity.
6. noting or pertaining to atmospheric electricity interfering with radar, radio, the sending and receiving of wireless messages, etc.
7. Physics. acting by mere weight without producing motion: static pressure.
8. Economics. pertaining to fixed relations, or different combinations of fixed quantities: static population.
–noun
9. Electricity.
a. static or atmospheric electricity.
b. interference due to such electricity.
10. Informal. difficulty; trouble: Will your dad give you any static on using the car?
[Origin: 1560–70; < NL staticus < Gk statikós, equiv. to sta- (s. of histánai to make stand) + -tikos -tic]
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/Static
Obviously 'static' universe is an erroneous description, seeing as all things have motion.
g.
collapsing ie in the process of collapse, not collapsed. if the universe were collapsing we would see a higher average density of the universe and more
galaxies displaying blueshifted than redshift.
if as you say, space is not stretching, then do you interpret the observational evidence that redshifted galaxies are moving away from the milky way on a background of space ?
collapsing ie in the process of collapse, not collapsed. if the universe were collapsing we would see a higher average density of the universe and more
galaxies displaying blueshifted than redshift.
if as you say, space is not stretching, then do you interpret the observational evidence that redshifted galaxies are moving away from the milky way on a background of space ?
People must define what they mean by the terms they use, and not just repeat that which has been used in error from the past. 'Static' is a description of a necessary
state of being, so what do we mean by 'static'?
Dictionary.com Unabridged (v 1.1) - Cite This Source - Share This
stat·ic Audio Help /ˈstćtɪk/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[stat-ik] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation
–adjective Also, stat·i·cal.
1. pertaining to or characterized by a fixed or stationary condition.
2. showing little or no change: a static concept; a static relationship.
3. lacking movement, development, or vitality: The novel was marred by static characterizations, especially in its central figures.
4. Sociology. referring to a condition of social life bound by tradition.
5. Electricity. pertaining to or noting static electricity.
6. noting or pertaining to atmospheric electricity interfering with radar, radio, the sending and receiving of wireless messages, etc.
7. Physics. acting by mere weight without producing motion: static pressure.
8. Economics. pertaining to fixed relations, or different combinations of fixed quantities: static population.
–noun
9. Electricity.
a. static or atmospheric electricity.
b. interference due to such electricity.
10. Informal. difficulty; trouble: Will your dad give you any static on using the car?
[Origin: 1560–70; < NL staticus < Gk statikós, equiv. to sta- (s. of histánai to make stand) + -tikos -tic]
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/Static
Obviously 'static' universe is an erroneous description, seeing as all things have motion.
so you would consider that Harry must mean the universe is collapsing ie not expanding and not static
Maybe if you could read this link
http://www.cosmology.info/newsletter/2007_year_end.htm
You will find many papers that are based on science.
You said
QUOTE
there will be an increase in the distance between galaxies, that are not influenced by mutual gravitation, over time.
There are some galaxies moving away from each other due to gravity sinks. Thats in the normal process of motion due to gravity vectors. This does not mean an expansion of the universe.
The general process is for galaxies to form clusters, stars to form clusters, compact matter cores (so called black hole) merge and become larger. All these we can observe.
What scientific evidence supports expansion of the universe.
You said
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| there will be an increase in the distance between galaxies, that are not influenced by mutual gravitation, over time. |
There are some galaxies moving away from each other due to gravity sinks. Thats in the normal process of motion due to gravity vectors. This does not mean an expansion of the universe.
The general process is for galaxies to form clusters, stars to form clusters, compact matter cores (so called black hole) merge and become larger. All these we can observe.
What scientific evidence supports expansion of the universe.
You said
atomic absorption/emission identification of elements in earth bound laboratories
doppler redshift verified in earth bound laboratories
doppler redshift tweaked by special relativity, specifically time dilation. experimentally verified
general relativity meets the cosmological principle and predicts an expanding universe
doppler redshift observations interpreted as dynamic space
hubble's law
Now show me the scientific links that can support expansion.
=============================================
Alternative Cosmology Group Newsletter - 2007 Year End Review
http://www.cosmology.info/newsletter/2007_year_end.htm
QUOTE
4. Evidence and theories about intrinsic redshifts in quasars
As in previous years, evidence continues to accumulate that quasar (QSO) redshifts are at least in part intrinsic, and that many QSOs are no where near as distant as the redshifts imply. Ryabinkov showed that there are periodicities in the absorption line spectra in QSOs, a pattern that would not be expected if the absorption lines were from intervening galaxies. Bell and McDiarmid showed that the angular motions in quasar jets are more easily understood if the QSOs are not at extreme distance.
There may be a plasma-based explanation of what could generate the redshifts within the atmosphere of the quasar. Sisir Roy et al have devoted such a theory and have compared it to quasar observations.
The redshift distribution of absorption-line systems in QSO spectra
Authors: A.I. Ryabinkov, A.D. Kaminker, D.A. Varshalovich
http://www.arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0703277v1
An Abrupt Upper Envelope Cut-off in the Distribution of Angular Motions in Quasar Jets is Compatible in all Respects with a Simple Non-Relativistic Ejection Model
Authors: M.B. Bell, D.R McDiarmid
http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0701093
Dynamic Multiple Scattering, Frequency Shift and Possible Effects on Quasar Astronomy
Authors: Sisir Roy, Malabika Roy, Joydip Ghosh, Menas Kafatos.
http://lanl.arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0701071
As in previous years, evidence continues to accumulate that quasar (QSO) redshifts are at least in part intrinsic, and that many QSOs are no where near as distant as the redshifts imply. Ryabinkov showed that there are periodicities in the absorption line spectra in QSOs, a pattern that would not be expected if the absorption lines were from intervening galaxies. Bell and McDiarmid showed that the angular motions in quasar jets are more easily understood if the QSOs are not at extreme distance.
There may be a plasma-based explanation of what could generate the redshifts within the atmosphere of the quasar. Sisir Roy et al have devoted such a theory and have compared it to quasar observations.
The redshift distribution of absorption-line systems in QSO spectra
Authors: A.I. Ryabinkov, A.D. Kaminker, D.A. Varshalovich
http://www.arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0703277v1
An Abrupt Upper Envelope Cut-off in the Distribution of Angular Motions in Quasar Jets is Compatible in all Respects with a Simple Non-Relativistic Ejection Model
Authors: M.B. Bell, D.R McDiarmid
http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0701093
Dynamic Multiple Scattering, Frequency Shift and Possible Effects on Quasar Astronomy
Authors: Sisir Roy, Malabika Roy, Joydip Ghosh, Menas Kafatos.
http://lanl.arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0701071
You need to read up on it.
Harry Costas, if the universe is not expanding, why is it not collapsing ? or are you preferring to take the stance the universe is static ?
support for expansion are these combined. which one of these do you think is based on poor science ?
atomic absorption/emission identification of elements in in wide spread use, doppler effect is used everyday eg doppler radar,
SR,
GR,
hubble's law ?
which one these are you questioning ?
QUOTE
atomic absorption/emission identification of elements in earth bound laboratories
doppler redshift verified in earth bound laboratories
doppler redshift tweaked by special relativity, specifically time dilation. experimentally verified
general relativity meets the cosmological principle and predicts an expanding universe
doppler redshift observations interpreted as dynamic space
hubble's law
Now show me the scientific links that can support expansion.
doppler redshift verified in earth bound laboratories
doppler redshift tweaked by special relativity, specifically time dilation. experimentally verified
general relativity meets the cosmological principle and predicts an expanding universe
doppler redshift observations interpreted as dynamic space
hubble's law
Now show me the scientific links that can support expansion.
support for expansion are these combined. which one of these do you think is based on poor science ?
atomic absorption/emission identification of elements in in wide spread use, doppler effect is used everyday eg doppler radar,
SR,
GR,
hubble's law ?
which one these are you questioning ?
QUOTE
if the universe is not expanding, why is it not collapsing ?
The Universe is what exists. If it were to 'collapse', it would mean leaving 'nothing' it is place, which is nonsensical. It is not 'expanding' for the same reason...We are misconceptualising the inherent motion of Space, which is everywhere; is what exists.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| if the universe is not expanding, why is it not collapsing ? |
The Universe is what exists. If it were to 'collapse', it would mean leaving 'nothing' it is place, which is nonsensical. It is not 'expanding' for the same reason...We are misconceptualising the inherent motion of Space, which is everywhere; is what exists.
or are you preferring to take the stance the universe is static ?
People must define what they mean by the terms they use, and not just repeat that which has been used in error from the past. 'Static' is a description of a necessary state of being, so what do we mean by 'static'?
Dictionary.com Unabridged (v 1.1) - Cite This Source - Share This
stat·ic Audio Help /ˈstćtɪk/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[stat-ik] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation
–adjective Also, stat·i·cal.
1. pertaining to or characterized by a fixed or stationary condition.
2. showing little or no change: a static concept; a static relationship.
3. lacking movement, development, or vitality: The novel was marred by static characterizations, especially in its central figures.
4. Sociology. referring to a condition of social life bound by tradition.
5. Electricity. pertaining to or noting static electricity.
6. noting or pertaining to atmospheric electricity interfering with radar, radio, the sending and receiving of wireless messages, etc.
7. Physics. acting by mere weight without producing motion: static pressure.
8. Economics. pertaining to fixed relations, or different combinations of fixed quantities: static population.
–noun
9. Electricity.
a. static or atmospheric electricity.
b. interference due to such electricity.
10. Informal. difficulty; trouble: Will your dad give you any static on using the car?
[Origin: 1560–70; < NL staticus < Gk statikós, equiv. to sta- (s. of histánai to make stand) + -tikos -tic]
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/Static
Obviously 'static' universe is an erroneous description, seeing as all things have motion.
g.
QUOTE
Gorgeous Posted on Today at 8:17 AM The Universe is what exists. If it were to 'collapse', it would mean leaving 'nothing' it is place, which is nonsensical. It is not 'expanding' for the same reason...We are misconceptualising the inherent motion of Space, which is everywhere; is what exists.
collapsing ie in the process of collapse, not collapsed. if the universe were collapsing we would see a higher average density of the universe and more
galaxies displaying blueshifted than redshift.
if as you say, space is not stretching, then do you interpret the observational evidence that redshifted galaxies are moving away from the milky way on a background of space ?
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| Gorgeous Posted on Today at 8:17 AM The Universe is what exists. If it were to 'collapse', it would mean leaving 'nothing' it is place, which is nonsensical. It is not 'expanding' for the same reason...We are misconceptualising the inherent motion of Space, which is everywhere; is what exists. |
collapsing ie in the process of collapse, not collapsed. if the universe were collapsing we would see a higher average density of the universe and more
galaxies displaying blueshifted than redshift.
if as you say, space is not stretching, then do you interpret the observational evidence that redshifted galaxies are moving away from the milky way on a background of space ?
People must define what they mean by the terms they use, and not just repeat that which has been used in error from the past. 'Static' is a description of a necessary
state of being, so what do we mean by 'static'?
Dictionary.com Unabridged (v 1.1) - Cite This Source - Share This
stat·ic Audio Help /ˈstćtɪk/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[stat-ik] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation
–adjective Also, stat·i·cal.
1. pertaining to or characterized by a fixed or stationary condition.
2. showing little or no change: a static concept; a static relationship.
3. lacking movement, development, or vitality: The novel was marred by static characterizations, especially in its central figures.
4. Sociology. referring to a condition of social life bound by tradition.
5. Electricity. pertaining to or noting static electricity.
6. noting or pertaining to atmospheric electricity interfering with radar, radio, the sending and receiving of wireless messages, etc.
7. Physics. acting by mere weight without producing motion: static pressure.
8. Economics. pertaining to fixed relations, or different combinations of fixed quantities: static population.
–noun
9. Electricity.
a. static or atmospheric electricity.
b. interference due to such electricity.
10. Informal. difficulty; trouble: Will your dad give you any static on using the car?
[Origin: 1560–70; < NL staticus < Gk statikós, equiv. to sta- (s. of histánai to make stand) + -tikos -tic]
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/Static
Obviously 'static' universe is an erroneous description, seeing as all things have motion.
so you would consider that Harry must mean the universe is collapsing ie not expanding and not static
G'day from the land of ozzzzzzzz
For now the mainstream think along the lines of the Big Bang. This does not mean its a fact.
There are good alternatives to the BBT.
The parts within the universe have a recyclic process.
We see this in star formation, compacted cores as in Neutron stars and exotic stars and black holes.
This recyclic process can be observed and studied.
This means that the parts within the universe go through an endless process.
Beyond Inflation: A Cyclic Universe Scenario
http://www.iop.org/EJ/abstract/1402-4896/2005/T117/011/
I do no fully agree with this but! its getting there.
Cyclic Universe
http://www.physics.unc.edu/~frampton/cyclic.html
Cyclic universe arXiv links
http://lanl.arxiv.org/find/all/1/all:+AND+...n/0/1/0/all/0/1
Also read this link
Alternative Cosmology Group Newsletter - 2007 Year End Review
http://www.cosmology.info/newsletter/2007_year_end.htm
Cyclic Universe
http://www.physics.unc.edu/~frampton/cyclic.html
Cyclic universe arXiv links
http://lanl.arxiv.org/find/all/1/all:+AND+...n/0/1/0/all/0/1
Also read this link
Alternative Cosmology Group Newsletter - 2007 Year End Review
http://www.cosmology.info/newsletter/2007_year_end.htm
4. Evidence and theories about intrinsic redshifts in quasars
As in previous years, evidence continues to accumulate that quasar (QSO) redshifts are at least in part intrinsic, and that many QSOs are no where near as distant as the redshifts imply. Ryabinkov showed that there are periodicities in the absorption line spectra in QSOs, a pattern that would not be expected if the absorption lines were from intervening galaxies. Bell and McDiarmid showed that the angular motions in quasar jets are more easily understood if the QSOs are not at extreme distance.
There may be a plasma-based explanation of what could generate the redshifts within the atmosphere of the quasar. Sisir Roy et al have devoted such a theory and have compared it to quasar observations.
The redshift distribution of absorption-line systems in QSO spectra
Authors: A.I. Ryabinkov, A.D. Kaminker, D.A. Varshalovich
http://www.arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0703277v1
An Abrupt Upper Envelope Cut-off in the Distribution of Angular Motions in Quasar Jets is Compatible in all Respects with a Simple Non-Relativistic Ejection Model
Authors: M.B. Bell, D.R McDiarmid
http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0701093
Dynamic Multiple Scattering, Frequency Shift and Possible Effects on Quasar Astronomy
Authors: Sisir Roy, Malabika Roy, Joydip Ghosh, Menas Kafatos.
http://lanl.arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0701071
if as you say, space is not stretching, then do you interpret the observational evidence that redshifted galaxies are moving away from the milky way on a background of space ?
No, this is why I have posted links to a more plausible alternative...
http://www.spaceandmotion.com/cosmology-hu...th-distance.htm
...I do not ask people to 'believe' it. It just offers something that makes more sense, that is all. If more sense is what people are looking for, then here is a place to start.
It is not a question of 'either this OR that'. It is a question of finding a description that most closely resembles the Reality we have to exist within. If that means letting go of old fables, then so be it. So 'what Harry considers' is not a consideration! ~ There are no 'sides' to be taken. The challenge lies firmly between us and our personal understanding of Truth. 'Science' is just one of the tools that we use to this end.
Challenging our past misconceptions over mere words (like 'static') is where we will gain something of value. Being that we are still questioning, is it not likely that our descriptions from the past have been in some kind of error?
Reality is what exists. Therefore it is everywhere, all of the time. So it is Humans and their strange descriptions that put up the barriers to this knowledge, this Self-knowing. Remove these barriers, and all that can be left is what exists, in Reality.
To be it is to know it.
g.
For now the mainstream think along the lines of the Big Bang. This does not mean its a fact.
There are good alternatives to the BBT.
The parts within the universe have a recyclic process.
We see this in star formation, compacted cores as in Neutron stars and exotic stars and black holes.
This recyclic process can be observed and studied.
This means that the parts within the universe go through an endless process.
Beyond Inflation: A Cyclic Universe Scenario
http://www.iop.org/EJ/abstract/1402-4896/2005/T117/011/
I do no fully agree with this but! its getting there.
QUOTE
Abstract. Inflation has been the leading early universe scenario for two decades, and has become an accepted element of the successful `cosmic concordance' model. However, there are many puzzling features of the resulting theory. It requires both high energy and low energy inflation, with energy densities differing by a hundred orders of magnitude. The questions of why the universe started out undergoing high energy inflation, and why it will end up in low energy inflation, are unanswered. Rather than resort to anthropic arguments, we have developed an alternative cosmology, the cyclic universe, in which the universe exists in a very long-lived attractor state determined by the laws of physics. The model shares inflation's phenomenological successes without requiring an epoch of high energy inflation. Instead, the universe is made homogeneous and flat, and scale-invariant adiabatic perturbations are generated during an epoch of low energy acceleration like that seen today, but preceding the last big bang. Unlike inflation, the model requires low energy acceleration in order for a periodic attractor state to exist. The key challenge facing the scenario is that of passing through the cosmic singularity at t = 0. Substantial progress has been made at the level of linearised gravity, which is reviewed here. The challenge of extending this to nonlinear gravity and string theory remains.
Cyclic Universe
http://www.physics.unc.edu/~frampton/cyclic.html
Cyclic universe arXiv links
http://lanl.arxiv.org/find/all/1/all:+AND+...n/0/1/0/all/0/1
Also read this link
Alternative Cosmology Group Newsletter - 2007 Year End Review
http://www.cosmology.info/newsletter/2007_year_end.htm
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| Abstract. Inflation has been the leading early universe scenario for two decades, and has become an accepted element of the successful `cosmic concordance' model. However, there are many puzzling features of the resulting theory. It requires both high energy and low energy inflation, with energy densities differing by a hundred orders of magnitude. The questions of why the universe started out undergoing high energy inflation, and why it will end up in low energy inflation, are unanswered. Rather than resort to anthropic arguments, we have developed an alternative cosmology, the cyclic universe, in which the universe exists in a very long-lived attractor state determined by the laws of physics. The model shares inflation's phenomenological successes without requiring an epoch of high energy inflation. Instead, the universe is made homogeneous and flat, and scale-invariant adiabatic perturbations are generated during an epoch of low energy acceleration like that seen today, but preceding the last big bang. Unlike inflation, the model requires low energy acceleration in order for a periodic attractor state to exist. The key challenge facing the scenario is that of passing through the cosmic singularity at t = 0. Substantial progress has been made at the level of linearised gravity, which is reviewed here. The challenge of extending this to nonlinear gravity and string theory remains. |
Cyclic Universe
http://www.physics.unc.edu/~frampton/cyclic.html
Cyclic universe arXiv links
http://lanl.arxiv.org/find/all/1/all:+AND+...n/0/1/0/all/0/1
Also read this link
Alternative Cosmology Group Newsletter - 2007 Year End Review
http://www.cosmology.info/newsletter/2007_year_end.htm
4. Evidence and theories about intrinsic redshifts in quasars
As in previous years, evidence continues to accumulate that quasar (QSO) redshifts are at least in part intrinsic, and that many QSOs are no where near as distant as the redshifts imply. Ryabinkov showed that there are periodicities in the absorption line spectra in QSOs, a pattern that would not be expected if the absorption lines were from intervening galaxies. Bell and McDiarmid showed that the angular motions in quasar jets are more easily understood if the QSOs are not at extreme distance.
There may be a plasma-based explanation of what could generate the redshifts within the atmosphere of the quasar. Sisir Roy et al have devoted such a theory and have compared it to quasar observations.
The redshift distribution of absorption-line systems in QSO spectra
Authors: A.I. Ryabinkov, A.D. Kaminker, D.A. Varshalovich
http://www.arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0703277v1
An Abrupt Upper Envelope Cut-off in the Distribution of Angular Motions in Quasar Jets is Compatible in all Respects with a Simple Non-Relativistic Ejection Model
Authors: M.B. Bell, D.R McDiarmid
http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0701093
Dynamic Multiple Scattering, Frequency Shift and Possible Effects on Quasar Astronomy
Authors: Sisir Roy, Malabika Roy, Joydip Ghosh, Menas Kafatos.
http://lanl.arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0701071
QUOTE (kjw+Jun 19 2008, 01:55 PM)
if as you say, space is not stretching, then do you interpret the observational evidence that redshifted galaxies are moving away from the milky way on a background of space ?
No, this is why I have posted links to a more plausible alternative...
http://www.spaceandmotion.com/cosmology-hu...th-distance.htm
...I do not ask people to 'believe' it. It just offers something that makes more sense, that is all. If more sense is what people are looking for, then here is a place to start.
QUOTE
so you would consider that Harry must mean the universe is collapsing ie not expanding and not static
It is not a question of 'either this OR that'. It is a question of finding a description that most closely resembles the Reality we have to exist within. If that means letting go of old fables, then so be it. So 'what Harry considers' is not a consideration! ~ There are no 'sides' to be taken. The challenge lies firmly between us and our personal understanding of Truth. 'Science' is just one of the tools that we use to this end.
Challenging our past misconceptions over mere words (like 'static') is where we will gain something of value. Being that we are still questioning, is it not likely that our descriptions from the past have been in some kind of error?
Reality is what exists. Therefore it is everywhere, all of the time. So it is Humans and their strange descriptions that put up the barriers to this knowledge, this Self-knowing. Remove these barriers, and all that can be left is what exists, in Reality.
To be it is to know it.
g.
QUOTE
Harry Costas Posted: Yesterday at 4:15 PM For now the mainstream think along the lines of the Big Bang. This does not mean its a fact. There are good alternatives to the BBT.
there are indeed good alternatives, and we should keep pursuing them. however as your opening post askedQUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| Harry Costas Posted: Yesterday at 4:15 PM For now the mainstream think along the lines of the Big Bang. This does not mean its a fact. There are good alternatives to the BBT. |
there are indeed good alternatives, and we should keep pursuing them. however as your opening post asked
Harry Costas Posted: Jun 13 2008, 09:25 PM What do we know about Redshifts? Sometimes we read up on many topics and because it is written, so it must be true. 90% of what we read is somewhat false.
Harry Costas Posted: Jun 13 2008, 09:25 PM What do we know about Redshifts? Sometimes we read up on many topics and because it is written, so it must be true. 90% of what we read is somewhat false.
what is known about redshifts and the interpretations of the observed redshift has been given. i was looking forward to you explaining where the errors are.
how can the present interpretation of redshift support a non-expanding or cyclic universe? how can it be used to show the universe is anything but expanding? you need something else.
look, fresh in
AlphaNumeric Posted: Jun 10 2008, 01:46 AM Noone knows for sure. Our physics breaks down when it comes to such things.
Some hope that there's a unique string vacuum in string theory, that out of the many possibilities it will turn out that only the laws of nature as we know them are stable, everything else is impossible/inconsistent. Then it would mean that only our laws of the universe, ie light speed = 300,000 km/s, G = 6 x 10^{-11} etc are going to exist in other universes, if they exist.
Proving or disproving that kind of claim in string theory is mind bendingly difficult though. I'm working on a simplified version of one kind of approximation to another kind of approximation to one kind of space-time topology in one kind of string theory.* So I'm 5 or 6 levels of approximation down from going at the problem head on.
* The isotropic form of the IIB Z_2 x Z_2 orientifold, which is an approximation of a Calabi Yau which is a specific space with SU(3) structure. Epp!
how can the present interpretation of redshift support a non-expanding or cyclic universe? how can it be used to show the universe is anything but expanding? you need something else.
look, fresh in
QUOTE
kjw Posted: Jun 9 2008, 05:02 PM if universe A, underwent a big bounce or were to parent a baby universe, would the resulting universe B have identical features as A ie features such that the physical constants are the same between A and B.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| kjw Posted: Jun 9 2008, 05:02 PM if universe A, underwent a big bounce or were to parent a baby universe, would the resulting universe B have identical features as A ie features such that the physical constants are the same between A and B. |
AlphaNumeric Posted: Jun 10 2008, 01:46 AM Noone knows for sure. Our physics breaks down when it comes to such things.
Some hope that there's a unique string vacuum in string theory, that out of the many possibilities it will turn out that only the laws of nature as we know them are stable, everything else is impossible/inconsistent. Then it would mean that only our laws of the universe, ie light speed = 300,000 km/s, G = 6 x 10^{-11} etc are going to exist in other universes, if they exist.
Proving or disproving that kind of claim in string theory is mind bendingly difficult though. I'm working on a simplified version of one kind of approximation to another kind of approximation to one kind of space-time topology in one kind of string theory.* So I'm 5 or 6 levels of approximation down from going at the problem head on.
* The isotropic form of the IIB Z_2 x Z_2 orientifold, which is an approximation of a Calabi Yau which is a specific space with SU(3) structure. Epp!
cyclic universe may be correct, but until it is shown to be correct (or at least have a viable theory) the best we have is that theory that fits the facts.
LOL, it is a little more anthropogenic than that... y'all have no idea what the actual (absolute) reality is... LOL
Earthlings have a mental processor that determines not only what is logical but also what is feasible....
The Big Bang and the Expanding Universe THEORIES are negative on both these counts, both illogical and not feasible ( oh the Big Bang happened just for earthlings,,,,, and the universe has just been born,,, how lovely.... Happy Birthday is in order)
The problem of this whole load, is gravity... y'all have no idea what gravity is... so you cling to "pull"... even thought you know quite well that action at a distance can not occur !!!!!
Then you make up a theory that is ludicrous in the extreme... just because you know no better..... all you data is twisted and contorted... and, like NASA spouting "Mars Water", LOL.... you can not see the egg all over your faces......
Thus it is a pointless pursuit to present a new approach... wallow in your fool's paradise.
Earthlings you are the most stupid group of life forms in the Universe.... and that is really saying something
QUOTE
The parts within the universe have a recyclic process.
We see this in star formation, compacted cores as in Neutron stars and exotic stars and black holes.
that may be so, but these are properties of parts and not necessarily the whole. how has it been shown that the re-cyclic nature of stars is that of the universe?We see this in star formation, compacted cores as in Neutron stars and exotic stars and black holes.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| The parts within the universe have a recyclic process. We see this in star formation, compacted cores as in Neutron stars and exotic stars and black holes. |
that may be so, but these are properties of parts and not necessarily the whole. how has it been shown that the re-cyclic nature of stars is that of the universe?
This recyclic process can be observed and studied.
This recyclic process can be observed and studied.
the recyclic process of the universe or of stars? with out that clarification, that comment is vague. since however, we are discussing cyclic universe, if that comment means the re-cyclic process of the universe can be observed, please tell me how it can be observed.
QUOTE
It is a question of finding a description that most closely resembles the Reality we have to exist within.
LOL, it is a little more anthropogenic than that... y'all have no idea what the actual (absolute) reality is... LOL
Earthlings have a mental processor that determines not only what is logical but also what is feasible....
The Big Bang and the Expanding Universe THEORIES are negative on both these counts, both illogical and not feasible ( oh the Big Bang happened just for earthlings,,,,, and the universe has just been born,,, how lovely.... Happy Birthday is in order)
The problem of this whole load, is gravity... y'all have no idea what gravity is... so you cling to "pull"... even thought you know quite well that action at a distance can not occur !!!!!
Then you make up a theory that is ludicrous in the extreme... just because you know no better..... all you data is twisted and contorted... and, like NASA spouting "Mars Water", LOL.... you can not see the egg all over your faces......
Thus it is a pointless pursuit to present a new approach... wallow in your fool's paradise.
Earthlings you are the most stupid group of life forms in the Universe.... and that is really saying something
QUOTE
Zarkov Posted: Today at 8:33 AM The problem of this whole load, is gravity... y'all have no idea what gravity is...
there are many bright people who know how gravity works and use this to do many great things. launched any mars explorers lately ?QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| Zarkov Posted: Today at 8:33 AM The problem of this whole load, is gravity... y'all have no idea what gravity is... |
there are many bright people who know how gravity works and use this to do many great things. launched any mars explorers lately ?
NASA spouting "Mars Water"
NASA spouting "Mars Water"
earthlings found water ice on mars and not you. that must be driving you mental
let us then be stupid together
QUOTE
Earthlings you are the most stupid group of life forms in the Universe....
um, tasmania. you qualify as an earthling let us then be stupid together
Zarkov
With you as an example, I have to agree.
With you as an example, I have to agree.
NASA spouting "Mars Water"
It is actually Mars that is "spouting" the water. NASA just found it.
Zarkov is just spouting sewage.
Grumpy
QUOTE
Earthlings you are the most stupid group of life forms in the Universe....
With you as an example, I have to agree.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| Earthlings you are the most stupid group of life forms in the Universe.... |
With you as an example, I have to agree.
NASA spouting "Mars Water"
It is actually Mars that is "spouting" the water. NASA just found it.
Zarkov is just spouting sewage.
Grumpy
you guys REALLY are fools...
G'day from the land of ozzzzzzz
To know the workings of the parts is to understand the universe as a total infinite body.
I keep on asking people to keep on reading.
Dr Halton Arp's site:
http://www.haltonarp.com/
Dr Anthony Peratt's site:
http://public.lanl.gov/alp/plasma/TheUniverse.html
sponsored by
Dr Donald E. Scott's site:
http://members.cox.net/dascott3/index.htm
Dr Wal Thornhill's site:
http://www.holoscience.com/index.php
Dr Tom Van Flandern's site:
http://www.metaresearch.org/
Register of Dr Hannes Alfven Papers (nobel laureate)
http://orpheus.ucsd.edu/speccoll/tes.../mss0225a.html
To know the workings of the parts is to understand the universe as a total infinite body.
I keep on asking people to keep on reading.
Dr Halton Arp's site:
http://www.haltonarp.com/
Dr Anthony Peratt's site:
http://public.lanl.gov/alp/plasma/TheUniverse.html
sponsored by
Dr Donald E. Scott's site:
http://members.cox.net/dascott3/index.htm
Dr Wal Thornhill's site:
http://www.holoscience.com/index.php
Dr Tom Van Flandern's site:
http://www.metaresearch.org/
Register of Dr Hannes Alfven Papers (nobel laureate)
http://orpheus.ucsd.edu/speccoll/tes.../mss0225a.html
Oh, Harry
all those authors are discredited dissenting anti-established-view scientists
wot do they know ?????
LOL
They know a damn sight more ( because they are dissenting) than any of the establishment's sheep !!
The establishment has grants to protect and reputations to uphold
and any anti-establishment attack, is bound to fail... until one day the whole house of cards collapses... but inbetween times.... keep the grants rolling in...
all those authors are discredited dissenting anti-established-view scientists
wot do they know ?????
LOL
They know a damn sight more ( because they are dissenting) than any of the establishment's sheep !!
The establishment has grants to protect and reputations to uphold
and any anti-establishment attack, is bound to fail... until one day the whole house of cards collapses... but inbetween times.... keep the grants rolling in...
G'day
Zarkov said
You sound like you got balls,,,,,,,,,,,,smile
Discredited by whom and for what reason and what issues?
The Big Bang people have been doing this for a number of years and for what reason.
Those links are of people of high standards. Before you cast the stone read up on them. Than make a decision.
Against the Tide
http://www.universal-publishers.com/book.p...book=1599429934
You sound like you got balls,,,,,,,,,,,,smile
Discredited by whom and for what reason and what issues?
The Big Bang people have been doing this for a number of years and for what reason.
Those links are of people of high standards. Before you cast the stone read up on them. Than make a decision.
Against the Tide
http://www.universal-publishers.com/book.p...book=1599429934
Synopsis
Nobody should have a monopoly of the truth in this universe. The censorship and suppression of challenging ideas against the tide of mainstream research, the blacklisting of scientists, for instance, is neither the best way to do and filter science, nor to promote progress in the human knowledge. The removal of good and novel ideas from the scientific stage is very detrimental to the pursuit of the truth. There are instances in which a mere unqualified belief can occasionally be converted into a generally accepted scientific theory through the screening action of refereed literature and meetings planned by the scientific organizing committees and through the distribution of funds controlled by "club opinions". It leads to unitary paradigms and unitary thinking not necessarily associated to the unique truth. This is the topic of this book: to critically analyze the problems of the official (and sometimes illicit) mechanisms under which current science (physics and astronom
Zarkov said
QUOTE
all those authors are discredited dissenting anti-established-view scientists
wot do they know ?????
wot do they know ?????
You sound like you got balls,,,,,,,,,,,,smile
Discredited by whom and for what reason and what issues?
The Big Bang people have been doing this for a number of years and for what reason.
Those links are of people of high standards. Before you cast the stone read up on them. Than make a decision.
Against the Tide
http://www.universal-publishers.com/book.p...book=1599429934
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| all those authors are discredited dissenting anti-established-view scientists wot do they know ????? |
You sound like you got balls,,,,,,,,,,,,smile
Discredited by whom and for what reason and what issues?
The Big Bang people have been doing this for a number of years and for what reason.
Those links are of people of high standards. Before you cast the stone read up on them. Than make a decision.
Against the Tide
http://www.universal-publishers.com/book.p...book=1599429934
Synopsis
Nobody should have a monopoly of the truth in this universe. The censorship and suppression of challenging ideas against the tide of mainstream research, the blacklisting of scientists, for instance, is neither the best way to do and filter science, nor to promote progress in the human knowledge. The removal of good and novel ideas from the scientific stage is very detrimental to the pursuit of the truth. There are instances in which a mere unqualified belief can occasionally be converted into a generally accepted scientific theory through the screening action of refereed literature and meetings planned by the scientific organizing committees and through the distribution of funds controlled by "club opinions". It leads to unitary paradigms and unitary thinking not necessarily associated to the unique truth. This is the topic of this book: to critically analyze the problems of the official (and sometimes illicit) mechanisms under which current science (physics and astronom