Origins of the Universe, Big Bang or No Bang.

[MeteorWayne]

Failure to read his links?

 

[harrycostas]

G'day

Two pints
Deep field images indicate formation of super clusters of galaxies that are gravity bound.

Local galaxies are not moving away from each other they are also gravity bound, not only that the local group of galaxies with M87 at the centre are moving towards the great attractor.

Now !!!!!!!!

Where is the expansion?

Relate one item that indicates by observation that the universe is expanding.


http://universe-review.ca/F03-supercluster.htm

 

[csmyth3025]

harrycostas,
In your latest link there is the following passage:

"...The space between superclusters is not absolutely void. Invisible clouds of hydrogen have been detected by their effect on the spectra of distant quasars. As shown in Figure 03-07, when light from the quasars travels through the hydrogen clouds, each cloud imprints an absorption line of Lyman-alpha onto the continuum spectrum. As the clouds are expanding with different rate respect to the quasar, a series of red-shifted lines called Lyman-alpha forest is formed. These features encode information about the distribution and density of cold gas along the line of sight to the quasar. Incidentally, such pattern constitutes another evidence for cosmic expansion..."

I believe you've inadvertently provided the link that relates "... one item that indicates by observation that the universe is expanding."

You really should read the material in the links you offer in support of your claims and/or beliefs.

Chris

 

[SpeedFreek]

G'day

Two pints
Deep field images indicate formation of super clusters of galaxies that are gravity bound.

Local galaxies are not moving away from each other they are also gravity bound, not only that the local group of galaxies with M87 at the centre are moving towards the great attractor.

Now !!!!!!!!

Where is the expansion?

Relate one item that indicates by observation that the universe is expanding.


http://universe-review.ca/F03-supercluster.htm

Our local group of galaxies is part of a larger collection of groups of galaxies that includes M87, all of which make up our local super-cluster, known as the Virgo super-cluster. Deep field images indicate the formation of other, very distant gravity bound clusters of galaxies at the furthest distances we can see. Those deep field clusters are not gravitationally bound to our local cluster, they are receding from it due to the expansion of the universe. The great attractor, whatever it is, seems to have an effect in our local area, but it doesn't seem to have affected the recession speeds of galaxies on the other side of the observable universe.

A single item that relates, by observation, that the universe is expanding? Could you propose one? What would convince you? I can propose a collection of observations that, when considered together, indicate that the universe is expanding, but a single item?

It is the various redshift relationships that, when considered together, indicate that the universe is expanding. For instance, the highest redshift galaxies are very dim, but look to have been close to us when they emitted the light we see (that's three observations, luminosity, angular diameter and redshift - a single one on it's own cannot tell the whole story). It is when you compare the observed luminosity and angular diameter with redshift, across the range of redshifts, that the expansion of the universe becomes totally obvious.

 

[harrycostas]

G'day Speedfreek


Ok supply a collection of observations.

You said

Our local group of galaxies is part of a larger collection of groups of galaxies that includes M87, all of which make up our local super-cluster, known as the Virgo super-cluster. Deep field images indicate the formation of other, very distant gravity bound clusters of galaxies at the furthest distances we can see. Those deep field clusters are not gravitationally bound to our local cluster, they are receding from it due to the expansion of the universe. The great attractor, whatever it is, seems to have an effect in our local area, but it doesn't seem to have affected the recession speeds of galaxies on the other side of the observable universe.

This is where you are mistaken.

All observable galaxies are gravity bound.

All super clusters are gravity bound.

The word "Cluster" means what it means. If you have evidence to support what you say. I'm very interested.

 

[csmyth3025]

harrycostas,

You said:

"....All observable galaxies are gravity bound....All super clusters are gravity bound....

.... If you have evidence to support what you say. I'm very interested."

Likewise, I'm very interested to see the evidence (described and/or explained in your own words) that supports what you say about galaxies and super clusters. In this regard I'm guessing that you mean that all observable galaxies and all super clusters are gravitationally bound to each other - rather than simply that the internal components of galaxies and, separately, the internal components of super clusters are gravitationally bound. The latter assertion isn't in dispute here or anywhere else.
Please don't bombard me with your search engine results. If you would like to provide a link to research which supports a specific claim or argument you're making, please quote the portion of the research you feel is relevant.

Chris

 

[SpeedFreek]

G'day Speedfreek


Ok supply a collection of observations.

You said

Our local group of galaxies is part of a larger collection of groups of galaxies that includes M87, all of which make up our local super-cluster, known as the Virgo super-cluster. Deep field images indicate the formation of other, very distant gravity bound clusters of galaxies at the furthest distances we can see. Those deep field clusters are not gravitationally bound to our local cluster, they are receding from it due to the expansion of the universe. The great attractor, whatever it is, seems to have an effect in our local area, but it doesn't seem to have affected the recession speeds of galaxies on the other side of the observable universe.

This is where you are mistaken.

All observable galaxies are gravity bound.

All super clusters are gravity bound.

The word "Cluster" means what it means. If you have evidence to support what you say. I'm very interested.

So you are suggesting that the whole universe is one big cluster of galaxies that are all gravitationally bound to each other? A super-cluster is gravitationally bound to another super cluster, even though they are on opposite sides of the universe, is that it?

Why then, is there no evidence that the universe is contracting, due to that gravitation. According to your model, we should be in a shrinking universe if it is all part of one giant gravitationally bound cluster - all the distant galaxies would therefore be blueshifted, as everything should be attracted towards everything else.

This is where you are mistaken.

 

[harrycostas]

G'day Speedfreek

You said

So you are suggesting that the whole universe is one big cluster of galaxies that are all gravitationally bound to each other? A super-cluster is gravitationally bound to another super cluster, even though they are on opposite sides of the universe, is that it?

Why then, is there no evidence that the universe is contracting, due to that gravitation. According to your model, we should be in a shrinking universe if it is all part of one giant gravitationally bound cluster - all the distant galaxies would therefore be blueshifted, as everything should be attracted towards everything else.

The universe will not contract to one point. We notice that Nuceleons have a critical size and become active ejecting matter near and far. This mechanism prevents the contraction to one point.

So what we do have is clustereing without an end to the universe.

The universe is infinite with a matrix of clusters.

Look at some giant Jets found in clusters of galaxies their influence goes for millions of years ejecting matter affecting the forms of others and seeding the formation of new galaxies.

 

[harrycostas]

G'day from the land of ozzzzz

This paper was emailed to me 2 seconds ago. I thought I would share the reading.

The ABS basically says what I want to say.

Misconceptions about the Hubble recession law
Jul-09
http://adsabs.harvard.edu/doi/10.1007/s10509-009-0057-z

Almost all astronomers now believe that the Hubble recession law was directly inferred from astronomical observations. It turns out that this common belief is completely false. Those models advocating the idea of an expanding universe are ill-founded on observational grounds. This means that the Hubble recession law is really a working hypothesis. One alternative to the Hubble recession law is the tired-light hypothesis originally proposed by Zwicky (Proc. Nat. Acad. Sci. 15:773, <CitationRef CitationID="CR28">1929</CitationRef>). This hypothesis leads to a universe that is an eternal cosmos continually evolving without beginning or end. Such a universe exists in a dynamical state of virial equilibrium. Observational studies of the redshift-magnitude relation for Type Ia supernovae in distant galaxies might provide the best observational test for a tired-light cosmology. The present study shows that the model Hubble diagram for a tired-light cosmology gives good agreement with the supernovae data for redshifts in the range 0<z<2. This observational test of a static cosmology shows that the real universe is not necessarily undergoing expansion nor acceleration.

 

[MeteorWayne]

The universe will not contract to one point. We notice that Nuceleons have a critical size and become active ejecting matter near and far. This mechanism prevents the contraction to one point.

.

Huh? What kink of babble is that? Can you explain what that means using real physics terms?

 

[SpeedFreek]

G'day Speedfreek

You said

So you are suggesting that the whole universe is one big cluster of galaxies that are all gravitationally bound to each other? A super-cluster is gravitationally bound to another super cluster, even though they are on opposite sides of the universe, is that it?

Why then, is there no evidence that the universe is contracting, due to that gravitation. According to your model, we should be in a shrinking universe if it is all part of one giant gravitationally bound cluster - all the distant galaxies would therefore be blueshifted, as everything should be attracted towards everything else.

The universe will not contract to one point. We notice that Nuceleons have a critical size and become active ejecting matter near and far. This mechanism prevents the contraction to one point.

So what we do have is clustereing without an end to the universe.

The universe is infinite with a matrix of clusters.

Look at some giant Jets found in clusters of galaxies their influence goes for millions of years ejecting matter affecting the forms of others and seeding the formation of new galaxies.

I did not say the universe would contract to one point, I said that if the whole universe is one giant gravity bound system, as you suggest, then it would be contracting, so the distant galaxies would all be blueshifted. If these galaxies are billions of light-years apart, your point about nucleons is irrelevant. How is the critical size of nucleons preventing distant galaxies that are bound to each other by gravity from moving towards each other?

Without a cosmological constant, the universe either expands or contracts. It was for this reason that Einstein inserted the cosmological constant into his geometric theory of gravity - he thought the universe was static. When Hubble's data showed that the universe was indeed expanding, he took the cosmological constant out again.

 

[csmyth3025]

harrycostas,

You wrote:

"The universe will not contract to one point. We notice that Nuceleons have a critical size and become active ejecting matter near and far. This mechanism prevents the contraction to one point."

Your claim of "what we notice" isn't entirely correct. There is an excellent book by Bernard Schutz entitled "Gravity from the ground up" which can provide you with quite a bit of interesting (and educational) reading. Regarding your claim, I would direct you to the subject matter contained in pages 263 through 266 "Estimating the minimum mass of a neutron star". It explains, among other things, why nuclei with atomic numbers greater than 210 "...become active ejecting matter..." and how it is that an extreme gravitational field prevents this from happening.

Fortunately, the author has a web site for his book: http://www.gravityfromthegroundup.org/. If you go there you'll find a tab which provides excerpts of selected materials - pages 263-266 being among those excerpts.

Aside from that, the link you provided is a link to an abstract. An abstract is an assertion by the author. It may be comforting to you to say that his claim is the same as yours, but without a supporting document you might just as well be quoting Bugs Bunny.

Chris

 

[xXTheOneRavenXx]

Harrycostas, you asked for someone to post evidence of an expanding universe. I have done that, but I guess you failed to watch the video.

Edwin Hubble demonstrated a lot of evidence for an expanding universe, as well many others before and after him. Here is a couple of small quotes from Hubble's work.

Hubble, aided by Milton Humason extended the work of Slipher by using the larger Hooker telescope. He took long exposures of the spectra of faint galaxies. By measuring the amount of shift of specific spectral lines relative to those produced by reference arc lamps in the spectrograph he was able to calculate values for the galaxy velocities. A few nearby galaxies had velocities that meant they were moving towards our own Milky Way, that is their lines were blueshifted but most exhibited redshift and hence had recession velocities. The majority of galaxies therefore appeared to be moving away from our own galaxy. Hubble found that that those with a smaller image in a photograph had higher redshifts. This is shown in the diagram below that shows the images and spectra of some of the galaxies he observed.

Once we look beyond the gravitational effects of close galaxies within the local group, galaxies are moving away from one another. Not only are they moving away but the more distant galaxies appear to be moving away faster than closer ones. This then suggests that the Universe is expanding and indeed this is now the most widely-accepted interpretation of the data. The other key point arising from the relation is that if we go back in time galaxies must have been closer together, space was smaller. If you extrapolate back far enough the Universe must have been concentrated at a point in space.

This clearly demonstrates my point that galaxies within our local group are moving closer together (our Virgo Super Cluster), while other Super Cluster's of galaxies are receding away from us as the universe expands. There are numerous sources of evidence for the expanding universe. Please read through your links BEFORE posting them, as you often also host links to papers that also support the expanding universe theory, contradicting your own statements.

 

[noblackhole]

In reply to TheOneRaven

I have now read the paper by Lundmark, which you posted in support of your claim that Slipher measured actual recessional velocities of galaxies. Lundmark's paper, 'The Determination of the curvature of Space-Time in de Sitter's World', does not support your claim, and actually reaffirms my point that the alleged recessional velocities are obtained by means of application of the Doppler hypothesis to measurements of spectral shifts, including the work of Slipher. Here is what Lundmark says:

"Before entering on a discussion concerning the value of R thus derived, we will look into the matter of the nature of the spectral shifts observed for globular clusters and spiral nebulae, as it may not be without interest to know if the spectral displacements are of the Doppler nature."

"The velocities of these objects are mainly due to the wonderful spectrographic work performed at the Lowell Observatory by Dr. V. M. Slipher."

"Some astronomers seem to have been rather skeptical as to the meaning of the spectral displacements observed, and several times the question has been raised: Are the displacements observed of the Doppler character? i.e. is (delta lambda)/lambda constant within the limits of the errors of measurement ? This is certainly the case, and in illustration we may examine the following measures of a spectrogram of the Andromeda Nebula, which I am allowed to quote through the courtesy of Professor Wright at the lick observatory. "

Lundmark maintains that the spectral shifts are of Doppler character, but he only addresses the spectral shifts to the red. The bulk of his paper involves an attempt at determination of the the "radius of curvature of space-time", which he denotes by R, from the mathematical relation obtained by Silberstein for the de Sitter cosmology (i.e. de Sitter's line-element). The expression by Silberstein also contains the quantity r, which Lundmark identifies as "the distance of the star from the observer". However, he provides no demonstration that this r has the said character, and he does not adduce the line-element he utilizes. Nor does he specify as to what curvature he relates his "radius of curvature of space-time": since there are various kinds of curvatures.

So it is indeed the case, as I maintained in my previous postings, that all alleged galactic recessional velocities are via application of the Doppler hypothesis to the measurements of spectral shifts, and that includes the measurements made by Slipher.

Now it is noteworthy that Slipher found not only red shifts but also blue shifts, with a preponderance of red over blue. If these shifts are to be consistently interpreted by means of the Doppler hypothesis, then the blue shifts would indicate approach. In a Universe which is claimed to be expanding, on the basis of the Doppler hypothesis, the blue shifts then represent counter examples, and indicate contraction. Proponents of the big bang and expanding universe do not address the blue shifted spectra, and simply claim that the universe is expanding in all directions in the same fashion, on the basis of the red shifted spectra.

Concerning Lundmark's paper it must also be noted that he talks of stars in the de Sitter cosmology. However, the notion, also widespread amongst the proponents of the big bang and concomitant expansion, is quite spurious, because de Sitter's universe is one that contains no matter whatsoever, and so cannot serve as a model of reality at all.

"The most unsatisfactory feature of the de Sitter model, as a basis for the cosmology of the actual universe, is the finding discussed in S 143 that the line element when strictly taken corresponds to a completely empty universe containing neither matter nor radiation."
R. C. Tolman, Relativity Thermodynamics and Cosmology, Dover Publication Inc., New York, 1987, (see section 145).

The proponents of the big bang and concomitant expansion have simply hijacked the spectral measurements and selectively interpreted them as Doppler effects. The Hubble-Humason relation is a proposed redshift/distance relation, not a proposed redshift/recessional-velocity relation. The astrophysical scientists interpret the spectral shifts as Doppler effects in order to attempt to legitimise erroneous theory, General Relativity, from which, following Lemaitre, they claim the universe came into being from nothing, with a BANG, and is expanding.

However, on the balance of the evidence, all that can be said is that there are observed spectral shifts, the cause of which is uncertain. If it is caused by Doppler, then the blue and red shifts observed do not support the expansion hypothesis, notwithstanding the preponderance of reds over blues. If it is not Doppler, the expansion hypothesis is untenable.

The proponents of the big bang, by and large, simply ignore the facts, as this very site attests. Very convenient, but both unscientific and dishonest. And the COBE and WMAP teams have deliberately cooked their data books to obtain their preconceived and desired results, as Prof. Robitaille has exposed:

Robitaille P.-M.
COBE: A Radiological Analysis
http://www.ptep-online.com/index_files/2009/PP-19-03.PDF

Robitaille P.-M.
WMAP: A Radiological Analysis
http://www.ptep-online.com/index_files/2007/PP-08-01.PDF

Robitaille P.-M.
On the Origins of the CMB: Insight from the COBE, WMAP, and Relikt-1 Satellites
http://www.ptep-online.com/index_files/2007/PP-08-02.PDF

 

[csmyth3025]

noblackhole wrote:

"...The proponents of the big bang, by and large, simply ignore the facts, as this very site attests. Very convenient, but both unscientific and dishonest. And the COBE and WMAP teams have deliberately cooked their data books to obtain their preconceived and desired results, as Prof. Robitaille has exposed..."

Sooo... Do you have a theory about the Universe that's scientific and honest?

Chris

 

[SpeedFreek]

Now it is noteworthy that Slipher found not only red shifts but also blue shifts, with a preponderance of red over blue. If these shifts are to be consistently interpreted by means of the Doppler hypothesis, then the blue shifts would indicate approach. In a Universe which is claimed to be expanding, on the basis of the Doppler hypothesis, the blue shifts then represent counter examples, and indicate contraction. Proponents of the big bang and expanding universe do not address the blue shifted spectra, and simply claim that the universe is expanding in all directions in the same fashion, on the basis of the red shifted spectra.

Utter nonsense. Of course we address the blueshifts, what on Earth gives you the idea that we don't? The galaxies with blueshifted spectra are all within our local gravity-bound cluster of galaxies, where some galaxies are moving towards us due to gravity. Outside of our local cluster of galaxies, all spectra are redshifted, indicating that the rate of expansion beats the gravitational attraction between them and our local cluster.

The proponents of the big bang, by and large, simply ignore the facts, as this very site attests. Very convenient, but both unscientific and dishonest. And the COBE and WMAP teams have deliberately cooked their data books to obtain their preconceived and desired results, as Prof. Robitaille has exposed:

And of course, Robitaille cannot get any of this work published in a reputable journal, as there is a conspiracy to suppress any findings that are at odds with an expanding universe. All mainstream scientists really know the truth, but are afraid of rocking the boat for fear of losing funding for their projects. Let's keep the population thinking we live in an expanding universe, when in fact we know it is not. Let's keep teaching General Relativity, even though, regardless of all the experiments that confirm it, we know it is wrong. Let's tell them we landed on the moon, when we didn't.

 

[harrycostas]

G'day from the land of ozzzz

Upto the early 50's Hubble himself questioned the velocity and redshift in so doing questioned the expanding universe.

Regardless, it is a question of evidence and I do read your comments and I did see the video.

I want to see evidence that can be tested by scientists around the world without any emotional attachements.

I do not care if the universe is contracting or expanding, I have to go to work on Saturday regardless.

A fantastic explanation is not evidence.

This paper is informative. Science papers are written by scientist who supply their thinking so that science plays its part.
Within the paper there is a question of creating matter that can be explained by recycling matter from one phase to the next.

The cosmic age crisis and the Hubble constant in a non-expanding universe
Sep-08
http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2008Ap%26SS.317...45S

The present paper outlines a cosmological paradigm based upon Dirac’s large number hypothesis and continual creation of matter in a closed static (nonexpanding) universe. The cosmological redshift is caused by the tired-light phenomenon originally proposed by Zwicky. It is shown that the tired-light cosmology together with continual matter creation has a universal Hubble constant H 0=(512 π 2/3)1/6( GC 0)1/3 fixed by the universal rate C 0 of matter creation, where G is Newton’s gravitational constant. It is also shown that a closed static universe has a finite age τ 0=(243 π 5/8 GC 0)1/3 also fixed by the universal rate of matter creation. The invariant relationship H 0 τ 0=3 π 261/2 shows that a closed static universe is much older (≈one trillion years) than any expanding universe model based upon Big-Bang cosmology. It is this property of a static universe that resolves any cosmic age crisis provided that galaxy formation in the universe is a continual recurring process. Application of Dirac’s large number hypothesis gives a matter creation rate C 0=4.6×10‑48 gm cm‑3 s‑1 depending only on the fundamental constants of nature. Hence, the model shows that a closed static universe has a Hubble constant H 0=70 km s‑1 Mpc‑1 in good agreement with recent astronomical determinations of H 0. By using the above numerical value for H 0 together with observational data for elongated cellular-wall structures containing superclusters of galaxies, it is shown that the elongated cellular-wall configurations observed in the real universe are at least one hundred billion years old. Application of the microscopic laws of physics to the large-scale macroscopic universe leads to a static eternal cosmos endowed with a matter-antimatter symmetry. It is proposed that the matter-antimatter asymmetry is continuously created by particle-antiparticle pair annihilation occurring in episodic cosmological gamma-ray bursts observed in the real universe.

 

[xXTheOneRavenXx]

Good morning all. I see it's going to be back to the grind stone with historical fact this morning. noblackhole, when you mentioned about Slipher, I did research his work, provided evidence that he even mentions in his bulletin the difficulty people had with accepting spectrograph's to study galactic velocity (http://www.roe.ac.uk/~jap/slipher/slipher_1913.pdf). However, then he goes on to explain how he IS able to calculate the velocity:

The spectra of these objects, it was recognized, should convey valuable information, and they have been studied, photographically, first by Huggins and Scheiner, and recently more extensively by Faith and Wolf; but no attempt has to my knowledge been made to determine their radial velocity, although the value of such observations has doubtless occurred to many investigators.

I have to stop there for a moment. Since we have a diversity of knowledge here, If you don't mind me explaining that it was William Huggins in 1864 that discovered the difference between gaseous nebula with their line spectra and those "nebulae" with star-like, continuous spectra, which we now know as galaxies. So Vesto Slipher is just building upon Huggins discovery. At this point in time the Andromeda Galaxy was the most observed galaxy as it was the easiest to detect. Slipher mentions Julius Scheiner, which also studied the Andromeda Galaxy, and took a 7 1/2hr exposure finding that the H-line and G- line bands of the spectra to be clearly visible. Max Wolf from Heidelburg (who was among the first astronomers to show that the spiral nebulae have absorption spectra typical of stars and thus differ from gaseous nebulae. He discovered hundreds of asteroids, he discovered the first Trojan asteroid, Achilles, as well as thousands of nebulae and galaxies), great rack record if you ask me. Then finally Slipher mentions Edward Fath of California who also studied spectra line of spiral galaxies originally photographed by James Keeler. It was Slipher who obtained a better quality study of these lines. So Slipher maintains a good foundation based upon the fact he utilized the work of some of the best in the field at the time.

Slipher goes on to explain what is needed and how the radial velocities can be obtained. (Too much to quote)

I also keep referring to Edwin Hubble for a reason. Hubble among his other work discovered the relationship between a Cepheid variable's luminosity and pulsation period is quite precise. We know this class of star as a "Standard Candle". This is a very precise tool when calculating distance in the universe.

Harrycostas, much evidence HAS been presented, as well the calculations, and the tools used for the work. What more evidence do you require? Hubble only questioned the work until he himself was able to conclude similar results being fortified by the study of Cepheid's.

I noticed noblackhole you are referring to this paper http://www.roe.ac.uk/~jap/slipher/lundmark_1924.pdf. I am all open for an alternate to The Big Bang Theory, however all they were discussing there was questioning the Doppler shift in the spectrograph. Yes this was around a time that these tools were new to astronomers. But Slipher was very clear on the necessary tools required to make the most accurate measurements of his time. Some questioned these tools of course. But through careful study of various researchers, a very clear evolution formed into the Cosmological red shift. I explained the differences earlier. But since Slipher, other factors like the expansion of the universe were taken into account.

 

[harrycostas]

G'day Raven

You said

Harrycostas, much evidence HAS been presented, as well the calculations, and the tools used for the work. What more evidence do you require? Hubble only questioned the work until he himself was able to conclude similar results being fortified by the study of Cepheid's.

Can you post me that conclusion please.

And as for evidence. I will need to re check all the evidence in question.

Eric learner's paper is science logic. Yes I know peole think he is a crank pot and yet his logic is logical and requires it to be tested and researched. People who think along the lines of the BBT do not give it a second thought a big mistake for science.

Science is a one stream field.

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.

 

[harrycostas]

G'day Raven

This link maybe of interest to you in reference to Hubble.


http://arxiv.org/abs/0806.4481
Hubble's Cosmology: From a Finite Expanding Universe to a Static Endless Universe

Authors: A.K.T. Assis (Institute of Physics `Gleb Wataghin' University of Campinas, Brazil), M.C.D. Neves (Departamento de Física, Fundação Universidade Estadual de Maringá, Brazil), D.S.L. Soares (Departamento de Física, ICEx, Universidade Federal de Minas Gerais, Belo Horizonte, Brazil)
(Submitted on 27 Jun 2008)

Abstract: We analyze Hubble's approach to cosmology. In 1929 he accepted a finite expanding universe in order to explain the redshifts of distant galaxies. Later on he turned to an infinite stationary universe due to observational constraints. We show, by quoting his works, that he remained cautiously against the big bang until the end of his life.

 

[noblackhole]

I noticed noblackhole you are referring to this paper http://www.roe.ac.uk/~jap/slipher/lundmark_1924.pdf. I am all open for an alternate to The Big Bang Theory, however all they were discussing there was questioning the Doppler shift in the spectrograph. Yes this was around a time that these tools were new to astronomers. But Slipher was very clear on the necessary tools required to make the most accurate measurements of his time. Some questioned these tools of course. But through careful study of various researchers, a very clear evolution formed into the Cosmological red shift. I explained the differences earlier. But since Slipher, other factors like the expansion of the universe were taken into account.

You are off the beam here. You cited the Lundmark paper in support of your claim that Slipher measured galactic radial velocities directly, i.e. not by application of the Doppler hypothesis. However, as I pointed out, Lundmark's paper clearly does not support your claim. Slipher measured spectral shifts and these spectral shifts were interpreted as velocities by application of the Doppler hypothesis.

All the claims for galactic recessional velocities are by means of application of the unproven Doppler hypothesis.

The COBE and WMAP teams have deliberately doctored their data sets in order to get the result they want for their alleged CMB. I refer you again to the papers by Prof. Robitaille. His papers are profound.

 

[harrycostas]

G'day from the land of ozzzzz

We live in a world of science.

How hard can it be to prove one way or another?


Hello noblackhole

I better keep an eye on what you say with interest.

 

[SpeedFreek]

And as for evidence. I will need to re check all the evidence in question.

Eric learner's paper is science logic. Yes I know peole think he is a crank pot and yet his logic is logical and requires it to be tested and researched. People who think along the lines of the BBT do not give it a second thought a big mistake for science.

Science is a one stream field.

http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0509611
Evidence for a Non-Expanding Universe: Surface Brightness Data From HUDF

Learner is questioning the earlier conclusions for surface brightness made by Lubin and Sandage (which I posted in another related thread). His objection is based on the models of galaxy formation they used and the amount of intervening dust that would be required to reduce the apparent brightness of distant galaxies.

More recent observations have shown us that there is a lot more dust than we thought, which would have a significant effect on the range of possible galaxy formation models that fit a FLRW universe, increasing the number that fit with Lubin and Sandage's findings. High redshift galaxies do not need to be so small to be so bright.

http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/0 ... -dust.html

http://www.scitech.ac.uk/PMC/PRel/STFC/Universe.aspx

http://arxiv.org/abs/0803.4164

http://arxiv.org/find/all/1/all:+AND+Si ... /0/all/0/1

By the way, how logical is it to simply assert that "his logic is logical"?

 

[harrycostas]

G'day speedfreek

Thank you for the links.

I will read them later.

Just came back from a party and the wine reminds me of the Big Bang.

Off to bed I go, ho ho

 

[xXTheOneRavenXx]

I will read what I can today, and follow up noblackhole with our discussion later on. Today is my wife's 31st birthday, as well we found out that our babysitter's 16 or 17 (can't remember which) old sister underwent a surgery to cure her seizures. Even though two days ago I saw her in perfect health, she had a seizure while in surgery and slipped into coma that doctors are uncertain if she'll ever wake up from. So please excuse my absence if I'm not on for a bit.

Actually noblackhole, that entire paper denounces Dr. Silberstein's theories who if you forget tried to denounce Hubble and Einstein's theories in 1930. They depict that while there is a measure of error in the radial velocity, they do not say it doesn't exist. Various measurements are given by a variety of researchers. They even state that the radial velocities are due to real motion. But that's just my take of this document.