Catastrophe
"Science begets knowledge, opinion ignorance.
As a follow-up to my post #121, I would be most grateful if anyone can throw any light on this item.
If Hubble's "law" is to hold, it is my understanding (?????) that if galaxies, having mass, they cannot travel > c, then, to get around this, if I understand correctly, a 'fudge' is introduced stating, that not the galaxies, but spacetime is that which is expanding faster than light?????.
OoooooooooPs! Does not Hubble's "law" state that it is the galaxies which are moving away from each other????
Cat
If Hubble's "law" is to hold, it is my understanding (?????) that if galaxies, having mass, they cannot travel > c, then, to get around this, if I understand correctly, a 'fudge' is introduced stating, that not the galaxies, but spacetime is that which is expanding faster than light?????.
OoooooooooPs! Does not Hubble's "law" state that it is the galaxies which are moving away from each other????
Cat
Last edited:
Catastrophe
"Science begets knowledge, opinion ignorance.
(Contd.) For your information:
Hubble's law - Wikipedia
https://en.wikipedia.org › wiki › Hubble's_law
"Hubble's law, also known as the Hubble–Lemaître law, is the observation in physical cosmology that galaxies are moving away from Earth at speeds ... " et cetera
Interpretation · Derivation of the Hubble... · Units derived from the Hubble...
Where is my error, please?
Does BBT require that more distant galaxies are receding faster than light, or should Hubble's Law be corrected to state that some non-material markers in spacetime suggest that spacetime itself is expanding faster than light?
Another question: When BBT uses a backward extrapolation towards a "singularity" (which I propose to be inadmissible) what happened at the point (first point, any point, whatever)where/when c was reached in the first place?
Cat
Hubble's law - Wikipedia
https://en.wikipedia.org › wiki › Hubble's_law
"Hubble's law, also known as the Hubble–Lemaître law, is the observation in physical cosmology that galaxies are moving away from Earth at speeds ... " et cetera
Interpretation · Derivation of the Hubble... · Units derived from the Hubble...
Where is my error, please?
Does BBT require that more distant galaxies are receding faster than light, or should Hubble's Law be corrected to state that some non-material markers in spacetime suggest that spacetime itself is expanding faster than light?
Another question: When BBT uses a backward extrapolation towards a "singularity" (which I propose to be inadmissible) what happened at the point (first point, any point, whatever)
where/when c was reached in the first place?Cat
Catastrophe
"Science begets knowledge, opinion ignorance.
And, finally, (I am posting these separate issues on 3 separate posts),
Is redshift due to receding galaxies or to receding or expanding spacetime? . . .
Cat
Is redshift due to receding galaxies or to receding or expanding spacetime? . . .
Cat
Yes. Doppler shift is what is used for the radial movement through space. Cosmological redshift describes the radial movement of space (expansion). At great distances, the Doppler motion (peculiar motion) becomes insignificant compared to the expansion rate.And, finally, (I am posting these separate issues on 3 separate posts),
Is redshift due to receding galaxies or to receding or expanding spacetime? . . .
Cat
Catastrophe
"Science begets knowledge, opinion ignorance.
Helio, thank you for your reply. I still don't get the point about Hubble's Law.
I thought recession (speed) was meant to be constant (H) x distance. However, if this continues to apply, recession (speed) will/has reach/reached c. Unless galaxies are non-material, this results in galaxies exceeding c. From your reply
If, at some point, you are suggesting Hubs no longer applies, what replaces it. Can spacetime, containing no physical mass and/or light not originating from a physical object (viz. galaxy) produce a Doppler Effect?
Cat
I thought recession (speed) was meant to be constant (H) x distance. However, if this continues to apply, recession (speed) will/has reach/reached c. Unless galaxies are non-material, this results in galaxies exceeding c. From your reply
I assume you are meaning physical movement of galaxies through spacetime, no? Also, if spacetime is expanding FTL, it cannot carry material (galaxies) with it or recession speed would become constant (at the limit) and Hubs would give all galaxies stopping dead. Constant(V) = H x Constant(D).
If, at some point, you are suggesting Hubs no longer applies, what replaces it. Can spacetime, containing no physical mass and/or light not originating from a physical object (viz. galaxy) produce a Doppler Effect?
Cat
The FTL speed of a galaxy being carried away by space, is the speed relative to us. It could be treated as not moving at all, arguing we are the galaxy traveling FTL (relative to it).
The ballon analogy helps understand this nuance. Put a number of dots on a small balloon, then while inflating the ballon, pick any dot and look at the speed of the dot nearest to it, then note the speed of a dot farther away from your dot. The farther the dot, the faster the relative speed to your “fixed” dot. That rate is the basis for the H-L constant.
On a much larger scale, at some point, a very distant ballon dot will be moving FTL. But, light from this FTL region on your huge ballon will soon propagate to a closer region that isn’t FTL, relative to your dot. Thus it will eventually reach your reference dot.
Traditional Doppler equations can’t handle FTL redshifts, hence we have the cosmological redshift equations.
Last edited:
Infinity is impossible to observe and thus is dismissed out of hand by astronomers and physicists for the Universe. It is possible for an infinity of universes to exist, to have always existed, but that infinity will never be observed, or detected, from anywhere local in it. So, what exactly are we left with observing and detecting? Infinity closed up to and zeroed out (as infinity) at distant finite horizons of existence and only potentials of it left over.
A)Observed diff in galaxies. In non relativistic classical models the farther from the source the more distorted the image. This is observable on large cosmological scales in a non expanding universe as distortion. Observed
Olbers paradox. Light redshifts over distance. Its not black actually. It’s just redshifted to longer wavelengths
No ancient objects? Incorrect. Already BBT fans admit large scale structures tho large for BBT to explain are observed.
All the stellar synthesis points are assumptions only and can be ignored We have no idea how stars or SN generate the elements. Just vague handwaving points based on flawed assumptions made by current dogma ((standard model)
CMBR. In a non expanding universe that’s just the region of our universe at the distance where redshifting of the blackbody radiation of stars is redshifted to microwave. And the entity spread of the COBE map is a good match. It represents the density fluctuations of galaxies at that redshift.
CMBR temp!! Thsts a good one. The best and first prediction of background temp was 2.8K by a steady state theorist Mckellar in 1941. At that time time the best BBT could come up with was Gamows 20K!!
GRB Current models of physics cannot explain GRBs. In a non expanding non relativistic universe GRB and FRBs are single point sources being redshifted rapidly. Simple maths. As long as you ignore Albert
Time dilation of SN1a. Fact is there is peer reviewed research showing the databetter fits a non expanding model . Even Reiss Knop et al admit in their “landmark” paper “proving” time dilation that they actually had to falsify the Hubble data to make it fit their expanding model.
It doesn’t make sense to place the bar as falsify the current answer for CMBR. It should be ..Falsify the possibilty that the CMBR is redshifted blackbody radiation from distant galaxies in a non expanding universe.Falsify is a big issue in science and the scientific method. The BB has three major pillars used to support it as I understand. H/He abundance, redshifts of galaxies and quasars for example, and the CMBR, the cornerstone or foundation. If there is an alternative, that model should explain all three pillars as well or better than current BB model and fix cracks that are currently reported. My thinking, I would knock over the answer for the origin of the CMBR and show the current model is wrong and the BB falls apart. Arp reported redshifts of quasars and galaxies that could be physically connected, thus showing potential cracks in the cosmological redshift interpretation used in the BB model but others reject this. The big one here is the CMBR. Falsify the current answer for the origin of the CMBR and bang, goes the BB
Two things could falsify the Big Bang Theory . . . not falsify the Big Bang (which then may be an ever-continuing constant of "Big Bang Horizon": both to an outside Big Bang Horizon and to an inside Planck Horizon -- one and the same and producing a "many worlds" (many universes) theory with ends in countless "black holes" wrapping, worm-holing, to the one, the singular, continuing constant of (Big Bang / Planck) 'Horizon' always there for them all). Thus, possibly falsifying the one and one only Big Bang Theory as it stands!!! An existence of an unobserved and unobservable 'infinity' (a finite "potential" of it observed in our universe). And an existence of Multiverse multi-dimensionality (an existence of countless more than a finite four. And an existence of less than three . . . to an infinite zero). The too often denied existence of 'frontier' horizons (countless frontier universe horizons).
Last edited:
I am not a 1-dimensional thinker, nor a 1-dimensional visualizer. To me the Universe (U) can exist also, at once, as a Multiverse (U). Non-local infinity's collapse in horizon locally to simple 'potential' being the prime example. Multiverse essentially means multi-dimensionality, that something can be two or more entirely different things all-at-once. I visualize the Big Bang [beginning] Horizon / Planck Horizon / Infinity's collapsed Horizon to be just that all-at-once Multiverse multi-dimensionality with the wormhole-like links of countless horizons of countless black holes in space and time thrown in. As Stephen Hawking once visualized and alluded to in 'A Brief History of Time', life in the life zone between beginning and end (linked in wrapping around, circling or cycling around, beginning to end, end to beginning) horizons may simply migrate in the life zone toward the frontier horizon of the Big Bang Horizon (Infinity's collapsed Horizon / Finite's 'potential' of infinity Horizon) as a forever continuing constant.
That Horizon is not only the collapsed-to-local finite horizon of an infinity of universes (u) -- outward and inward -- in space and time, but being Multiverse multi-dimensionality, it is [at once] also purposed.
That Horizon is not only the collapsed-to-local finite horizon of an infinity of universes (u) -- outward and inward -- in space and time, but being Multiverse multi-dimensionality, it is [at once] also purposed.
Last edited:
Though the most extreme galaxies have yet to be observed, what is seen strongly suggests that the greater the distance the greater the immaturity. Astronomers are able to qualify their results enough to make that morphology claim.
What explains your redshift but expansion? A static universe would appear as white as stars if they're infinite in number.
There is nothing to suggest any object exists that is older than 13.8 Gyrs.
Particle physicists know better. Nucleosynthesis from stars became mainstream not long after Hoyle predicted the resonance for carbon, which was shortly proven correct by a lab. This was decades ago.
There is nothing known to argue for the redshift of light in a static universe. DeSitter's early GR model was able to show this for a static universe but to do so he had to remove all mass.
Fritz Zwicky proposed, also long ago, that light might redshift naturally during travel in a static universe. This became known as the "Tired Light" hypothesis. It became discredited with further studies.
Keep in mind that the mainstream view before Lemaitre (1927) was that we lived in a static universe. The MW was the only galaxy in the universe. It had only been recent for them (1920's) that the spiral nebulae were found to not be clouds in the MW, but distant galaxies.
So, any theory for a static universe isn't something new to consider, but a return to the old view that many tried very hard to hold on to, especially Einstein. With help from Eddington and DeSitter, Lemaitre's model finally made sense to Einstein, who reportedly praised Lemaitre during one of his presentations.
The entire universe filled with light at 3000K is hardly a fair argument for distant galaxies. Galaxies aren't that great BB emitters, also. The WMAP study, and others superior to COBE, show how remarkable the CMBR matches a BB profile. No star matches this as close, including our Sun. [This is one reason scientists get its color wrong, btw.]
I think Gamow's original estimate was 50K.
Your argument that suggests progress in science is unacceptable is strange, at best. Those early estimates did not have any age and distance refinements we have today. The Wright Brothers did not start with a jet airliner.
Wrong again. There are explanations for them, though they differ. Direct observations have been accomplished immediately following a GRB thanks to SWIFT and the network set-up by observatories. A lot is known, more will be known with time.
Please show us your reference for your claim of their apparent fraud.
Last edited:
The only thing that will result in the BBT being (mostly) discarded by "mainstream" cosmologists if for another theory to be developed to replace it.
But, replacing it is mainly a matter of acceptance. Not only does it need to have mathematical continuity sufficient to rival the BBT, it needs people to accept its assumptions. And that is the problem. People have accepted the BBT assumptions, even though they constitute about 95% of the matter and energy needed to make the model mathematically consistent to the extent that it is, which isn't perfect.
I often wonder how difficult it would be to make a competing model if somebody started with the assumption that the model would be acceptable if they simply assumed 20 time as much mass and energy that we can observe is at their disposal to configure and distribute any way they want to make their model work out mathematically and seem to fit the observations. It doesn't seem conceptually difficult. But, it would be laborious to produce the volume of discussion and computation that has developed around the BBT. So, would people just accept it if it doesn't somehow look more convincingly real? Probably not. Why change your mind unless there is a compeling reason to do so?
So, the only thing that I think will cause most people to accept a different model is some discovery that allows us to think, "Oh, yeah, how did we miss that - now I understand."
And that is why I enthusiastically support space exploration by telescopes, space craft, and spacecraft that are telescopes.
But, replacing it is mainly a matter of acceptance. Not only does it need to have mathematical continuity sufficient to rival the BBT, it needs people to accept its assumptions. And that is the problem. People have accepted the BBT assumptions, even though they constitute about 95% of the matter and energy needed to make the model mathematically consistent to the extent that it is, which isn't perfect.
I often wonder how difficult it would be to make a competing model if somebody started with the assumption that the model would be acceptable if they simply assumed 20 time as much mass and energy that we can observe is at their disposal to configure and distribute any way they want to make their model work out mathematically and seem to fit the observations. It doesn't seem conceptually difficult. But, it would be laborious to produce the volume of discussion and computation that has developed around the BBT. So, would people just accept it if it doesn't somehow look more convincingly real? Probably not. Why change your mind unless there is a compeling reason to do so?
So, the only thing that I think will cause most people to accept a different model is some discovery that allows us to think, "Oh, yeah, how did we miss that - now I understand."
And that is why I enthusiastically support space exploration by telescopes, space craft, and spacecraft that are telescopes.
An infinite non-local Universe (U) that has multi-dimensional Multiverse component of an infinity of finite local universes (u) would have a permanent collapsed horizon component to each and every one of the infinities of local finites (between the local finite (u) and the non-local infinite (U)), such as the Big Bang / Planck / Infinite Horizon.
What would identify the non-local infinite (U) to the finite local (u)? Answer: An observable existence of 'potential' of the former [to] the latter. The look and feel (in all physicality) of the latter finite local (u) expanding to the eternity, the permanency, of the former, the non-local infinite (U).
Where and what in the multi-dimensional Multiverse is the inside horizon (h), the timeless infinities of inside horizons (h), to the outside border, the singular border, of Horizon (H)? Answer: The horizon of each and every black hole in and throughout space and time. Between these horizons, horizon (h) and Horizon (H), eternally cycling within its own dimensions, conducting end horizon (h) to beginning Horizon (H), is from beginning (H) to end (h) the 'life zone' (as intimated by Stephen Hawking once upon a time in his 'A Brief History of Time').
The Big Bang Theory is falsified because it is not big enough. It is too small, too narrow, too 1-dimensional and 1-directional . . . too closed systemic.
What would identify the non-local infinite (U) to the finite local (u)? Answer: An observable existence of 'potential' of the former [to] the latter. The look and feel (in all physicality) of the latter finite local (u) expanding to the eternity, the permanency, of the former, the non-local infinite (U).
Where and what in the multi-dimensional Multiverse is the inside horizon (h), the timeless infinities of inside horizons (h), to the outside border, the singular border, of Horizon (H)? Answer: The horizon of each and every black hole in and throughout space and time. Between these horizons, horizon (h) and Horizon (H), eternally cycling within its own dimensions, conducting end horizon (h) to beginning Horizon (H), is from beginning (H) to end (h) the 'life zone' (as intimated by Stephen Hawking once upon a time in his 'A Brief History of Time').
The Big Bang Theory is falsified because it is not big enough. It is too small, too narrow, too 1-dimensional and 1-directional . . . too closed systemic.
Last edited:
The discovery is that Hubble is wrong. Redshift has nothing NOTHING to do with velocity. Light from redshift has nothing to do with Doppler. It has to do with attenuation. Light attenuates over extreme distances meaning that’s frequency gradually reduces as its wavelength increases. The degree to which light has redshifted is a function ONLY of how far it has travelled from its source.
In redshift there is an actual change in wavelength. In Doppler there is only the illusion of change in wavelength. Redshift is attenuation. Doppler is distortion.
Also, look at the graph supporting Hubbles Law. Five galaxies supporting a perfect straight line relationship between distance and velocity. Really? Five out of 100 billion galaxies. Statistically insignificant. So if redshift is attenuation and not Doppler then the universe is static, there was no bb, there is no dark matter/energy.
I repeat, "The Big Bang Theory is falsified because it is not big enough. It is too small, too narrow, too 1-dimensional and 1-directional . . . too closed systemic." As is, as it stands now, a too narrow single lane road, path, from nowhere to nowhere!
Last edited:
I would like to ask as to why you use the word "invent" regarding new forms of matter
I am extremely interested in your ideas. Could you please expand fully soi can grasp the context.
Put a satellite up to orbiting solar system to determine redshift with respect to wavelength, velocity and frequency. I’ll bet redshift has nothing to do with the velocity component.
This is my understanding as well. But to add, I believe that the speed of time is increasing and this is the mechanism for the observed attenuation.
i think the cause is increasing entropy of mass/energy resulting in degradation of gravitational time dilation effects.
so the flow of time speeds up over time.
It takes more than observations, of which many are needed, and "facts" which are extrapolated from observations to confirm that a theory is wrong. There is always resistance from the scientific community when a theory is so widely accepted. It will take time and much scientific observation and analysis to reject this theory. Modifying it is a bit easier but that is also difficult because James Webb has the power to seriously undermine current thinking...
Similar threads
TRENDING THREADS
-
Basic Error: The accelerating Universe conclusion - reason- Started by Gibsense
- Replies: 191
-
-
David Lynch's 'Dune' at 40: David Lynch's 1984 adaptation is a true spice oddity- Started by Admin
- Replies: 1
-
What has to happen in 2025 to move the UAP story forward?
- Started by Admin
- Replies: 0
Facebook
Twitter
Instagram