#21
|
|||
|
|||
1a Supernova data (Was "Creating Galaxies")
Scott wrote.
So, whose "Truth" do you want to use as the basis of scientific models for the formation and evolution of the universe? Well, in regard to the 'challenge' you issued some while back, here is a test that _would_ validate either the CBB or the standard model. The only caveat is, it would involve a fairly long time frame. Find a patch of sky like the Hubble Deep Field and select an object of extreme redshift that's at the very threshold of visibility, i.e., the very oldest and most distant object still visible. Under the standard model, over time that object should dim and redden still further, then fade out over the lightspeed/ redshift horizon, right? Whereas the CBB model predicts the opposite; with the passage of time that object will brighten and its redshift will diminish, and more and more deep-past objects will gradually come into view over that same horizon. We'll be seeing further and further back into the quasar epoch. As it is, we're seeing only the barest tail-end of the quasar epoch. This would be THE bellwether test of the CBB vs.standard model if a threshold object's redshift/ luminosity curve could be tracked over time. And over time, if previously-unseen objects are seen coming over the horizon, it would validate the CBB model conclusively. The sheer number of objects in the Hubble Deep Field and the density of their clustering doesn't speak well for "accelerating expansion". Under accelerating expansion, one would expect to see a great paucity of objects in the HDF. oc |
#22
|
|||
|
|||
1a Supernova data (Was "Creating Galaxies")
Scott wrote,
What is interesting to me is that some philosophers laud the Big Bang models while others bash it, all in the name of "Truth". The CBB model not only doesn't bash the 'singular BB', but sees it as a perfectly valid part of a larger whole, like a 'tick mark' on a continuous process. While the model can't currently be validated empirically, neither can the standard model. The foundations of the standard model, void-space and universal c-invariance, are edicts of pure fiat taken on pure faith.. as is any model based on those foundations. Lindner, driven by a vendetta to expose the origins of the void-space axiom, traced it back to a religious pogrom during the 17th and 18th centuries to eradicate the prevailing 'aether' theories. The chief architect of that movement was one Bishop George Berkeley, mentioned previously. The void-space doctrine spread from the religionists and became totally entrenched in the scientific community as well. It had become dogma by time Einstein came along. Lindner's big beef with Einstein is that he capitulated to it even though he knew better. And in so doing, he had to declare c universally invariant. In Lindner's view, this constitutes fraud on a grand scale and the paradigm based on it is a giant scientific hoax. Wolter never researched the historic roots of void-space as Lindner did, and was totally charitable toward Einstein.. allowing that space can be treated _as if_ it were a void as long as there's no signifigant density-gradient. Since the gradient is small out to cosmological distances, relativity 'works' acceptably well out to those distances, and Uncle Albert can be forgiven his transgression. But in deep-past cosmology, the density-gradient c-dilation (DGCD) must be factored into observations (such as the 1a SN dimming). Regarding the spatial medium (or VED) and gravity, Occams Razor has a lot to say. Under Occam's Razor, if something displays the *effects* of a pressure-driven, accelerating flow toward a center of mass, and behaves as a pressure-driven accelerating flow toward a center of mass, then what is it, old ground-up Buicks? Most likely it really IS exactly what it appears to be and behaves as. You've never weighed in (no pun intended) on the subject of BH accretion dynamics. Every rotating body gravitates less strongly at its equator than at its poles. Even the Earth does, ever so slightly. It's the simplest of grade-school physics. Now take an object like the recently-discussed millisecond pulsar, whose spin-rate has gone out the roof from angular momentum imparted when the star collapsed. Where is it gravitating most strongly, except at its poles? Now take a BH, whose collapse will have spun it up orders of magnitude higher. It's a full-fledged gravitic dipole. And this is true even if you believe in void-space; any infall of matter is going to follow two 'bathtub drain' vortices into the poles, and be interpreted as frame dragging. Yet for some reason the mainsteam still does not recognize the essential bipolarity of BHs and the bipolarity of their gravity. Why is this? oc |
#23
|
|||
|
|||
1a Supernova data (Was "Creating Galaxies")
Bill Sheppard wrote:
Scott wrote. So, whose "Truth" do you want to use as the basis of scientific models for the formation and evolution of the universe? Well, in regard to the 'challenge' you issued some while back, here is a test that _would_ validate either the CBB or the standard model. The only caveat is, it would involve a fairly long time frame. Find a patch of sky like the Hubble Deep Field and select an object of extreme redshift that's at the very threshold of visibility, i.e., the very oldest and most distant object still visible. Under the standard model, over time that object should dim and redden still further, then fade out over the lightspeed/ redshift horizon, right? Whereas the CBB model predicts the opposite; with the passage of time that object will brighten and its redshift will diminish, and more and more deep-past objects will gradually come into view over that same horizon. We'll be seeing further and further back into the quasar epoch. As it is, we're seeing only the barest tail-end of the quasar epoch. Actually, we are seeing well beyond the quasar epoch at present time. Its called the CMBR. We are seeing in the minutia of the MAPS data the time well before quasars were formed, to the time when stars were beginning to turn on. |
#24
|
|||
|
|||
1a Supernova data (Was "Creating Galaxies")
Bill Sheppard wrote:
Scott wrote, What is interesting to me is that some philosophers laud the Big Bang models while others bash it, all in the name of "Truth". The CBB model not only doesn't bash the 'singular BB', but sees it as a perfectly valid part of a larger whole, like a 'tick mark' on a continuous process. While the model can't currently be validated empirically, neither can the standard model. The foundations of the standard model, void-space and universal c-invariance, are edicts of pure fiat taken on pure faith.. as is any model based on those foundations. Sorry, the standard model stands on the successful predictions it has been used to make, predictions of things that have since been discovered. It explains the observed expansion of the universe, it predicts and explains the CMBR, it predicts and explains the current helium/hydrogen ratio. It is the collective whole that makes the standard model the preferred model today. Does not make it the absolutely, carved-in-stone correct model, but it has a lot going for it based on observation. |
#25
|
|||
|
|||
1a Supernova data (Was "Creating Galaxies")
Bill Sheppard wrote:
Scott wrote, What is interesting to me is that some philosophers laud the Big Bang models while others bash it, all in the name of "Truth". You've never weighed in (no pun intended) on the subject of BH accretion dynamics. Every rotating body gravitates less strongly at its equator than at its poles. Even the Earth does, ever so slightly. It's the simplest of grade-school physics. Now take an object like the recently-discussed millisecond pulsar, whose spin-rate has gone out the roof from angular momentum imparted when the star collapsed. Where is it gravitating most strongly, except at its poles? Now take a BH, whose collapse will have spun it up orders of magnitude higher. It's a full-fledged gravitic dipole. And this is true even if you believe in void-space; any infall of matter is going to follow two 'bathtub drain' vortices into the poles, and be interpreted as frame dragging. Yet for some reason the mainsteam still does not recognize the essential bipolarity of BHs and the bipolarity of their gravity. Why is this? oc There is no bipolarity to discuss. It really does come down to something that simple. Take a peak at the tome "Gravity". It is all in there. |
#26
|
|||
|
|||
1a Supernova data (Was "Creating Galaxies")
Scott wrote,
There is no bipolarity to discuss. It really does come down to something that simple. Take a peak at the tome "Gravity". That's exactly the point. The tome 'gravity' still treats BH accretion the same as 'normal' stellar bodies which lack the extremely high spin rates of BHs. Or do BHs not spin(?). The simplest of grade-school physics tells you the higher the spin rate, the higher the centrifugal *effect* (not "force" lest we get into a quibble over 'centripetal') at the equator. The object gravitates less strongly at the equator than at the poles, plain and simple. The tome 'gravity' for some obscure reason does not recognize this simple fact. BHs, by dint of their very high spin rates, are gravitic dipoles with clear-cut 'N' and 'S' gravitic poles, their 'sign' determined by the flow's spin direction going in. And this is true whether you believe in the void-space model or the spatial-flow model. Bipolarity of BHs is a fact, and bipolarity of their gravity is a fact. The polar inflows attain c at the point they cross the event horizon. Furthermore, if the equatorial spin rate reaches c (or more specifically, if the tangental velocity at the equator reaches c), it will explode back into spacetime, as in the model of the hypothesized Primal Particle 'Engine' at the core of the universe. oc |
#27
|
|||
|
|||
1a Supernova data (Was "Creating Galaxies")
Scott wrote,
Actually, we are seeing well beyond the quasar epoch at present time. Its called the CMBR. We are seeing in the minutia of the MAPS data the time well before quasars were formed, to the time when stars were beginning to turn on. In the CMBR and the microwave anisotropy, we are seeing a relic, a surrogate marker of epochs ourside our direct visibility. We are talking here about *our* direct horizon of visibility, the sphere of `our` lightspeed/ redshift horizon, not the relic CMBR and the anisotropies therein. In lookback to _our_ horizon, we are seeing only the tag-end of the quasar epoch, not its full flower. And in looking at the Hubble Deep Field again, the incredible richness and dense clustering of objects doesn'tt speak well for 'accelerating expansion', either. Rather, it suggests that more and more deep-past objects are coming into view over the horizon (as the CBB model predicts) than are receding from view (as the standard model predicts). The only sure proof is to track over time the luminosity/ redshift curves of individual objects at the limit of visibility, and see which way they go. The richness of the HDF suggests, but does not prove, the validity of the CBB model. oc |
#28
|
|||
|
|||
1a Supernova data (Was "Creating Galaxies")
Scott wrote,
Sorry, the standard model stands on the successful predictions it has been used to make, predictions of things that have since been discovered. It explains the observed expansion of the universe, The accelerating expansion is *interpreted* from the void-space/ universal c-invariance premise... itself an edict of pure fiat taken on pure faith. ..it predicts and explains the CMBR, it predicts and explains the current helium/hydrogen ratio. As does the CBB model. It subsumes but does not negate the 'singular BB' event and nucleosynthesis of the first elements. It is the collective whole that makes the standard model the preferred model today. Does not make it the absolutely, carved-in-stone correct model, but it has a lot going for it based on observation. Again, it's observation assuming the universal invariance of c and the 'void-ness' of space, which precludes cosmological density-gradients. oc |
#29
|
|||
|
|||
1a Supernova data (Was "Creating Galaxies")
Bill Sheppard wrote:
Scott wrote, There is no bipolarity to discuss. It really does come down to something that simple. Take a peak at the tome "Gravity". That's exactly the point. The tome 'gravity' still treats BH accretion the same as 'normal' stellar bodies which lack the extremely high spin rates of BHs. Or do BHs not spin(?). The simplest of grade-school physics tells you the higher the spin rate, the higher the centrifugal *effect* (not "force" lest we get into a quibble over 'centripetal') at the equator. The object gravitates less strongly at the equator than at the poles, plain and simple. The tome 'gravity' for some obscure reason does not recognize this simple fact. BHs, by dint of their very high spin rates, are gravitic dipoles with clear-cut 'N' and 'S' gravitic poles, their 'sign' determined by the flow's spin direction going in. And this is true whether you believe in the void-space model or the spatial-flow model. Bipolarity of BHs is a fact, and bipolarity of their gravity is a fact. You are making all of this up, I assume you know. There is no clear-cut N and S gravitic (made up word that expresses nothing in reality). So, the "obscure" reason comes down to your lack of understanding of the concept of gravity, not its absence from "Gravity". The polar inflows attain c at the point they cross the event horizon. Furthermore, if the equatorial spin rate reaches c (or more specifically, if the tangental velocity at the equator reaches c), it will explode back into spacetime, as in the model of the hypothesized Primal Particle 'Engine' at the core of the universe. Now I know you are talking gibberish. But prattle on if you must. |
#30
|
|||
|
|||
1a Supernova data (Was "Creating Galaxies")
Bill Sheppard wrote:
Scott wrote, Actually, we are seeing well beyond the quasar epoch at present time. Its called the CMBR. We are seeing in the minutia of the MAPS data the time well before quasars were formed, to the time when stars were beginning to turn on. In the CMBR and the microwave anisotropy, we are seeing a relic, a surrogate marker of epochs ourside our direct visibility. We are talking here about *our* direct horizon of visibility, the sphere of `our` lightspeed/ redshift horizon, not the relic CMBR and the anisotropies therein. In lookback to _our_ horizon, we are seeing only the tag-end of the quasar epoch, not its full flower. Wrong again. But keep up the pretense. Our cosmic particle horizon is roughly 13.5 billion lightyears, allowing us to "see" to the decoupling event of matter and energy. Within that boundary are the quasars, which are perhaps a billion or more lightyears inside that boundary. And in looking at the Hubble Deep Field again, the incredible richness and dense clustering of objects doesn'tt speak well for 'accelerating expansion', either. Rather, it suggests that more and more deep-past objects are coming into view over the horizon (as the CBB model predicts) than are receding from view (as the standard model predicts). The only sure proof is to track over time the luminosity/ redshift curves of individual objects at the limit of visibility, and see which way they go. The richness of the HDF suggests, but does not prove, the validity of the CBB model. No, simpler still it shows the capability of seeing dimmer objects when you gather enough of its light. |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Glimpse at Early Universe Reveals Surprisingly Mature Galaxies (Forwarded) | Andrew Yee | Astronomy Misc | 0 | July 28th 04 01:45 AM |
Faintest Spectra Ever Raise Glaring Question: Why do Galaxies inthe Young Universe Appear so Mature? (Forwarded) | Andrew Yee | Astronomy Misc | 0 | January 5th 04 07:39 PM |
New Insight into the Cosmic Renaissance Epoch (Forwarded) | Andrew Yee | Astronomy Misc | 0 | August 21st 03 02:10 PM |
Astronomers reveal the first detailed maps of galaxy distributionin the early universe (Forwarded) | Andrew Yee | Astronomy Misc | 0 | July 18th 03 12:23 AM |