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

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

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.

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.

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.

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

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

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

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.

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.