Galaxy cluster at z=1.4 challenges BBT

the scienceMax Keon wrote:

How could "temperature change of the universe throughout its evolution
from the zero origin" explain the existence and the blackbody spectrum
of the CMBR?


As the universe evolves, its temperature rises. Looking back into
the past universe from the present (anytime), its combined
temperatures, right from the origin, are on display as background
radiation.

But the evolution of the universe doesn't cause it to have a temperature
in the sense you want it to, since the universe is not in thermal
equilibrium. More specifically, the energy being released in various
processes (stars, accretion) is nowhere near thermalized. You can't
get blackbody radiation from a nonthermal source.

Also, the evidence is that the temperature of the background radiation
has *declined* with time.

Paul

Max Keon wrote:
Bjoern Feuerbacher wrote:

Max Keon wrote:

Bjoern Feuerbacher wrote:

Your link above goes to a page which mainly contains curves and not
many explanations, as far as I can see. Could you please explain here
shortly what the source of the CMBR is in your model,


As I previously indicated, to "explain here shortly" is almost
impossible. But the rest of my reply may help.


We'll see.


and why it has a blackbody spectrum?


It's based on temperature change of the universe throughout its
evolution from the zero origin. It has the spectrum of the CMBR,
just like your theory does.


How could "temperature change of the universe throughout its evolution
from the zero origin" explain the existence and the blackbody spectrum
of the CMBR?

You haven't explained that below.



As the universe evolves, its temperature rises.

How could it? Where should the energy come from?


Looking back into
the past universe from the present (anytime), its combined
temperatures, right from the origin, are on display as background
radiation.

What is "the temperature of the universe"? What exactly is the
source there?


There are no discrete stages of evolution of course. The
changing curve from the entire past, and the uniform temperature
curve generated in the present must all add up to equal 2.73K.

So you say that different blackbody curves added up give again
a blackbody curve?


But the average temperature of the current universe alone must be
higher than when the rest of the background is added to it.

A point which I have never properly explained, anywhere, is how I
arrived at the equally spaced stages in the evolution of the
universe for my graph plots. Firstly, the universe is not expanding.
The noted redshift is due to a reduced speed of light in a lesser
evolved universe.

Does this explain why redshift is *proportional* to distance?


Assuming that the current temperature of the
universe is 3.4K,

Why should one assume that?


the temperature at the halfway mark toward the
origin is 1.7K, where the speed of light will be halved, relative
to now.

Why should the speed of light be proportional to the temperature
of the universe?



For a four input stage graph plot that aligns with the CMBR, the
blackbody curves are, .85, 1.7, 2.55 and 3.4 K. But I don't know
what the true uniform temperature of the current universe is, and
that determines what other temperature graphs should be included
from the past. The curve is always much the same though.

Shouldn't one *integrate* over blackbody curves of different
temperature?


[snip]


Its temperature is increasing at a logarithmic rate, hence the
^1.12 adjustment

How do you get from a logarithmic temperature increase to a factor ^1.12?


And I've read it so many times!

Huh? How is that supposed to answer my question?



to each (equally spaced relative to a fixed time
zone) curve generated from the Planck equation,
#=((8*pi*h*f^3)/(c^2*(EXP((h*f)/(k*t))-1))) ^1.12


In order to apply the Planck equation, you need something material
which is in thermal equilibrium. What is this in your model? In the
standard BB scenario, it was the plasma which filled the early universe.


Thermal equilibrium is achieved over time. Redshift that extends
to light speed noted in the current universe has always been as it
is, right from the origin. At any stage of evolution, that picture
was the same. It's not possible for one clean spectral line to
emerge from that completely blended spectrum.

You did not answer my question: *what* is at thermal equilibrium
in your model? What exactly is the *source* of the CMBR?


I notice that you snipped this link:
http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/stdystat.htm#Tvsz
and entirely ignored my demand that you address this evidence.


[snip]



Dark matter can certainly be explained, if it's required.

That has nothing to do with my argument above. Try again, please.


That argument has nothing to do with a zero origin universe either.

It is an argument about observational evidence for the BBT. So if you
claim that you can explain all the evidence which the BBT can explain,
you need to address this. Why don't you bother?


Why should I explain observational evidence for predictions of
the BBT when it has nothing whatever to do with the zero origin
universe?

I did not say that you should explain observational evidence
"for predictions of the BBT". I said essentially that you should
explain observational evidence which is simply there, and which the
BBT *can* explain. Don't you understand the difference?

My original argument was: if the CMBR is assumed to have a
cosmological origin, the parameters we derive from it (Hubble
parameter, density of dark energy etc.) are nicely
consistent with determinations using other methods.

You *still* have not explained how that could be possible if the
CMBR has *not* the origin the BBT proposes.



Anyway, most of the evidence that supports the BBT is
from distant sources. In this unbounded universe, if one searches
for long enough, seeking evidence of some effect which is predicted
by a theory, that evidence will probably be found.

But the argument above was not about "evidence of some effect which
is predicted by [the] theory". Don't you understand the argument,
or are you delibarately avoiding it?


But the real
cause for what is observed may be entirely unrelated.

"may". Indeed. You are free to present an alternative explanation.
So far, you haven't.


Compiling much
of this type of evidence forms a solid foundation which is
unjustifiably hard to wedge apart.

There is nothing "unjustifiable" about that.


Since the argument is to do with your rejection of the zero origin
universe, cluttering the post with BBT predictions is pointless,

Again: the above was *not* about BBT predictions. Read the argument
again. Try to understand it this time. And then address it, instead
of trying to weasel out of it again.


so I've snipped what I consider irrelevant.

In other words: you simply snip all evidence for the BBT which you
can't explain, and then claim that your model can explain all the
existent evidence. How convenient.


You can put it all back again if you want.
-----
-----


The all sky picture of the
universe from the zero origin is crystal clear. According to that
picture, matter is slowly clumping together,


That's the same as the BBT says.


increasing the depth of dimension, of space.


That's incomprehensible.


Exactly. That's what I've been trying to tell you all along.

Well, since it was you who coined the phrase "increasing the depth of
dimension, of space", and not actual cosmologists, then why do you
agree with me that this phrase is incomprehensible? If even you
yourself think it is incomprehensible, why did you coin it?



The picture provides a remarkable insight
into how the matter content of the universe is evolving. The picture
at the very origin would have contained one infinitesimally minute
anisotropy


That's very close to what the BBT says.


within a completely black background.


That is contrary to the observations.

I notice you choose to ignore that.



A universe with zero anisotropy would not exist.


Why not?


Because there is nothing there.

"zero anisotropy" does not imply "nothing is there".


When you better understand the zero origin universe you'll know why.

As long as you continue to simply ignore the evidence for the BBT,
I see no reason to try understanding your model.

For example, you apparently now also ignore the Sunyaev-Zel'dovich
effect and the integrated Sachs-Wolfe effect.



If a photon is moving through a
deepening potential well, it will exit the well with an extended
wavelength (I think). But that is clearly impossible.


Well, then why has this been observed?


The fact that a photon wavelength changes according to local
gravitational potential may have been confirmed, but not the
*assumption* that they gain or lose energy in the process.


So you disagree with E=hf? Or with f=c/lambda?

If you don't disagree with both, then you get E=hc/lambda, i.e.
every change in wavelength is equivalent to a change in energy.


This is not a scenario where those equations necessarily apply.

Which one of these two do not apply, and why not?



I'm not convinced that the wavelengths undergo permanent change.

So you think they change only temporarily, and some time later
magically return to their original values, or what?



Consider this; Two adjacent straight lengths of equally spaced
billiard balls, labeled (1) and (2), are set in motion along the
line of their pointing direction.


That has little to do with photons and light.

I notice you choose to ignore that.



Train (1) travels a straight line
through free space while train (2) is set to run the gauntlet of a
deepening gravitational potential well. Along the journey to the
deepest part of the well on (2)'s travels, space-time will be
stretching and will of course extend its train length. But because
the well is still deepening, (2)'s departure from the well will be
further restrained than if the well was constant. However, when (1)
and (2) are returned to the same space-time environment they will
still measure the same length.

I'm not entirely sure what scenario you propose here. Does train (2)
go down the well and then up again, or only down?



Why should they?


Every one of the billiard balls have been equally affected by the
deepening well, so when the train emerges to compare with train (1),
the distance between the balls must still be the same. But there is
one major difference. The speed of train (2) will have slowed.
Momentum is lost and that loss must be accounted for. The energy has
obviously been used up in restraining the increasing well depth.

Sorry, I have no clue what you mean with the last sentence.


If the balls are replaced with photons

Bad idea. Photons do not behave like billiard balls in most circumstances.


which simply follow the
changing geodesic path set up by the deepening well, it would be
a mind boggling challenge to explain why they would shift further
apart

No one says that the photons shift further apart. Every individual
photon loses some energy.


(especially if they don't have wavelength????)

Photons indeed dont have wavelength. Only the corresponding
electromagnetic wave has.


in order to
overcome a potential momentum change that can't possibly exist.

Are you quite sure that the Sachs-Wolfe effect is valid,,,, in any
circumstance?

Yes.



Not wishing to break from the subject, but the concept of photons
as particles has no place in the zero origin universe.

Well, then how do you explain the photo effect and the Compton effect?
(quantitatively!)


There does seem to be a case for point source shafts of E/M
radiation.

"point source shafts"???


The reaction wavelength will of course remain as it was
created (relative to dimension along its travels)

What is "reaction wavelength"?


and so too will
the energy carried over the wavelength. But it can't be described
as a particle in the zero origin universe. Planck opened a Pandora's
Box when he did that, in my opinion.

You did address neither the photo nor the Compton effect. Big surprise.



Bye,
Bjoern

"RW" == Robin Whittle writes:

RW Some people see the BBT as successful and useful - but I don't.
RW [...]

RW I don't see how anyone can take the BBT seriously, in principle or
RW especially in terms of these supposedly very precise quantitative
RW estimates of the Hubble "constant", the "age" of the Universe
RW (13.7 +/- 0.2 = 1.5%), when the BBT proponents have no proper
RW explanations for some phenomena (...) which seem to be crucial to
RW any understanding of stars, galaxies and large-scale structure.

Notably the BB model is a model for the evolution of the Universe. It
is only applicable on scales on which the density is relatively
uniform. That means it is clearly not applicable to galaxies.

RW I have already mentioned the failure to find the Transverse
RW Proximity Effect with a foreground quasar. [...]

I'll confess that I haven't been able to follow closely all of the
discussion on sci.astro.research in recent weeks, nonetheless, I don't
get it. The transverse proximity effect, at least in the one paper I
pulled up quickly (Schirber et al.) is described as being relevant on
scales of roughly 1 Mpc. Given that one needs to look on scales
larger than about 40 Mpc before the Universe approaches a uniform
density, how is the transverse proximity effect relevant?


RW The high redshift seemingly old galaxy clusters is likewise
RW another acid test - unless galaxy formation theory is contorted
RW into ever shorter periods of time.

This issue seems to come up again and again. Many people (Bjoern,
myself, others) have posed the same question: This indicates that
either the BB model or galaxy formation models are incomplete. Why do
you choose the BB model? (Particularly given the relatively crude
level of galaxy formation models?)


RW Here are some other important phenomena / observations I think the
RW BBT proponents have so far failed to satisfactorily explain:

Note that most of the examples you cite on relatively small scales
with respect to those relevant to the BB model. Nonetheless ...

RW The intergalactic medium (IGM) emitting X-rays which can best be
RW explained by extraordinarily high temperatures, such as
RW 440,000,000 Kelvin:
[...]

In fact predicted as a result of structure formation. See papers by
Dave and collaborators and Cen and collaborators.

RW Why galaxy clusters in no way resemble the shape of
RW gravitationally bound collapsing systems, such as galaxies or our
RW solar system.

Because they are still forming?

RW Why the galaxy clusters often are stretched out in space and
RW resemble liquid squeezed into the gaps between generally spherical
RW bubbles. (...)

See my comments about structure formation above.

RW Why galaxies don't so often come close to each other. (...)

Given that there are any number of images of apparently interacting
galaxies and that the Milky Way and the Andromeda Galaxy are falling
together, I submit that this criticism is wrong.


RW The extra mass in spiral galaxies which presumably causes the
RW observed visible stellar rotation curves.

O.k., now we're really getting way below the BB model's region of
applicability. Again, for the record, the BB model is a model for the
evolution of the Universe, not for the formation of everything in it.


[...]
RW How, if as according to the BBT, there used to be lots of quasars
RW etc. why there aren't similarly massive and luminous objects
RW around the place today, such as in the middle of galaxies.

Like the supermassive black hole at the center of the Milky Way?


RW The CMB. While the BBT has an explanation for the CMB, I don't
RW think it is the only possible explanation, as I have written in
RW previous messages in this thread.

Of course the BB model isn't the only explanation for the CMB! One
can probably come up with an infinite number of explanations. The
question is what explanation is the most parsimonious yet consistent
with most of the data?

--
Lt. Lazio, HTML police | e-mail:
No means no, stop rape. | http://patriot.net/%7Ejlazio/
sci.astro FAQ at http://sciastro.astronomy.net/sci.astro.html

In article , "Robin
Whittle" writes:

Some people see the BBT as successful and useful - but I
don't.

What you see doesn't matter; evidence does.

I don't see how anyone can take the BBT seriously, in
principle or especially in terms of these supposedly very
precise quantitative estimates of the Hubble "constant",

Explain the quotes, please.

the
"age"

Explain the quotes, please.

of the Universe (13.7 +/- 0.2 = 1.5%), when the BBT
proponents have no proper explanations for some phenomena
(or at least observations we reasonably conclude reflect
phenomena) which seem to be crucial to any understanding of
stars, galaxies and large-scale structure.

Tell me, precisely, the relationship between, on the one hand, stars,
galaxies and large-scale structure and, on the other hand, the big-bang
theory.

I have already mentioned the failure to find the Transverse
Proximity Effect with a foreground quasar.

I mentioned a paper describing an observation of it. Ignoring evidence
doesn't make you look any better. Here it is again: P. Jakobsen et al.,
A&A, 387, pp. 891--8 (2003). Tell us, exactly, about the mistakes in
this paper.

This is an acid
test of the BBT. If the BBT is true, and unless quasars
are much shorter lived, more intermittent or narrowly
beamed than any other observations indicate,

Tell us about the other observations which indicate a longer lifetime.

The high redshift seemingly old galaxy clusters is likewise
another acid test - unless galaxy formation theory is
contorted into ever shorter periods of time.

Again, you are confusing the big-bang theory per se with
galaxy-formation theory. Maybe you don't understand what "theory"
means. Science isn't a doctrine or a collection of facts, it's a way of
thinking. Crossing the finish line is just a small part of running a
marathon, and some people would say it's not even the most important
part. Science evolves. There are always some things which are not
completely understood. You seem to think that science should offer
perfect explanations for everything with no refinement based on
observation. The interaction between theory and observation is a
crucial part of science, and usually occurs with no harm to the basic
ideas of the underlying theories. Also, you need to present an
alternative which is BETTER.

I don't know of any conventional explanation for such high
temperatures.

The lack of your knowledge is not a reason for other people to give up
the big-bang theory.

(My theory is that it is heated by starlight
etc. due to some redshift and/or scattering process which
is not yet properly recognised.

Theory? Details, please. This sounds like idle speculation.

Why galaxies don't so often come close to each other.

Rubbish. Interactions are common and the evidence observed.

(I figure that galaxies are exuding a corona which
pushes others away. Exactly how the mass of the galaxy is
coupled to this in an aerodynamic fashion, I am not sure,

Again, speculation.

The extra mass in spiral galaxies which presumably causes
the observed visible stellar rotation curves.

Interesting, to be sure, but this has nothing to do with the big-bang
theory per se.

Why they vary so fast when according to the BBT they are
impossibly large,

Reference, please, for "impossibly large".

How, if as according to the BBT, there used to be lots
of quasars etc. why there aren't similarly massive
and luminous objects around the place today, such as
in the middle of galaxies.

According to biology, there used to be lots of dinosaurs etc. Why
aren't there similarly massive animals around the place today?

Robin Whittle wrote:
Some people see the BBT as successful and useful - but I
don't. I see it as a huge ship doomed from the start -
but with passengers and crew so transfixed by the size
of the vessel, its long history and the good company they
are in to recognise how the theory fails to explain things
which really must be understood, if the theory is to be
regarded as being as reliable as the proponents seem to
think it is.

I don't see how anyone can take the BBT seriously, in
principle or especially in terms of these supposedly very
precise quantitative estimates of the Hubble "constant", the
"age" of the Universe (13.7 +/- 0.2 = 1.5%), when the BBT
proponents have no proper explanations for some phenomena
(or at least observations we reasonably conclude reflect
phenomena) which seem to be crucial to any understanding of
stars, galaxies and large-scale structure.

I have already mentioned the failure to find the Transverse
Proximity Effect with a foreground quasar. This is an acid
test of the BBT. If the BBT is true, and unless quasars
are much shorter lived, more intermittent or narrowly
beamed than any other observations indicate, then the
effect would be observed. The researchers fully expected
to find it, and they didn't. If they had, I would have
been highly inclined to abandon my critique of the BBT,
if this particular prediction was observed. This is a
quantitative prediction - about where exactly in a
spectrum some absorption will not occur. There's no room
in the BBT for the absorption to be found or not found at
any other part of the spectrum of the background quasar.

Finding this lack of absorption, in a number of objects,
would be so impressive.

If I remember correctly, someone did point to a paper
that reported seeing this lack of absorption. However,
what is more important here is to keep in mind that the
presence of the absorption can be seen as a problem for
any model that predicts that the redshift is a distance
estimator, and therefore it is also a problem for any
"tired light cosmology".

The high redshift seemingly old galaxy clusters is likewise
another acid test - unless galaxy formation theory is
contorted into ever shorter periods of time.

Since our current understanding of galaxy formation
is still very primitive, it would not surprise me if
we find in the future that there is a mechanism that
forms galaxies faster than we currently think is possible.

Here are some other important phenomena / observations I
think the BBT proponents have so far failed to
satisfactorily explain:

The intergalactic medium (IGM) emitting X-rays which can
best be explained by extraordinarily high temperatures,
such as 440,000,000 Kelvin:

Field, G. B.; Perrenod, S. C. 1977
Constraints on a dense hot intergalactic medium.
ApJ vol. 215, Aug. 1, 1977, p. 717-722.

http://adsabs.harvard.edu/cgi-bin/np...pJ...215..717F

Marshall, F. E. et al. 1980
The diffuse X-ray background spectrum from 3 to 50 keV.
ApJ vol. 235, Jan. 1, 1980, p. 4-10.

http://adsabs.harvard.edu/cgi-bin/np...pJ...235....4M

I don't know of any conventional explanation for such high
temperatures. (My theory is that it is heated by starlight
etc. due to some redshift and/or scattering process which
is not yet properly recognised. It can't easily radiate
the energy, except by getting to such high temperatures,
because it is so sparse that the particles rarely get close
enough to emit bremsstrahlung.) Stars surfaces are only
a fraction of this temperature. We can't even explain
1 Mega Kelvin temperatures in our own Sun's corona - and
the most popular conventional explanations of that are
based on magnetic waves, which clearly can't work out
into the IGM, if only because it is such a lousy conductor
due to it being so thin.

Your information is seriously outdated. For the
last ten years it has been understood that most of
the X-ray background comes from obscured active
galaxies/quasars, and not from a diffuse intergalactic
gas.

Why galaxy clusters in no way resemble the shape of
gravitationally bound collapsing systems, such as
galaxies or our solar system.

The universe is only 14 billion years old, so
the clusters have not had time to virialise,
settle down into the shape that you expect for
an old system.

Why the galaxy clusters often are stretched out in space
and resemble liquid squeezed into the gaps between
generally spherical bubbles. (I suggest that the void IGM
is so hot that it is of sufficient pressure, which is
probably very low, to corral the galaxies into the
smallish clusters.)

Due to the way the matter was distributed from the
beginning, the collapse may have proceeded faster in
one direction than in the other directions. That will
inevitably lead to that it will collapse into a
pancake shape.

Why galaxies don't so often come close to each other.
(I figure that galaxies are exuding a corona which
pushes others away. Exactly how the mass of the galaxy is
coupled to this in an aerodynamic fashion, I am not sure,
but a rough guess is that most of the mass is in
black-dwarfs and their potentially numerous and relatively
small collision fragments, which would have a fair bit of
drag. I am not sure how anything could push a star around
to a significant degree, by gas pressure in the
surrounding medium, but maybe not much pushing is required.
Maybe none is required if the visible stars are
gravitationally bound to the larger mass of black-dwarf
fragments which are themselves coupled to the corona of
the galaxy.)

As a matter of fact galaxies come close to each other.
We have observed plenty of interacting and even
colliding galaxies by now. Actually we now think
that the mergers of galaxies played an important role
in the early evolution of the galaxies.

The extra mass in spiral galaxies which presumably causes
the observed visible stellar rotation curves.

Yes, this is an interesting topic, and it has been
discussed in other threads on this newsgroup recently.

The heating and acceleration of stellar coronae and
winds. http://astroneu.com/plasma-redshift-1/#Cranmer

Likewise the nature of solar spicules, the heating and
acceleration of prominences etc.

These are very interesting problems in my opinion,
and many good researchers are working on them, but
they do not have any impact on cosmology.

A whole bunch of things about quasars and AGN:

Why they vary so fast when according to the BBT they are
impossibly large, due to their supposedly high output,
based solely on their distance being according to the
BBT interpretation of redshift.

No, quasars are not impossibly large, though they
are very bright. As a matter of fact the black hole
which is driving the activity in the interior of the
quasar has a radius of around a billion kilometers,
and would fit inside our solar system

The nature of jets.

Another interesting problem, which is completely
unrelated to the big bang theory.

How, if as according to the BBT, there used to be lots
of quasars etc. why there aren't similarly massive
and luminous objects around the place today, such as
in the middle of galaxies.

The centres of most galaxies seem to harbour
massive black holes, but today they are usually
quiescent. Supposedly because there is not enough
gas around them to fuel the activity. My best guess
would be that the remaining gas has been used up
in forming the stars of the galaxies.

The CMB. While the BBT has an explanation for the CMB, I
don't think it is the only possible explanation, as I have
written in previous messages in this thread.

There may be other mechanisms, but they have a very
serious problem in forming a spectrum which is
sufficiently close to the theoretical black body
spectrum.


I know its a big task to develop cosmological theories.
The BBT is fine as a theory, but I see so many problems
with it that I can't take it seriously.

Other folk don't seem to see or care about the problems
I think are significant - but to me, the BBT really looks
like a great overblown and entirely wrong theory which
will soon be discredited. The key, I think, is coming
up with a good in-principle - and yes Bjoern, Quantitative -
theory of the redshift we observe in stars, galaxies and
AGN.

Well, other people know that the problems you
mention do not exist or are not related to the
big bang.

I am on the case, but I think the first task is to
overcome the problems caused by thinking of
electromagnetic radiation and the quanta of energy which
result from it as involving independent "photons".

Good luck, but such a theory will immediately
be in conflict with established experiments like
the photoelectric effect and Compton scattering.
If you cannot resolve these conflicts nobody will
pay any attention to your theory.

[snipping a short discussion on cosmological
supernovae]

Ulf Torkelsson

I'm expanding on this part of my recent post, if I may.

The all sky picture of the
universe from the zero origin is crystal clear. According to that
picture, matter is slowly clumping together,

That's the same as the BBT says.

increasing the depth of dimension, of space.

Bjoern Feuerbacher wrote:
That's incomprehensible.

I replied:
Exactly. That's what I've been trying to tell you all along.
--------

I hope you're ready for this.
First of all, Pound an Rebka demonstrated, only, that the frequency
of the characteristic rays emitted from a radioactive iron sample
at the bottom of the tower was slower than when it was shifted to
the top of the tower. If both (top and bottom) measurements were
taken at the top, or at the bottom, of the tower the discrepancy
between them should still be exactly the same. The apparent redshift
caused by the climb from the bottom of the tower was then already
there when it began the climb.

If that has already been noted, or perhaps has gone un-noticed, it
confirms or can confirm the existence of the zero origin universe.
But the Mossbauer effect, which I know very little about, is
probably not capable of performing the required task.

The Pound and Rebka experiment was always my key evidence that the
depth of dimension varies according to local matter content. But
every attempt at describing this variable dimension, that nobody
can comprehend, naturally always ends up in a comprehension
nightmare. I've never succeeded in satisfactorily explaining this,
even to myself. The comprehension nightmare doesn't end here either.

I was hoping to use a failed Sachs-Wolfe effect as a springboard
to help with this latest, very brief, explanation.

Each characteristic wavelength emitted from its parent material
in a gravity well was created from some kind of charged particle
interaction. The interaction rate, and consequent wavelength
creation process, is slowed because the interactive components have
been stretched further apart. And there's no limit to how far the
stretch can go. That added depth of dimension does not exist to
an observer outside the well because it's created by an increased
speed of light, which takes it beyond the realm of the outsider's
existence rate. Neither the added dimension nor the increase in
the speed of light will be noted.

Matter collects together in a gravity well and thus becomes further
apart. How am I supposed to explain that?

In my web page description of the zero origin universe, I've
sidestepped this and other such questions to some degree, hence my
tendency to waffle on in those areas. I had no other choice at the
time, and probably still don't.

-----

Max Keon

Robin Whittle wrote:

[snip most - other people have addressed that already well]


Once there is a good redshift theory - especially one we can
test in space or on Earth - then the only remaining task
to deal with is the BBT supporter's interpretation of
supernovae light curves, which are conventionally
understood to show time dilation. Jerry Jensen's critique
looks like a good starting point:

http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0404207

You really think that is a good starting point?

Jerry Jensen
1) uses scatter plots for which he himself admits that the fit
to the line he uses isn't very good, and just looking at the graphs
shows nicely how bad it actually is.
2) claims that a Malmquist type II bias could account for the data.
But articles examining time dilation of SN light curves already
discuss such a bias and come to the conclusion that it can't explain
the data. See e.g. section 5.3 of astro-ph/0309368.
3) claims that SNIc could be mistaken for SNIa. But that possibility
is also taken into account by the SN researchers (see e.g. section 5.2
of astro-ph/0309368). And Mr. Jensen does not explain where all the
SNIa are if all or most of the observed SNs are really SNIc.
4) His note 1 (page 28) shows that he misunderstood both the results
of the SN study of Riess (2004) and the implications for the theory.
He claims that according to Riess et al, the universe has stopped
expanding some time ago (at the highest redshifts) and started to
contract. In fact, what Riess et al. found was that the universe was
always expanding, but in the beginning that expansion was decelerating
and only some billion years ago it began to accelerate. And that's
*exactly* what the Lambda CDM model predicts!

I did not bother to look at all of Jensen's article; but the four
points above are already enough to relegate it to the dustbin.

[snip]

Bye,
Bjoern

Max Keon wrote:
I'm expanding on this part of my recent post, if I may.

I would prefer if you finally started to address all the evidence
and the arguments you keep ignoring.



The all sky picture of the
universe from the zero origin is crystal clear. According to that
picture, matter is slowly clumping together,


That's the same as the BBT says.


increasing the depth of dimension, of space.


Bjoern Feuerbacher wrote:

That's incomprehensible.


I replied:
Exactly. That's what I've been trying to tell you all along.
--------

I hope you're ready for this.
First of all, Pound an Rebka demonstrated, only, that the frequency
of the characteristic rays emitted from a radioactive iron sample
at the bottom of the tower was slower than when it was shifted to
the top of the tower. If both (top and bottom) measurements were
taken at the top, or at the bottom, of the tower the discrepancy
between them should still be exactly the same.

Err, how on earth do you arrive at that conclusion???


The apparent redshift
caused by the climb from the bottom of the tower was then already
there when it began the climb.

Incomprehensible.



If that has already been noted, or perhaps has gone un-noticed, it
confirms or can confirm the existence of the zero origin universe.
But the Mossbauer effect, which I know very little about, is
probably not capable of performing the required task.

Hint: knowing little about something can be cured by learning.


The Pound and Rebka experiment was always my key evidence that the
depth of dimension varies according to local matter content.

What on earth does "depth of dimension" mean?


But every attempt at describing this variable dimension

What do you mean with "variable dimension"?


that nobody
can comprehend, naturally always ends up in a comprehension
nightmare. I've never succeeded in satisfactorily explaining this,
even to myself.

So you made up something which even you yourself can't understand?


The comprehension nightmare doesn't end here either.

I was hoping to use a failed Sachs-Wolfe effect as a springboard
to help with this latest, very brief, explanation.

When and where did the the Sachs-Wolfe effect fail?


Each characteristic wavelength emitted from its parent material
in a gravity well was created from some kind of charged particle
interaction. The interaction rate, and consequent wavelength
creation process, is slowed because the interactive components have
been stretched further apart.

You don't know much about emission of radiation by atoms, right?


And there's no limit to how far the
stretch can go. That added depth of dimension

What does that mean?


does not exist to
an observer outside the well because it's created by an increased
speed of light,

Please present evidence that the speed of light increases in a
"gravity well". Actual observational evidence seems to say otherwise
(ever heard of Shapiro?).


which takes it beyond the realm of the outsider's
existence rate.

And what on earth is *that* supposed to mean?


Neither the added dimension nor the increase in
the speed of light will be noted.

How convenient: a prediction of your model which can't be tested
in any way.



Matter collects together in a gravity well and thus becomes further
apart.

Pardon? Collecting together means becoming further apart to you?


How am I supposed to explain that?

In my web page description of the zero origin universe, I've
sidestepped this and other such questions to some degree, hence my
tendency to waffle on in those areas. I had no other choice at the
time, and probably still don't.

So far, you waffle in *every single area* I want you to address.



Bye,
Bjoern

From: (Steve Willner)
Subject: Galaxy cluster at z=1.4 challenges BBT
Path: cfa183!willner
Newsgroups: sci.astro.research
Distribution:
Followup-To:
References:
Organization: Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics
Keywords:

In article ,
" writes:
Bjoern, what do you think of the failure to find evidence for
the transverse proximity effect with a foreground quasar?

http://astroneu.com/plasma-redshift-1/#TPE

The conventional view is that the quasars must be turning on
and off, or have very short lifetimes.

This is the conventional view for good reason. QSO's _must_ have
short lifetimes. The implied accretion rates of luminous QSO's are
tens to hundreds of solar masses per year, yet the masses of black
holes at the centers of local galaxies are only of order 1E9 solar
masses. Thus accretion at typical rates must last less than 1E8
years. Whether all the accretion occurs in a single burst or whether
there are intermittent, short bursts isn't known for sure, but one
would expect the latter. Accretion events are very likely triggered
by galaxy interactions, which would generally be intermittent.

The "beaming" and "obscuring torus" explanations may also work in
some cases. We know QSO's are often beamed, and magnitude-limited
samples will tend to select objects where the beaming is towards us.
Seyfert galaxies often show obscuring toruses, and again magnitude-
limited samples will select objects where we are looking
preferentially pole-on. However, higher luminosity objects probably
don't often have strong obscuration, so I would expect toruses to be
significant only at relatively low luminosities.

--
Steve Willner Phone 617-495-7123
Cambridge, MA 02138 USA
(Please email your reply if you want to be sure I see it; include a
valid Reply-To address to receive an acknowledgement. Commercial
email may be sent to your ISP.)

"Ulf Torkelsson" wrote in message
...
Robin Whittle wrote:
Why galaxy clusters in no way resemble the shape of
gravitationally bound collapsing systems, such as
galaxies or our solar system.

Ulf Torkelsson wrote:
The universe is only 14 billion years old, so
the clusters have not had time to virialise,
settle down into the shape that you expect for
an old system.

What would a large galaxy cluster look like after it has virialized? A huge
"elliptical" made up of galaxies? Or would the individual galaxies merge
before virialization could occur? On larger scales, a filament made up of
thousands of galaxies could presumably be considered a 1-dimensional
structure - would that collapse, and what would it look like afterwords?

Just curious...