Galaxy cluster at z=1.4 challenges BBT

SW QSO's _must_ have short lifetimes. The implied accretion
SW rates...

In article ,
"Robin Whittle" writes:
This would be true if it is assumed that the QSOs are at
the distances predicted by the BBT

You are changing the subject. The original proposition in this
thread was that absence of a transverse proximity effect was evidence
against the standard Big Bang theory with cosmological redshifts.
That simply isn't so, at least until enough QSO pairs are observed
for a proper statistical test.

If you want to consider non-cosmological redshifts, that's fine, but
it has nothing to do with the original topic. Craig and others have
pointed out some of the problems alternate redshift mechanisms will
have to overcome.

assumption within that theory that the types of QSOs we see
at high redshift must still be around in some form in nearby
galaxies we see today at low redshift.

There is quite good evidence that local galaxies (specifically their
bulges) contain quiescent black holes. In fact, the black hole mass
correlates very well with the stellar mass of the bulge. Perhaps you
have missed some of the recent work?

I can't see how a black hole could be engulfing vast amounts
of material in the past and then settle down to a much
quieter life in the middle of a huge galaxy for billions of
years.

Actually the problem is the opposite: how to get material to fall
onto the black hole. As in the solar system, if surrounding material
has non-zero angular momentum, it will orbit the black hole rather
than fall in. The standard view is that galaxy collisions can dump
material onto the black hole. While details are far from being
worked out, the same collisions are believed to lead to formation of
bulges, so a correlation between black hole mass and bulge mass is a
reasonable consequence of the theory. Also, collisions were more
common in the past, so the observed decrease in AGN numbers and
luminosity is expected.

If you have a better theory, of course you are welcome to present it.
However, no one will take you seriously unless you can work out the
consequences and show that the theory agrees with, or at least is not
in conflict with, observations. Also, theories involving "new
physics" (or "tooth fairies") are unlikely to be taken seriously
unless they explain something standard theories cannot.

--
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.)

Max Keon wrote:
Bjoern Feuerbacher wrote:

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.

Apparently you don't bother.


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,

I don't even understand what this is supposed to mean!


of the tower the discrepancy
between them should still be exactly the same.


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


So far, you haven't told me how you arrived at "your conclusion".
A firm **belief** in someone else's work doesn't guarantee anything.

Which conclusion???



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

Incomprehensible.


Your reply is even more so.

The word "Incomprehensible" is more incomprehensible than what you
wrote above?


I don't perceive you as being dopey.

Nice.



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.


That leaves the door wide open doesn't it! Where should I do my
learning?

Textbooks.


You've learnt the doctrine of physics.

Don't confuse science with religion.


I can't elaborate
too much on that though, with one hand tied behind my back.

Huh?


But "learning" can be be done in so many places, and in each place of
learning, the key to truth has been found.

Don't obfuscate.


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?


That's something you will never understand while you persist with
your theory. The universe I'm trying to explain will remain far
beyond your comprehension until you erase that theory from your
mind.

Why? Since when does one need to completely forget one theory in
order to understand another?



But every attempt at describing this variable dimension

What do you mean with "variable dimension"?

I see you don't bother to explain.



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?

Yes, even after thirty years. It's no kindergarten universe, that's
for sure.

If you can't even comprehend it yourself, how were you able to make
it up? And why did you make up something you yourself don'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?

It never succeeded

"never succeed" and "fail" are two quite different statements.


because the Pound and Rebka evidence was wrongly
interpreted. You can of course demonstrate why I'm wrong?

I can't as long as you don't explain in clear words what your
alternative explanation is.



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?


Depends on your place of learning.

What was yours?



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

What does that mean?


Until you understand how the zero origin universe works, you'll
never know.

Well, then why don't you try to explain?



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?).


The speed of light has increased, but dimension (distance between
any point) has also increased in exact proportion.

Care to support that assertion?


[snip]


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

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

I notice you haven't explaind what "outsider's existence rate" means
below.


The "outsider" cannot perceive the added depth of dimension using
a lesser speed of light as a measuring stick. **In the realm of
time/light**,

What does that mean?


the one second passage of time in the outsider's realm
will be one second plus in the deeper dimension.

And that?


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.

I notice that doesn't bother you.



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

Pardon? Collecting together means becoming further apart to you?


As I said, how am I supposed to explain that?

If you can't explain it, then why on Earth do you think it makes
sense?



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.


It will all seem so to you for a while.

Stop obfuscating. Address the evidence.


Bye,
Bjoern

Ulf Torkelsson wrote:

Max Keon wrote:
The original disruption to the "state" of non existence which
started the ball rolling was the only heat source in the brand
new universe, and was therefore thermalized. That single blackbody
encompasses the entire sky, forever. I imagine you are aware of
why this is so? If not, at least keep in mind that the universe has
no compulsion to help man understand it, so what I have to say need
not be beyond the bounds of reason.

This does not make much sense at all. Actually without any
other information it is not even possible to tell whether you
are describing the big bang or something else. If you want us
to take you seriously you should at least express your ideas
clearly. My experience tells me that if someone, me included,
cannot express his ideas clearly they are not worth paying
attention to.

I was describing the very origin of a universe which came into being
"when" some infinitesimally minute, and totally inexplicable event
disturbed the absolute balance of nothingness. Something had emerged
into existence, and relativity was born.

Beyond the initial disruption, the consequent disruptions were then
relative to each other. Every part of the early universe would
still be in a reasonable state of thermal equilibrium, but vague
anisotropies would begin to form in the all sky picture.

If you had been working a bit on the language to get some
rythm in it this could have been a poem about the big bang.

I accept your criticism that I haven't expressed my ideas clearly,
but sometimes my ideas aren't even clear to me. Understanding the
zero origin universe is a comprehension nightmare.

That process continues to evolve, right up to the present and beyond.
Even though the current universe is nowhere near thermalized, if a
one billion light year chunk of the universe was analyzed, it should
still contain the correct balance of components to build a blackbody
curve.

No, it would not. To get a black body curve you need to
have an optically thick medium as the source of the radiation.
Saying that a one billion light year chunk of the universe is
radiating black body radiation is thus equivalent to saying
that it is opaque, but we see galaxies and quasars that are
much farther away than that.

What I hadn't made at all clear was that if all heat sources within
the entire volume of the one billion light year (entire radial sweep
around a point) chunk of the universe were combined and then spread
uniformly across the volume, that part of the universe would be in
thermal equilibrium. It would certainly contain the necessary
components to build a blackbody curve, if it was enclosed.

If the test radius is increased to 13.7E+9 light years, wouldn't
it then be enclosed? After all, it reaches back to the big bang in
all directions. Even if matter is left randomly scattered across the
universe, wouldn't it be part of a gigantic enclosure? The rather
huge range of wavelength emerging from a radiator suggests that
there are enormous temperature fluctuations coursing throughout
the enclosure, so why not throughout the universe as well? Why did
the background stop radiating (in this case)?

In the zero origin universe, it has taken 13.7E+9 light years just
to double all wavelengths? The past goes to infinity when redshift
has reached light speed. It should be obvious that distance measured
in the big bang universe is **far** shorter than the equivalent
distance measured in the zero origin universe. So, if the BBT is
correct, galaxy rotation curves are going to be totally wrong in
the zero origin universe, or vice versa.

In each graph set stored at
http://www.ozemail.com.au/~mkeon/graphs.html a series of blackbody
curves are plotted for equally spaced temperature stages between
the present and the origin. These are all combined together prior
to including a redshift component. If the highest temperature
graph plot of each series was assumed to be plotting the blackbody
curve for, e.g. 13.7E+9 light years ago, instead of the present,
the equally spaced temperature plots between there and the origin
will still apply exactly as they are. The resultant curve would
remain unaltered. The local universe can then be completely removed
from the picture. Now take the highest temperature graph plot back
to the early universe, where the radiator enclosure was more
localized. Exactly the same curve will be generated.

But there is a problem with the way I applied the redshift component.
It points directly to the zero origin along a linear scale, which
serves the purpose, but it's still not correct. Space is stretching
as the universe evolves. The distorted rubber sheet analogy which
is commonly used to demonstrate warping in space-time, demonstrates
how we view the origin, or the direction to it at least. In this
case however, the sheet is stretched to the extreme. Look in any
direction and you look toward the entire universe at the origin.
The background universe will always be closed, and will therefore
always radiate a blackbody spectrum.

When I first set out to create the original graphs, the whole idea
was to make them understandable. The present was never intended to
be part of the current background, but it needed to be included
because painting the true picture at the time would have been
impossible for anyone to comprehend, including myself.

When the universe has sufficiently evolved, the present
universe will probably form part of the background as well.

Are you suggesting that the density of the universe
is increasing over time, or is it just that you do not
understand when blackbody radiation arises?

The matter content of the universe is constantly increasing
(evolving), dragged into existence by much the same process that
started it all off in the first place. But the process is now
accelerating, triggered by already existing matter. However, space
is becoming increasingly available through that process. Elaborating
on that briefly is impossible, but that's how it works in the zero
origin universe.

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


The background appears to be getting colder only because the
foreground is getting hotter.

Since the temperature is changing over a time scale much
longer than the one we have been observing over I do not
know what to make of this, but let me point out in detail
how we can measure the temperature of the microwave
background at different redshifts. The temperature of
the background radiation was measured already in 1941 by
Adams. He was studying absorption lines of the interstellar
CN in the spectra of stars. He then found that there were
not only absorption lines due to that molecules in the ground
state of CN absorbed light from the star, but also some
molecules that had been excited to a higher rotational state
absorbed light. There was a local radiation field with a
temperature of a couple of kelvin that excited the molecules,
and it was realised thirty years later that this radiation
field was the microwave background. In order to avoid any
misunderstandings, the radiation from the star was too
diluted to have this effect.

We can now in principle re-do this by studying similar
absorption lines in distant galaxies, and it has been
done by R. Srianand, P. Petitjean & C Ledoux, 2000,
"The cosmic microwave background radiation temperature
at a redshift of 2.34", Nat, 408, 931, and they find that
in a cloud of gas at this redshift the hydrogen molecules
are excited as if they are exposed to a radiation field
of a temperature between 6 and 14 K.

Thus we find that the microwave background was hotter
in the past than it is now, and this is only based on
studying molecules at different redshifts and applying
the Maxwell-Boltzmann distribution on their excitation
levels. There is no comparison with a foreground
temperature involved in this, and quite frankly I have
no idea what you mean by the foreground getting hotter
in these circumstances.

I'm amazed that such an effect can be detected.
You folk are worth your weight in gold.

The following paragraph was once the closing comment to a rather
flawed interpretation of the CMBR. The interpretation may have been
flawed, but the comment is exactly according to the zero origin
universe.

-The background radiation is predicted in a zero origin universe.
-It will always be present but will be shifted further into the
-colder background as the system develops at an ever increasing rate.

At the time when the background temperature was between 6 and 14 K,
at that stage in the evolution of the universe the foreground was
closer to the origin than it is now. Although the foreground is
getting hotter, "hotter" is not the term I should have used. The
universe has further evolved and the present is now further removed
from the origin. Eventually, the CMBR will be so cold that it will
be barely detectable.

I can elaborate further on that of course.

-----

I don't wish to clutter the newsgroup with almost duplicate
postings, so I'll assume that I've replied to Paul Dietz here
as well, if that's OK.

------

Max Keon

Max Keon wrote:
Ulf Torkelsson wrote:

Max Keon wrote:

The original disruption to the "state" of non existence which
started the ball rolling was the only heat source in the brand
new universe, and was therefore thermalized. That single blackbody
encompasses the entire sky, forever. I imagine you are aware of
why this is so? If not, at least keep in mind that the universe has
no compulsion to help man understand it, so what I have to say need
not be beyond the bounds of reason.


This does not make much sense at all. Actually without any
other information it is not even possible to tell whether you
are describing the big bang or something else. If you want us
to take you seriously you should at least express your ideas
clearly. My experience tells me that if someone, me included,
cannot express his ideas clearly they are not worth paying
attention to.


I was describing the very origin of a universe which came into being
"when" some infinitesimally minute, and totally inexplicable event
disturbed the absolute balance of nothingness. Something had emerged
into existence, and relativity was born.

I have seen the start of the big bang universe being described
in almost exactly these words, so it is impossible to say whether
you are at all challenging the big bang theory or are just
presenting a very confused version of the big bang theory.


Beyond the initial disruption, the consequent disruptions were then
relative to each other. Every part of the early universe would
still be in a reasonable state of thermal equilibrium, but vague
anisotropies would begin to form in the all sky picture.


If you had been working a bit on the language to get some
rythm in it this could have been a poem about the big bang.


I accept your criticism that I haven't expressed my ideas clearly,
but sometimes my ideas aren't even clear to me. Understanding the
zero origin universe is a comprehension nightmare.

Why should we take anything seriously that you yourself
cannot express, and perhaps do not even understand?


That process continues to evolve, right up to the present and beyond.
Even though the current universe is nowhere near thermalized, if a
one billion light year chunk of the universe was analyzed, it should
still contain the correct balance of components to build a blackbody
curve.


No, it would not. To get a black body curve you need to
have an optically thick medium as the source of the radiation.
Saying that a one billion light year chunk of the universe is
radiating black body radiation is thus equivalent to saying
that it is opaque, but we see galaxies and quasars that are
much farther away than that.


What I hadn't made at all clear was that if all heat sources within
the entire volume of the one billion light year (entire radial sweep
around a point) chunk of the universe were combined and then spread
uniformly across the volume, that part of the universe would be in
thermal equilibrium. It would certainly contain the necessary
components to build a blackbody curve, if it was enclosed.

Firstly, it is not enclosed since the universe is expanding,
and secondly you will only get a black body spectrum, if all
the radiators are perfect black bodies of the same temperature.
Then you need to fine tune the number of radiators in this
volume to produce the right intensity to make it black body
radiation. That is a lot of fine tuning, in order to explain
the microwave background as a local effect. All observational
material suggests that the heat sources within one billion
light years contribute much less energy than the microwave
background, and it is not in the right spectral range.

If the test radius is increased to 13.7E+9 light years, wouldn't
it then be enclosed? After all, it reaches back to the big bang in
all directions. Even if matter is left randomly scattered across the
universe, wouldn't it be part of a gigantic enclosure? The rather
huge range of wavelength emerging from a radiator suggests that
there are enormous temperature fluctuations coursing throughout
the enclosure, so why not throughout the universe as well? Why did
the background stop radiating (in this case)?

The universe is not an enclosure in this sense. 13.7 billion
light years is just the boundary of the observable universe, in
some sense, but light from the sources in the observable
universe can propagate across this boundary in due time. Because
of the expansion of the universe, the universe is not in
thermodynamic equilibrium. In the big bang model the microwave
background was formed at the time when the universe became
transparent, because the electrons, that had previously been
scattering the photons, combined with the atomic nuclei to
form atoms. Since then the temperature of the microwave
background has dropped simply because the universe is
expanding. This gives a simple and natural way to explain
the microwave background without any fine tuning.


In the zero origin universe, it has taken 13.7E+9 light years just
to double all wavelengths?

Why the question mark? Do you not know yourself what is
happening in your model?

The past goes to infinity when redshift
has reached light speed. It should be obvious that distance measured
in the big bang universe is **far** shorter than the equivalent
distance measured in the zero origin universe. So, if the BBT is
correct, galaxy rotation curves are going to be totally wrong in
the zero origin universe, or vice versa.

It may be that cosmological distances are far shorter in
the big bang model than in your model, though that is not
clear from the information you have been providing so far,
however this does not have any bearing on the galaxy rotation
curves, where distances are measured based on standard
Euclidean geometry.

In each graph set stored at
http://www.ozemail.com.au/~mkeon/graphs.html a series of blackbody
curves are plotted for equally spaced temperature stages between
the present and the origin. These are all combined together prior
to including a redshift component. If the highest temperature
graph plot of each series was assumed to be plotting the blackbody
curve for, e.g. 13.7E+9 light years ago, instead of the present,
the equally spaced temperature plots between there and the origin
will still apply exactly as they are. The resultant curve would
remain unaltered. The local universe can then be completely removed
from the picture. Now take the highest temperature graph plot back
to the early universe, where the radiator enclosure was more
localized. Exactly the same curve will be generated.

I am repeating myself now, but if you combine black body
curves of different temperatures you will not get a black
body curve, and any redshift you apply on it will not change
that.

But there is a problem with the way I applied the redshift component.
It points directly to the zero origin along a linear scale, which
serves the purpose, but it's still not correct. Space is stretching
as the universe evolves. The distorted rubber sheet analogy which
is commonly used to demonstrate warping in space-time, demonstrates
how we view the origin, or the direction to it at least. In this
case however, the sheet is stretched to the extreme. Look in any
direction and you look toward the entire universe at the origin.
The background universe will always be closed, and will therefore
always radiate a blackbody spectrum.

When I first set out to create the original graphs, the whole idea
was to make them understandable. The present was never intended to
be part of the current background, but it needed to be included
because painting the true picture at the time would have been
impossible for anyone to comprehend, including myself.


When the universe has sufficiently evolved, the present
universe will probably form part of the background as well.


Are you suggesting that the density of the universe
is increasing over time, or is it just that you do not
understand when blackbody radiation arises?


The matter content of the universe is constantly increasing
(evolving), dragged into existence by much the same process that
started it all off in the first place. But the process is now
accelerating, triggered by already existing matter. However, space
is becoming increasingly available through that process. Elaborating
on that briefly is impossible, but that's how it works in the zero
origin universe.

Now, you are describing something that sounds like the
steady state cosmology that was developed by Fred Hoyle
and his collaborators.

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


The background appears to be getting colder only because the
foreground is getting hotter.


Since the temperature is changing over a time scale much
longer than the one we have been observing over I do not
know what to make of this, but let me point out in detail
how we can measure the temperature of the microwave
background at different redshifts. The temperature of
the background radiation was measured already in 1941 by
Adams. He was studying absorption lines of the interstellar
CN in the spectra of stars. He then found that there were
not only absorption lines due to that molecules in the ground
state of CN absorbed light from the star, but also some
molecules that had been excited to a higher rotational state
absorbed light. There was a local radiation field with a
temperature of a couple of kelvin that excited the molecules,
and it was realised thirty years later that this radiation
field was the microwave background. In order to avoid any
misunderstandings, the radiation from the star was too
diluted to have this effect.

We can now in principle re-do this by studying similar
absorption lines in distant galaxies, and it has been
done by R. Srianand, P. Petitjean & C Ledoux, 2000,
"The cosmic microwave background radiation temperature
at a redshift of 2.34", Nat, 408, 931, and they find that
in a cloud of gas at this redshift the hydrogen molecules
are excited as if they are exposed to a radiation field
of a temperature between 6 and 14 K.

Thus we find that the microwave background was hotter
in the past than it is now, and this is only based on
studying molecules at different redshifts and applying
the Maxwell-Boltzmann distribution on their excitation
levels. There is no comparison with a foreground
temperature involved in this, and quite frankly I have
no idea what you mean by the foreground getting hotter
in these circumstances.


I'm amazed that such an effect can be detected.
You folk are worth your weight in gold.

The following paragraph was once the closing comment to a rather
flawed interpretation of the CMBR. The interpretation may have been
flawed, but the comment is exactly according to the zero origin
universe.

-The background radiation is predicted in a zero origin universe.
-It will always be present but will be shifted further into the
-colder background as the system develops at an ever increasing rate.

At the time when the background temperature was between 6 and 14 K,
at that stage in the evolution of the universe the foreground was
closer to the origin than it is now. Although the foreground is
getting hotter, "hotter" is not the term I should have used. The
universe has further evolved and the present is now further removed
from the origin. Eventually, the CMBR will be so cold that it will
be barely detectable.

Yes, this is a prediction of the big bang theory. The more
I read from you, the more I get the impression that you are
only presenting a very confused version of the big bang theory.
May I suggest that you actually try to learn what the big
bang theory is about and what it really says before you
criticise it.

Ulf Torkelsson

I've again removed what I consider pointless cyclic argument.
Put them back if you wish.

Bjoern Feuerbacher wrote:

Max Keon wrote:
Bjoern Feuerbacher wrote:
Max Keon wrote:
-----
-----

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,

I don't even understand what this is supposed to mean!

If the measured frequency of the characteristic rays emitted when
the sample is at the bottom of the tower were able to be measured
by some means from the top of the tower as well, I'm suggesting
that there will be no frequency difference noted between the two
readings. Inverting the test by placing the sample at the top of
the tower and again taking measurements at both top and bottom, both
frequency measurements would still be identical. I'm suggesting that
the frequency generated in the sample, only, changes with elevation,
that the frequency does not alter simply because the elevation of
the wavetrain alters.

I've been waiting for someone to prove me wrong. Present the proof
if it exists, or admit that the Sachs-Wolfe effect is based on pure
speculation, as then are so many other things.
-----
-----

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?


That's something you will never understand while you persist with
your theory. The universe I'm trying to explain will remain far
beyond your comprehension until you erase that theory from your
mind.

Why? Since when does one need to completely forget one theory in
order to understand another?

But every attempt at describing this variable dimension


What do you mean with "variable dimension"?

I see you don't bother to explain.

It's impossible to explain in terms that would not be
considered speculative. I can only point you to this link.
http://www.ozemail.com.au/~mkeon/the1-1a.html
The CMBR segment is fairly much obsolete though. And as I've
mentioned before, I do tend to waffle on in other areas because
I'm still trying to explain them to myself. If you can understand
the first chapter you're going really well. But do try.
-----

Max Keon

Max Keon wrote:
I've again removed what I consider pointless cyclic argument.

In other words, you are still refusing to address the evidence.


[[Mod. note -- some nested quotes snipped -- jt]]

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,


I don't even understand what this is supposed to mean!


If the measured frequency of the characteristic rays emitted when
the sample is at the bottom of the tower were able to be measured
by some means from the top of the tower as well,

Err, it is.

Actually, this is essentially how the experiment was actually done!
OTOH, if you measured the frequency of the radiation when *both*
you *and* the source are at the bottom (or at the top), you will
get the *same* result both times. That's the whole point of the
experiment!

Thanks for showing that you did not understand it.



I'm suggesting
that there will be no frequency difference noted between the two
readings.

The actual experiment proves you wrong.


Inverting the test by placing the sample at the top of
the tower and again taking measurements at both top and bottom, both
frequency measurements would still be identical.

The actual experiment proves you wrong.


I'm suggesting that
the frequency generated in the sample, only, changes with elevation,
that the frequency does not alter simply because the elevation of
the wavetrain alters.

The actual experiment proves you wrong.


I've been waiting for someone to prove me wrong. Present the proof
if it exists,

Read up one the Pound-Rebka experiment again. Try to understand it
this time.


or admit that the Sachs-Wolfe effect is based on pure
speculation, as then are so many other things.

We'll see who has to admit that his ideas are based on pure speculation.


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?

That's something you will never understand while you persist with
your theory. The universe I'm trying to explain will remain far
beyond your comprehension until you erase that theory from your
mind.

Why? Since when does one need to completely forget one theory in
order to understand another?

Care to answer this?



But every attempt at describing this variable dimension

What do you mean with "variable dimension"?

I see you don't bother to explain.


It's impossible to explain in terms that would not be
considered speculative.

Didn't you just above chide me for using ideas based on speculation?


I can only point you to this link.
http://www.ozemail.com.au/~mkeon/the1-1a.html

Do you really want to tell me I have to read all that stuff
just to understand what you mean with "variable dimension"?


The CMBR segment is fairly much obsolete though. And as I've
mentioned before, I do tend to waffle on in other areas because
I'm still trying to explain them to myself. If you can understand
the first chapter you're going really well. But do try.

I see no reason to try to understand what you wrote as long as you
1) say yourself that you don't understand many things yet
2) persist on ignoring the evidence.


Bye,
Bjoern

Ulf Torkelsson wrote:
Max Keon wrote:
-----
-----

I was describing the very origin of a universe which came into being
"when" some infinitesimally minute, and totally inexplicable event
disturbed the absolute balance of nothingness. Something had emerged
into existence, and relativity was born.

I have seen the start of the big bang universe being described
in almost exactly these words, so it is impossible to say whether
you are at all challenging the big bang theory or are just
presenting a very confused version of the big bang theory.
-----
-----

What I hadn't made at all clear was that if all heat sources within
the entire volume of the one billion light year (entire radial sweep
around a point) chunk of the universe were combined and then spread
uniformly across the volume, that part of the universe would be in
thermal equilibrium. It would certainly contain the necessary
components to build a blackbody curve, if it was enclosed.

Firstly, it is not enclosed since the universe is expanding,
and secondly you will only get a black body spectrum, if all
the radiators are perfect black bodies of the same temperature.

My scenario assumed that the prescibed chunk of the universe was
enclosed. I know it's not. But why do you assume that every
blackbody source must have identical temperatures? I thought I
had demonstrated that this is not the case (again below).

Then you need to fine tune the number of radiators in this
volume to produce the right intensity to make it black body
radiation. That is a lot of fine tuning, in order to explain
the microwave background as a local effect.

Since it's not a local effect, the scenario is pointless.
-----
-----

The universe is not an enclosure in this sense. 13.7 billion
light years is just the boundary of the observable universe, in
some sense, but light from the sources in the observable
universe can propagate across this boundary in due time. Because
of the expansion of the universe, the universe is not in
thermodynamic equilibrium. In the big bang model the microwave
background was formed at the time when the universe became
transparent, because the electrons, that had previously been
scattering the photons, combined with the atomic nuclei to
form atoms. Since then the temperature of the microwave
background has dropped simply because the universe is
expanding. This gives a simple and natural way to explain
the microwave background without any fine tuning.

Maybe so. But why should the universe be easy for you to understand?
Unless that's what actually happens, it will only lead to total
confusion and achieve nothing.

In the zero origin universe, it has taken 13.7E+9 light years just
to double all wavelengths?

Why the question mark? Do you not know yourself what is
happening in your model?

I meant "wavelength." Sorry.

The past goes to infinity when redshift
has reached light speed. It should be obvious that distance measured
in the big bang universe is **far** shorter than the equivalent
distance measured in the zero origin universe. So, if the BBT is
correct, galaxy rotation curves are going to be totally wrong in
the zero origin universe, or vice versa.

It may be that cosmological distances are far shorter in
the big bang model than in your model, though that is not
clear from the information you have been providing so far,
however this does not have any bearing on the galaxy rotation
curves, where distances are measured based on standard
Euclidean geometry.

You are not using Euclidean geometry at all. The present, right
here, is the zero marker on your ruler which can only take radial
measurements out into the universe. You can only **assume** that
the measurements are correct. And when some discrepancy emerges,
do you question your ruler? Of course you don't.

In each graph set stored at
http://www.ozemail.com.au/~mkeon/graphs.html a series of blackbody
curves are plotted for equally spaced temperature stages between
the present and the origin. These are all combined together prior
to including a redshift component. If the highest temperature
graph plot of each series was assumed to be plotting the blackbody
curve for, e.g. 13.7E+9 light years ago, instead of the present,
the equally spaced temperature plots between there and the origin
will still apply exactly as they are. The resultant curve would
remain unaltered. The local universe can then be completely removed
from the picture. Now take the highest temperature graph plot back
to the early universe, where the radiator enclosure was more
localized. Exactly the same curve will be generated.

I am repeating myself now, but if you combine black body
curves of different temperatures you will not get a black
body curve, and any redshift you apply on it will not change
that.

But it does. Those computer generated graphs I linked to above
demonstrate that, surely? Setting the background temperature so that
the curves all combine to produce the correct redshifted curve is
all that's needed. And it's not necessarily fine tuning either, it's
the combination that results in the CMBR compatible curve, for which
there may good reason.

In the paragraph from my previous reply (below) I suggested that
the redshift component pointing along a linear scale to the origin
would not be correct. But that reasoning was actually correct
because each of the curves have originated in the very distant
past. From our viewpoint in the present, the entire group will be
redshifted near enough to exactly the same amount.

I've conjured up another set of images to go with the existing set.
But these are plotted according to emmisive power per wavelength.
The reason I've done that is that the graph scale now permits me to
easily index the entire graph plot toward the left of the screen,
as now required. http://www.ozemail.com.au/~mkeon/graphs.html

In the zero origin universe, what you see from the past is almost
exactly how it was created. The 2.73 K CMBR is likewise almost
exactly as it was created. In the zero origin universe, there is no
space expansion in the way that the big bang requires. The apparent
characteristic spectral line redshift per distance into the past is
not due to redshift at all, they were made that way. The redshift
component applied to the graph curve is due only to the exponentially
increasing rate of evolution, and that component will of course
increase in time. But so too will the distance from the background.
The background temperature will be noted as being colder by an amount
which is directly proportional to the redshift component.

What I have to say may be deemed speculative, but I'm attempting to
understand and describe the consequences of the zero origin. That
is **not** speculation.

But there is a problem with the way I applied the redshift component.
It points directly to the zero origin along a linear scale, which
serves the purpose, but it's still not correct. Space is stretching
as the universe evolves. The distorted rubber sheet analogy which
is commonly used to demonstrate warping in space-time, demonstrates
how we view the origin, or the direction to it at least. In this
case however, the sheet is stretched to the extreme. Look in any
direction and you look toward the entire universe at the origin.
The background universe will always be closed, and will therefore
always radiate a blackbody spectrum.

When I first set out to create the original graphs, the whole idea
was to make them understandable. The present was never intended to
be part of the current background, but it needed to be included
because painting the true picture at the time would have been
impossible for anyone to comprehend, including myself.
-----
-----

The matter content of the universe is constantly increasing
(evolving), dragged into existence by much the same process that
started it all off in the first place. But the process is now
accelerating, triggered by already existing matter. However, space
is becoming increasingly available through that process. Elaborating
on that briefly is impossible, but that's how it works in the zero
origin universe.

Now, you are describing something that sounds like the
steady state cosmology that was developed by Fred Hoyle
and his collaborators.

Anything but the zero origin universe, aye.
-----
-----

At the time when the background temperature was between 6 and 14 K,
at that stage in the evolution of the universe the foreground was
closer to the origin than it is now. Although the foreground is
getting hotter, "hotter" is not the term I should have used. The
universe has further evolved and the present is now further removed
from the origin. Eventually, the CMBR will be so cold that it will
be barely detectable.

Yes, this is a prediction of the big bang theory. The more
I read from you, the more I get the impression that you are
only presenting a very confused version of the big bang theory.
May I suggest that you actually try to learn what the big
bang theory is about and what it really says before you
criticise it.

You'll need to perform some amazing feats of magic if you want to
integrate the zero origin universe into the big bang theory. They
are universes apart. Mine begins in absolute obscurity, where yours
goes off with a bang, spewing forth a universe full of stuff that
requires no justification at all because the big bang theory only
explains the universe beyond the bang.

A theory which is developed according to already existing evidence
is considered not speculative, but will most likely fail as more
evidence emerges. Whereas the zero origin universe is based on a
speculated origin and left to justify itself with already existing,
and emerging evidence. At the time of the theory's conception (30
years ago), the two components essential to the theory were not
yet identified. Electrons and positrons have since emerged to fill
those roles with extraordinary precision.

So far the theory's only failing is in my ability to comprehend
that universe.
-----

Max Keon

Max Keon wrote:
Ulf Torkelsson wrote:

Max Keon wrote:

[text snipped]



The past goes to infinity when redshift
has reached light speed. It should be obvious that distance measured
in the big bang universe is **far** shorter than the equivalent
distance measured in the zero origin universe. So, if the BBT is
correct, galaxy rotation curves are going to be totally wrong in
the zero origin universe, or vice versa.


It may be that cosmological distances are far shorter in
the big bang model than in your model, though that is not
clear from the information you have been providing so far,
however this does not have any bearing on the galaxy rotation
curves, where distances are measured based on standard
Euclidean geometry.


You are not using Euclidean geometry at all. The present, right
here, is the zero marker on your ruler which can only take radial
measurements out into the universe. You can only **assume** that
the measurements are correct. And when some discrepancy emerges,
do you question your ruler? Of course you don't.

Yes, all astronomers use basic Euclidean geometry on the scale
of galaxies. There are no signs that Euclidean geometry does
not work on this scale, and many signs that it does work. On
cosmological scales it may be different, but that is not
relevant when we discuss the rotation curves of galaxies.


In each graph set stored at
http://www.ozemail.com.au/~mkeon/graphs.html a series of blackbody
curves are plotted for equally spaced temperature stages between
the present and the origin. These are all combined together prior
to including a redshift component. If the highest temperature
graph plot of each series was assumed to be plotting the blackbody
curve for, e.g. 13.7E+9 light years ago, instead of the present,
the equally spaced temperature plots between there and the origin
will still apply exactly as they are. The resultant curve would
remain unaltered. The local universe can then be completely removed
from the picture. Now take the highest temperature graph plot back
to the early universe, where the radiator enclosure was more
localized. Exactly the same curve will be generated.


I am repeating myself now, but if you combine black body
curves of different temperatures you will not get a black
body curve, and any redshift you apply on it will not change
that.


But it does. Those computer generated graphs I linked to above
demonstrate that, surely? Setting the background temperature so that
the curves all combine to produce the correct redshifted curve is
all that's needed. And it's not necessarily fine tuning either, it's
the combination that results in the CMBR compatible curve, for which
there may good reason.

No, your graphs demonstrate that you do not get a black
body curve. I will be kind and take it on fate that
each one of your green curves is a black body curve. The
maxima of these curves will then follow Wien's displacement
law. The resulting blue curves have maxima that clearly
do not fall on the same line as the other curves, thus
it is not a black body curve.

[text snipped]



At the time when the background temperature was between 6 and 14 K,
at that stage in the evolution of the universe the foreground was
closer to the origin than it is now. Although the foreground is
getting hotter, "hotter" is not the term I should have used. The
universe has further evolved and the present is now further removed
from the origin. Eventually, the CMBR will be so cold that it will
be barely detectable.


Yes, this is a prediction of the big bang theory. The more
I read from you, the more I get the impression that you are
only presenting a very confused version of the big bang theory.
May I suggest that you actually try to learn what the big
bang theory is about and what it really says before you
criticise it.


You'll need to perform some amazing feats of magic if you want to
integrate the zero origin universe into the big bang theory.

I was trying to be kind and show you that what you are
writing can be interpreted in a favourable way as something
that makes some sense, but then it sounds just like a
distorted description of the big bang theory.

They
are universes apart. Mine begins in absolute obscurity, where yours
goes off with a bang, spewing forth a universe full of stuff that
requires no justification at all because the big bang theory only
explains the universe beyond the bang.

A theory which is developed according to already existing evidence
is considered not speculative, but will most likely fail as more
evidence emerges.

That is right, but theories are supposed to be falsifiable.
That is an integral part of the scientific process. On the
other hand, a theory that is not even in accordance with
existing evidence is stillborn.

Ulf Torkelsson

Max Keon wrote:
Ulf Torkelsson wrote:

[snip]

I am repeating myself now, but if you combine black body
curves of different temperatures you will not get a black
body curve, and any redshift you apply on it will not change
that.


But it does. Those computer generated graphs I linked to above
demonstrate that, surely?

How did you check that the sum of the curves is again a blackbody
curve? Simply by visual comparison of your (blue) combined curve
and the (green) blackbody curve?

If yes, please note that there are still deviations between the two
curves in most of your plots. OTOH, the blackbody curve of the CMBR
has been measured to *very* great precision. Deviations of that size
would have been *noticed*.


[snip]

Bye,
Bjoern

Bjoern Feuerbacher wrote:

Max Keon wrote:
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,

I don't even understand what this is supposed to mean!

If the measured frequency of the characteristic rays emitted when
the sample is at the bottom of the tower were able to be measured
by some means from the top of the tower as well,

Err, it is.

Actually, this is essentially how the experiment was actually done!
OTOH, if you measured the frequency of the radiation when *both*
you *and* the source are at the bottom (or at the top), you will
get the *same* result both times.

That's the whole point of the experiment!

Thanks for showing that you did not understand it.

I'm suggesting
that there will be no frequency difference noted between the two
readings.

The actual experiment proves you wrong.

Inverting the test by placing the sample at the top of
the tower and again taking measurements at both top and bottom, both
frequency measurements would still be identical.

The actual experiment proves you wrong.

I'm suggesting that
the frequency generated in the sample, only, changes with elevation,
that the frequency does not alter simply because the elevation of
the wavetrain alters.

The actual experiment proves you wrong.

Not at all. This little scenario may better demonstrate what I mean.

Two Cs clocks and two radioactive iron samples are all together in
a fixed relationship at the bottom of a tower. The Cs clocks are
synchronized, while the characteristic frequencies from each sample
are noted to be exactly the same. Now I move one Cs clock and one
iron sample, in unison, to the top of the tower. The relationship
between the elevated pair hasn't changed one bit. But the
characteristic frequency from the elevated sample is noted to have
increased as it passes by the lower pair, while the frequency in
the wavetrain from the lower source, passing by the elevated pair,
has reduced. Comparisons between clock elapsed times would show that
the two frequencies are still exactly the same, relative to the time
rates where they were generated.

So far, everything seems to be in harmony with the universe. The
clock oscillators behave as expected, as do the oscillators that
generate the characteristic frequencies in the radioactive iron
samples. They are all much the same sort of clocks after all.

Now I synchronize the top and bottom Cs clocks, then measure the
frequencies according to the adjusted clocks. To my amazement, the
frequency does change with altitude. The Cs clocks are now in synch
with each other of course, **but they are totally out of synch with
the universe**.

I've been waiting for someone to prove me wrong. Present the proof
if it exists,

Read up one the Pound-Rebka experiment again. Try to understand it
this time.

or admit that the Sachs-Wolfe effect is based on pure
speculation, as then are so many other things.

We'll see who has to admit that his ideas are based on pure speculation.

That we will.

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?

That's something you will never understand while you persist with
your theory. The universe I'm trying to explain will remain far
beyond your comprehension until you erase that theory from your
mind.

Why? Since when does one need to completely forget one theory in
order to understand another?

Care to answer this?

You will quickly come across something that will defy the logic of
your indoctrination, and the natural reaction will be to label the
theory far too speculative to be of any use. You will never bother
to try to understand it.

But every attempt at describing this variable dimension

What do you mean with "variable dimension"?

I see you don't bother to explain.

It's impossible to explain in terms that would not be
considered speculative.

Didn't you just above chide me for using ideas based on speculation?

I can only point you to this link.
http://www.ozemail.com.au/~mkeon/the1-1a.html

Do you really want to tell me I have to read all that stuff
just to understand what you mean with "variable dimension"?

I'll see what I can do. But please note that I was welcomed into
the group to argue the case for an alternative theory to the BBT.
That's what I'm doing. What I have to say here is the very essence
of the zero origin concept and thus cannot be deemed speculative.

The initial dimension was created when two opposing forces appeared
in the symmetry of absolutely nothing, drawn from non existence
toward each other. They were of course immediately relative to each
other. The infinitesimally minute distortion in the absolute
symmetry of non existence is technically impossible, but the
universe does exist. Even *that* origin defies logic, until you
introduce eternity into the equation.

The eternally distant origin is in the direction of the past, and
the eternally distant climax is always in the direction of the
future. You can comprehend the direction of the past, but how do
you go comprehending the direction of the future? That's in the
opposite direction to where the past is, of course, which puts it
beyond what you perceive as point size, and beyond your realm of
comprehension.

There are of course two opposing sides to the story, but I'd forget
about the other side for now.

In the Pound and Rebka analogy-scenario, the reason why the lower
sample emits a lesser frequency than the elevated sample is that
the active components generating the frequency must travel a
greater distance than those in the elevated sample, and this is
because they exist in a deeper dimension, where the speed of light
has increased in exactly the same proportions as the increased depth
of dimension. They go hand in hand. So you will never know it exists
until you are in there as well.

Light travels the added distance in the same time that it takes to
travel the distance as perceived by you. Relative to the increased
time rate in the deeper gravity well at the bottom of the tower,
the oscillation cycle has taken longer, and that's what you see.
That's why you perceive time as being slower. Reaction rates are
slower, but the true time rate (speed of light) is faster.

Good luck with that lot.

-----

Max Keon