SNe Ia DATA ARE COMPATIBLE WITH A STABLE UNIVERSE

Bjoern Feuerbacher wrote in message ...

Marcel Luttgens wrote:

Cf. History of 2.7 K Temperature Prior to Penzias and Wilson at
http://www.dfi.uem.br/~macedane/history_of_2.7k.html
and their conclusion:
"Our conclusion is that the discovery of the CBR by Penzias and
Wilson is
a decisive facto in favour of a Universe in dynamical equilibrium,
and
against models of an expanding Universe, such as the Big Bang and
the
steady-state."

Scanning through the article, they appear to argue that the CMBR
comes
essentially from star light. Despite their conclusion, they don't
present evidence that the measurement of the CMBR is evidence against
the Big Bang
- they only point out that the measured temperature of the CMBR
disagrees with some early theoretical predictions. They ignore that
there are
newer, more precise theoretical predictions, they don't explain the
astonishing
smoothness of the CMBR (how on earth could this result if it comes
from
star light?), and they ignore the following:
http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/Eddington-T0.html

Bye,
Bjoern

In "Eddington's Temperature of Space", it is claimed
"Since the Universe was observed to be expanding, ...", which should
be written
"Since the galactic redshift can be attributed to an expansion of the
Universe, ..."
But such assumed expansion can be a mere illusion, cf.

"Physics of Illusion of Expanding Space"
W. Jim Jastrzebski


http://www.geocities.com/wlodekj/sci/3261.htm

Abstract:

It is shown that the principle of conservation of energy implies that
gik tensor of
spacetime must have an antisymmetric component (postulated in 1950 by
Einstein,
for a different reason). The resulting metric redshift simulates
expansion of
the universe with Hubble's constant H0 = c/R, where c is speed of
light and
R is Einstein's radius of the universe. When translated from
Einsteinian gravity
to Newtonian the effect simulates a Newtonian drag, acting on any
moving object
in the universe, equal c2/R, which, when applied to photons, simulates
"tired light effect". If the entire observed expansion of the universe
is apparent
and Hubble's constant is ~70 km/s/Mpc, then some of the testable
results a

(i) that the mass density of the universe is ~6x10-27 kg/m3,
(ii) that there should be a lower limit on dynamic friction acting on
any moving
object in the universe of ~7x10-10 m/s2,
(iii) that the apparent expansion of the universe should look as if it
were
accelerating with acceleration (dH/dt)at t=0 = ~2.5x10-36 s-2,
(iv) that the cosmic background radiation is thermal radiation of the
non luminous
matter of the universe heated by the redshifted starlight,
(v) that the average size of chunks of non luminous matter is ~1 m if
their
specific density is ~103 kg/m3.

Try to refute what Jim Jastrzebski claimed :-) :

"The resulting metric redshift simulates expansion of the universe
with Hubble's
constant H0 = c/R, where c is speed of light and R is Einstein's
radius of the universe.",

"The cosmic background radiation is thermal radiation of the non
luminous
matter of the universe heated by the redshifted starlight."

And don't forget that SNe Ia DATA ARE -STATISTICALLY- COMPATIBLE WITH
A STABLE UNIVERSE

Marcel Luttgens

Marcel Luttgens wrote:

Bjoern Feuerbacher wrote in message ...

Marcel Luttgens wrote:

Cf. History of 2.7 K Temperature Prior to Penzias and Wilson at
http://www.dfi.uem.br/~macedane/history_of_2.7k.html
and their conclusion:
"Our conclusion is that the discovery of the CBR by Penzias and
Wilson is
a decisive facto in favour of a Universe in dynamical equilibrium,
and
against models of an expanding Universe, such as the Big Bang and
the
steady-state."

Scanning through the article, they appear to argue that the CMBR
comes
essentially from star light. Despite their conclusion, they don't
present evidence that the measurement of the CMBR is evidence against
the Big Bang
- they only point out that the measured temperature of the CMBR
disagrees with some early theoretical predictions. They ignore that
there are
newer, more precise theoretical predictions, they don't explain the
astonishing
smoothness of the CMBR (how on earth could this result if it comes
from
star light?), and they ignore the following:
http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/Eddington-T0.html

Bye,
Bjoern

In "Eddington's Temperature of Space", it is claimed
"Since the Universe was observed to be expanding, ...", which should
be written
"Since the galactic redshift can be attributed to an expansion of the
Universe, ..."

It's not only the galactic redshift. There are other pieces of
evidence; for example, the temperature of the CMBR can be shown
to having been higher some Gigayears ago. This, too, is evidence
for the expansion (the measured values agree with the prediction
of the BB theory).


But such assumed expansion can be a mere illusion, cf.

"Physics of Illusion of Expanding Space"
W. Jim Jastrzebski


Nice. Instead of admitting that the assertion "CMBR could come
from star light" is wrong, or at least explaining why the
arguments given at the web page I linked you to don't convince
you, you simply make yet another claim and quote from yet another
paper. Why don't you stick to the issue? Can't you admit that
you were wrong?


http://www.geocities.com/wlodekj/sci/3261.htm

Abstract:

Where was this paper published?


It is shown that the principle of conservation of energy implies that
gik tensor of
spacetime must have an antisymmetric component (postulated in 1950 by
Einstein,
for a different reason). The resulting metric redshift simulates
expansion of
the universe with Hubble's constant H0 = c/R, where c is speed of
light and
R is Einstein's radius of the universe. When translated from
Einsteinian gravity
to Newtonian the effect simulates a Newtonian drag, acting on any
moving object
in the universe, equal c2/R, which, when applied to photons, simulates
"tired light effect".

Tired light has long shown to be wrong. See
http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/tiredlit.htm,
for starters. (yes, I know that not all arguments on that
web page apply here - but the argument about the SN light curves,
for example, is especially nice and surely applies here!)


If the entire observed expansion of the universe
is apparent
and Hubble's constant is ~70 km/s/Mpc, then some of the testable
results a

(i) that the mass density of the universe is ~6x10-27 kg/m3,

How does he propose to test this?


(ii) that there should be a lower limit on dynamic friction acting on
any moving object in the universe of ~7x10-10 m/s2,

*That* sounds testable.


(iii) that the apparent expansion of the universe should look as if it
were accelerating with acceleration (dH/dt)at t=0 = ~2.5x10-36 s-2,

This should have been measured already. Does he mention such
measurements,
and compare them to his prediction?


(iv) that the cosmic background radiation is thermal radiation of the
non luminous matter of the universe heated by the redshifted starlight,

I already gave a link which outlines why this doesn't work!!! Here is it
again:
http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/Eddington-T0.html
Will you address it this time, instead of bringing up yet another
article?


(v) that the average size of chunks of non luminous matter is ~1 m if
their specific density is ~103 kg/m3.

How does he propose to test this?


Try to refute what Jim Jastrzebski claimed :-) :

Why don't *you* refute first what Wright said?


"The resulting metric redshift simulates expansion of the universe
with Hubble's
constant H0 = c/R, where c is speed of light and R is Einstein's
radius of the universe.",

See above - I very much doubt that this could explain the observed
stretching of SN light curves, for example.


"The cosmic background radiation is thermal radiation of the non
luminous matter of the universe heated by the redshifted starlight."

See the link I already provided.


And don't forget that SNe Ia DATA ARE -STATISTICALLY- COMPATIBLE WITH
A STABLE UNIVERSE

That's an assertion so far. I notice that you don't address the light
curves and their time dilation in your paper... Some references for this
can be found he
http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/cosmology_faq.html#TD



Bye,
Bjoern

Dear Marcel Luttgens:

"Marcel Luttgens" wrote in message
om...
\(formerly\)" dlzc1.cox@net wrote in message
news:WUHyb.25159$Bk1.11299@fed1read05...

So you look into the last warmth of the fireplace, and see a fire? How
is
it that starlight, which is not exclusively hydrogen (since what is
emitted
is emitted from the surface of the star), is reduced to being only
spectrally hydrogen?

Please refer to my answer to Bjoern Feuerbacher.

Entirely unsatisfactory. The wavelength of light represents momentum. If
momentum is removed from light, where did it go? The choice of metric must
conserve momentum, therefore the assumptions fail. You are now lacking a
suitable answer.

In a Universe that is so dominated by the second law of thermodynamics,
how
do you propose for new hydrogen to be created from "old" iron? A steady
state Universe does not conform to what we see even locally.

What is the fate of "old" iron in a B.H. ?

Entropy is conserved, as is the mass deficit represented in forming the
nucleus. Besides, what path exists from inside a BH to the "steady-state"
Universe?

David A. Smith

\(formerly\)" dlzc1.cox@net wrote in message news:fsQyb.25197$Bk1.18082@fed1read05...
[...]
Indeed it is! (Radiation from the Olber's wall of stars...)

No. Hydrogen at 3000 K. Filled all of space, and was only some
tens
of
Mly across. Light since "stretched" to 9 K (1 Gy ago), now less
than 3
K.

That is a dream, or an article of faith.

It is data that has been published in peer reviewed journals. Deal with
it.

What do you call "data"? "Light since "stretched" to 9 K (1 Gy ago),
now less than 3 K."?! How this statement of faith is related to "data"?
The data indicates a microwave radiation, icoming from all directions.
Which is indeed it should be, the radiation from distant galaxies with
the fundamental property of photon energy loss! (And in contrast: my
statement does not contain any artifacts of faith!)



I don't see any 3000 K, space-filling, glowing, hydrogen cloud out
there
now...

You don't have to, just repeat my calculation of star light, coming from
as
seen density of galaxies.

Handle a CMBR of 9 K 1 Gy ago.

First of all: the different temperatures of CMBR are not directly
corelated to the distance or Hubble redshift. THere are observations
supporting the same temperature as we have here at significant distance,
showing a homogenious infinite UNiverse in dynamic equilibrium.


It is a slippery slope, and it *is* downhill. You don't really
believe
that the second law of thermodynamics could be tricked on the
cosmic
scale
do you? The fuse, once lit, burns steadily onwards...

I really would like to hear what do you mean by that!

Second Law. The hydrogen that is being fused by the stars has *no* method
of returning to hydrogen in the required quantities to support a
steady-state Universe. Proton decay (protons emitted from a nucleus,
without being part of an alpha) is not well documented in the Universe
today.

How about the neutrons, emitted during fission - and decaying into
Hydrogen? Your statement - again - an artifact of faith...


So you look into the last warmth of the fireplace, and see a fire? How
is
it that starlight, which is not exclusively hydrogen (since what is
emitted
is emitted from the surface of the star), is reduced to being only
spectrally hydrogen?

BS.

That is the degree I hold, yes. Your remark is deficient in content. The
CMBR spectrum is that of pure hydrogen, and not dust-decayed noise.

INdeed not dost-decayed noise! The CMBR is the star light after photon
progression with energy loss as per z=2^(t/Hd)-1 where t is the time
of progression and Hd=2.1167 billion years Hubble wavelength doubling
time constant. I have produced the shape of observed CMBR spectrum
in excellent agreement from a realistic galaxy density and star surface
temperature, when considered the intragalactic absorption!

And the Bull's **** related to your article of faith Hydrogen spectra...


In a Universe that is so dominated by the second law of thermodynamics,
how
do you propose for new hydrogen to be created from "old" iron? A
steady
state Universe does not conform to what we see even locally.

a Universe that is so dominated by the second law of thermodynamics - do
you
eat it or drink it?

The fact that you must consume, is proof.

What? Are you talking about the fact that in the Sun there is not
an alleged Hydrogen-to-Hydrogen fusion is producing the energy released?
Tell what you mean by this consumable proof!


If you really interested, the abundance of elements is not explained
by standard model; the so called fundamental particles are over a dozen
and growing - and in general: returning to the good old colliding
atoms - one collision event is the universal element of everything - is
the only way out...

The abundance is certainly not described by a steady-state Universe. We
are either at the "beginning" of a steady-state condition, or it isn't
steady-state. Stars make iron, and heavier stuff by accident. They don't
take iron and make hydrogen.

Until you handle the hard stuff, your hypotheses are just fantasy.

David A. Smith

Indeed the bigbangology can say anything, because whatever is wrong
you just assumme that - oh - it was done in the bigbang!

On the other hand, when I have a real coherent representation of
everything I'm required to produce all the elements observed within
that coheren, dynamical equilibrium state of the Universe! And this is
exactly what I have done. I don't need any "oh, that was done in the
bigbang" - excuses!

And the stars not only make irons, but they make all the chemical
elements - from the decay of superheavy nuclei! And the end products
are in abundances corresponding their regularity in the collision
progressions, constructing them! But I think so it is too hard for
you to digest...

Cheers!
Aladar
http://www.stolmarphysics.com

Aladar wrote:

\(formerly\)" dlzc1.cox@net wrote in message news:fsQyb.25197$Bk1.18082@fed1read05...
[...]
Indeed it is! (Radiation from the Olber's wall of stars...)

No. Hydrogen at 3000 K. Filled all of space, and was only some
tens
of
Mly across. Light since "stretched" to 9 K (1 Gy ago), now less
than 3
K.

That is a dream, or an article of faith.

It is data that has been published in peer reviewed journals. Deal with
it.

What do you call "data"? "Light since "stretched" to 9 K (1 Gy ago),
now less than 3 K."?! How this statement of faith is related to "data"?
The data indicates a microwave radiation, icoming from all directions.

The *data* also indicate that this microwave radiation had a temperature
of about 9 Kelvin 1 Gy ago. Don't you know these data, or do you simply
ignore them?


Which is indeed it should be, the radiation from distant galaxies with
the fundamental property of photon energy loss! (And in contrast: my
statement does not contain any artifacts of faith!)

Why don't we see spectral lines in the CMBr, if it is simply light from
distant galaxies in which the photons have lost energy? Why does it have
a nearly perfect blackbody spectrum?



I don't see any 3000 K, space-filling, glowing, hydrogen cloud out
there
now...

You don't have to, just repeat my calculation of star light, coming from
as
seen density of galaxies.

Handle a CMBR of 9 K 1 Gy ago.

First of all: the different temperatures of CMBR are not directly
corelated to the distance or Hubble redshift.

How is this relevant to the observational fact that 1 Gy ago, there
was a microwave radiation with a temperature of around 9 K?


THere are observations
supporting the same temperature as we have here at significant distance,
showing a homogenious infinite UNiverse in dynamic equilibrium.

Please give some references to these observations, I've never heard
of them.


It is a slippery slope, and it *is* downhill. You don't really
believe
that the second law of thermodynamics could be tricked on the
cosmic
scale
do you? The fuse, once lit, burns steadily onwards...

I really would like to hear what do you mean by that!

Second Law. The hydrogen that is being fused by the stars has *no* method
of returning to hydrogen in the required quantities to support a
steady-state Universe. Proton decay (protons emitted from a nucleus,
without being part of an alpha) is not well documented in the Universe
today.

How about the neutrons, emitted during fission - and decaying into
Hydrogen?

Could you please tell us how iron is supposed to undergo fission, and
additionally show some calculations which show that the neutrons from
fission could give a substantial amount of protons? Additionally,
could you please tell us what happened to all of the *stable* heavy
elements which were produced in the infinity amount of time before
we lived?


Your statement - again - an artifact of faith...

No, it is based on sound evidence - such as the very small abundance
of all of these stable heavy elements. This is a *strong* piece of
evidence that the universe has a finite age - until you manage to
show a mechanism which destroyed most of these stable heavy elements
somehow.



So you look into the last warmth of the fireplace, and see a fire?
How is
it that starlight, which is not exclusively hydrogen (since what is
emitted
is emitted from the surface of the star), is reduced to being only
spectrally hydrogen?

BS.

That is the degree I hold, yes. Your remark is deficient in content. The
CMBR spectrum is that of pure hydrogen, and not dust-decayed noise.

INdeed not dost-decayed noise! The CMBR is the star light after photon
progression with energy loss as per z=2^(t/Hd)-1 where t is the time
of progression and Hd=2.1167 billion years Hubble wavelength doubling
time constant.
I have produced the shape of observed CMBR spectrum
in excellent agreement from a realistic galaxy density and star surface
temperature, when considered the intragalactic absorption!

Again: then why don't we see spectral lines in the CMBR? You *do* know
that there are spectral lines in star light, don't do? Why should these
lines disappear during the "photon energy loss"? Why should this produce
a nearly perfect blackbody spectrum? How does this work?


And the Bull's **** related to your article of faith Hydrogen spectra...

Pardon? Hydrogen spectra are *measured*. Where is "faith" involved here?


[snip]


If you really interested, the abundance of elements is not explained
by standard model; the so called fundamental particles are over a dozen
and growing - and in general: returning to the good old colliding
atoms - one collision event is the universal element of everything - is
the only way out...

The abundance is certainly not described by a steady-state Universe. We
are either at the "beginning" of a steady-state condition, or it isn't
steady-state. Stars make iron, and heavier stuff by accident. They don't
take iron and make hydrogen.

Until you handle the hard stuff, your hypotheses are just fantasy.

David A. Smith

Indeed the bigbangology can say anything, because whatever is wrong
you just assumme that - oh - it was done in the bigbang!

Well, the predictions of the BB theory are consistent with the evidence,
so where is the problem?


On the other hand, when I have a real coherent representation of
everything I'm required to produce all the elements observed within
that coheren, dynamical equilibrium state of the Universe! And this is
exactly what I have done. I don't need any "oh, that was done in the
bigbang" - excuses!

Well, you don't have to produce "all the elements" - but it would
be a good start if you would explain what happened to all of these
stable heavy elements which would have been produced in great
abundance, if the universe really had an infinite age.


And the stars not only make irons, but they make all the chemical
elements - from the decay of superheavy nuclei!

BFD. Do you really think we didn't know this?


And the end products
are in abundances corresponding their regularity in the collision
progressions, constructing them!

Even if these collisions have been going on for an infinite time?


[snip]

Bye,
Bjoern

Dear Aladar:

"Aladar" wrote in message
om...
....
What do you call "data"? "Light since "stretched" to 9 K (1 Gy ago),
now less than 3 K."?! How this statement of faith is related to "data"?
The data indicates a microwave radiation, icoming from all directions.
Which is indeed it should be, the radiation from distant galaxies with
the fundamental property of photon energy loss! (And in contrast: my
statement does not contain any artifacts of faith!)

I can add nothing to Bjoern's capable response, except a link...
http://www.eso.org/outreach/press-re.../pr-27-00.html

David A. Smith

(formerly)" wrote:

Dear Aladar:

"Aladar" wrote in message
om...
...
What do you call "data"? "Light since "stretched" to 9 K (1 Gy ago),
now less than 3 K."?! How this statement of faith is related to "data"?
The data indicates a microwave radiation, icoming from all directions.
Which is indeed it should be, the radiation from distant galaxies with
the fundamental property of photon energy loss! (And in contrast: my
statement does not contain any artifacts of faith!)

I can add nothing to Bjoern's capable response, except a link...
http://www.eso.org/outreach/press-re.../pr-27-00.html

I would like to add these two links (Wright explains this stuff far
better and far more detailed than I ever could):

http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/stars_vs_cmb.html
http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/stdystat.htm#Tvsz

With respect to the plot at the second web page, Aladar
probably will quibble that not all of the points
lie on the curve - but he will totally ignore that if
the predictions of the BB theory are wrong, then *none*
of the points should lie on the curve...


Bye,
Bjoern

\(formerly\)" dlzc1.cox@net wrote in message news:niazb.26280$Bk1.7990@fed1read05...
Dear Marcel Luttgens:

"Marcel Luttgens" wrote in message
om...

What is the fate of "old" iron in a B.H. ?

Entropy is conserved, as is the mass deficit represented in forming the
nucleus. Besides, what path exists from inside a BH to the "steady-state"
Universe?

And also, what happens to iron in a neutron star?
Don't super massive black holes at (about) the center of galaxies recycle
particles from matter "swallowed" from closely orbiting (neutron) stars?
And in an eternal universe, proton decay and Hawking evaporation of B.H.
could play a significant role.


David A. Smith

Marcel Luttgens

\(formerly\)" dlzc1.cox@net wrote in message news:tWuzb.26562$Bk1.11626@fed1read05...
Dear Aladar:

"Aladar" wrote in message
om...
...
What do you call "data"? "Light since "stretched" to 9 K (1 Gy ago),
now less than 3 K."?! How this statement of faith is related to "data"?
The data indicates a microwave radiation, icoming from all directions.
Which is indeed it should be, the radiation from distant galaxies with
the fundamental property of photon energy loss! (And in contrast: my
statement does not contain any artifacts of faith!)

I can add nothing to Bjoern's capable response, except a link...
http://www.eso.org/outreach/press-re.../pr-27-00.html

David A. Smith

MY Dear David,

At the link a temperature of a cloud is inferred from the QSO
radiation
penetrating through it! Don't you see that you have to have the
faith in bigbangology to believe in the cause of that temperature to
be caused by it?! I can list you dozens of different causes to have
the temperature of Carbon at the measured!

Cheers!
Aladar
http://www.stolmarphysics.com

Aladar wrote:

\(formerly\)" dlzc1.cox@net wrote in message news:tWuzb.26562$Bk1.11626@fed1read05...
Dear Aladar:

"Aladar" wrote in message
om...
...
What do you call "data"? "Light since "stretched" to 9 K (1 Gy ago),
now less than 3 K."?! How this statement of faith is related to "data"?
The data indicates a microwave radiation, icoming from all directions.
Which is indeed it should be, the radiation from distant galaxies with
the fundamental property of photon energy loss! (And in contrast: my
statement does not contain any artifacts of faith!)

I can add nothing to Bjoern's capable response, except a link...
http://www.eso.org/outreach/press-re.../pr-27-00.html

David A. Smith

MY Dear David,

At the link a temperature of a cloud is inferred from the QSO
radiation
penetrating through it! Don't you see that you have to have the
faith in bigbangology to believe in the cause of that temperature to
be caused by it?!

Thanks for showing that you have no clue how science is done and what is
evidence.

Hint: a theory predicts something, and then one looks if the
observations
confirm this prediction. Exactly this was done here - the BB theory
predicts a certain temperature for the CMBR at that time, and then
observations showed that indeed radiation corresponding to this
temperature
existed at that time. Hence this is evidence for the BB theory. Yes,
it's
true that this could *also* be explained perhaps by *other* sources
of radiation - but that was not the point here!!! This is a piece of
evidence for the BB theory, according to the common meaning of the
term "evidence" in science. Life with it.


I can list you dozens of different causes to have
the temperature of Carbon at the measured!

Well, please give this list.



And please look at the link *I* provided, too.


Bye,
Bjoern