Static Universe

Observational evidence favors a static universe.
A major difference between cosmologies in an expanding universe
and that in a static universe is time dilation. Whereas a tired
light process could explain the energy loss of photons it cannot
produce the effect of time dilation on the rate of arrival of
photons.
In an expanding universe cosmology the equations for the distance
modulus and for the angular size include a term, (1+z), to allow for
time dilation. Since the similar equations for a static-universe
cosmology do include this term its presence (or absence) makes
a suitable test for determining whether the universe is expanding.

Recently I have published three papers in the Journal of Cosmology
that investigates this proposal. The references a
http://journalofcosmology.com/crawford1.pdf: 2022, JCos, 13, ?
http://journalofcosmology.com/crawford2.pdf: 2022, JCos, 13, ?
http://journalofcosmology.com/crawford3.pdf: 2022, JCos, 13, ?
A single file version that is essentially identical to the three
papers
is available at arXiv 1009.0953: http://arxiv.org/abs/1009.0953
It includes a table of contents,hyperlinks and several minor
corrections.
Be warned it has 96 pages and is about 1MB in length.

Part 1 shows that for all of the topicsTolman) surface brightness,
angular size, type 1a supernovae, gamma ray bursts, galaxy luminosity
distribution and quasar luminosity distribution the data are
consistent with a static universe. A Big Bang cosmology is
only consistent with the data if there is evolution both in angular
size and luminosity (for all objects) that in effect removes the time
dilation term. Since evolution is a local characteristic and has
nothing to do with the expansion this would be a remarkable
coincidence. Furthermore galaxy collisions and interactions should
reset the evolution clock for a significant number of galaxies.
Also quasar variability shows no dependence on redshift.

Although Part 1 used a static cosmology, curvature cosmology,
as a foil the results are valid for any reasonable static cosmology.
Parts 2 and 3 describe curvature cosmology that is consistent
with the observations and can explain part of the background X-ray
observations, the cosmic microwave background radiation and many
other observations. It accurately predicts the temperature of the
cosmic plasma, the Hubble constant and makes a good prediction of
the CMBR temperature. Finally it could explain the solar neutrino
deficiency and it can explain the anomalous acceleration of
Pioneer 10.

Regardless of the validity of curvature cosmology the observational
data strongly suggests that the cosmological paradigm be changed from
Big Bang to that for a static universe that has no inflation,
no dark matter and no dark energy.
David F. Crawford
(remove the bird)

In article , davd
writes:

Observational evidence favors a static universe.

I saw the title and the author and I immediately noted that I had seen
similar titles from the same author in the past.

Is there anything new in these new papers compared to your previous
papers on the subject?

Recently I have published three papers in the Journal of Cosmology

To be perfectly frank, this journal doesn't have the best of
reputations. Probably anyone considering taking a deeper look at your
proposal would be put off by the fact that you publish in the Journal of
Cosmology.

Yes, the establishment might be hostile to new ideas etc. However,
these days it is possible to "publish" something only on the ArXiv.
In the case of a non-mainstream paper, this is probably actually better
than publishing it in an offbeat journal.

IIRC, Perelman published his proof of the Poincaré conjecture only on
ArXiv. It was noticed, he turned out to be right and is respected by
the community. (Whether he respects the community is another question,
as indicated by his declining the Fields Medal.)

On Apr 2, 5:35*am, Phillip Helbig---undress to reply
wrote:
In article , davd

writes:
Observational evidence favors a static universe.

I saw the title and the author and I immediately noted that I had seen
similar titles from the same author in the past.

Is there anything new in these new papers compared to your previous
papers on the subject?

Yes there is a lot that is new. All of section 1 is an examination of
the observations that strongly support a static universe.

Recently I have published three papers in the Journal of Cosmology

To be perfectly frank, this journal doesn't have the best of
reputations. *Probably anyone considering taking a deeper look at your
proposal would be put off by the fact that you publish in the Journal of
Cosmology.

Yes, the establishment might be hostile to new ideas etc. *However,
these days it is possible to "publish" something only on the ArXiv. *
In the case of a non-mainstream paper, this is probably actually better
than publishing it in an offbeat journal.

IIRC, Perelman published his proof of the Poincar conjecture only on
ArXiv. *It was noticed, he turned out to be right and is respected by
the community. *(Whether he respects the community is another question,
as indicated by his declining the Fields Medal.)

I am well aware of the reputation of the Journal of Cosmology. I have
tried more main stream journals without success. Please read and see
if you can refute my arguments.

On Apr 1, 12:10*am, davd wrote:
Observational evidence favors a static universe.

Not a good start when your position is one that was abandoned nearly a
century ago.

A major difference between cosmologies in an expanding universe
and that in a static universe is time dilation.

That, and the actual expansion of the universe.

Whereas a tired
light process could explain the energy loss of photons it cannot
produce the effect of time dilation on the rate of arrival of
photons.

If that were the only problem with tired light, it'd be in a lot
better shape.

In an expanding universe cosmology the equations for the distance
modulus and for the angular size include a term, (1+z), to allow for

(1+z)^2

Time dilation and expansion.

time dilation. Since the similar equations for a static-universe
cosmology do include this term its presence (or absence) makes
a suitable test for determining whether the universe is expanding.

That test is called the Tolman surface brightness test.


Recently I have published three papers in the Journal of Cosmology
that investigates this proposal. The references a
http://journalofcosmology.com/crawford1.pdf:2022, JCos, 13, ?
http://journalofcosmology.com/crawford2.pdf:2022, JCos, 13, ?
http://journalofcosmology.com/crawford3.pdf:2022, JCos, 13, ?
A single file version that is essentially identical to the three
papers
is available at arXiv 1009.0953:http://arxiv.org/abs/1009.0953
It includes a table of contents,hyperlinks and several minor
corrections.
Be warned it has 96 pages and is about 1MB in length.

Let's run through this till I get annoyed and stop, or run out of
paper to read.

Page 3 - citing tired light as a credible alternative to Hubble
expansion. Seeing tired light once was a warning sign, twice is a
major red flag that further deep misunderstandings are afoot.

Page 4

Arguing that the effects from expansion and time dilation must cancel
out --- Not even wrong.
Arguing anything about "curvature pressure" --- Not even wrong.
Arguing that photons lose energy from interactions with spacetime ---
Not even wrong + a transparent attempt to opening a door to invoking
tired light.

Page 5

AGAIN! Expansion and time dilation contribute a (1+z)^2 factor. Not
1+z.

"The analysis is complex and is based on the premise that the most
constant characteristic of the supernova explosion is its
total energy and not its peak magnitude."

This isn't even wrong-adjacent. Good lord. The only constant feature
of type 1a supernovae is their luminosity. Not the total energy, not
the peak magnitude.

I'm done with this paper. Five pages in and there's too many
fundamental and repeated errors of understanding.

[don't care about the rest]

davd wrote:
Observational evidence favors a static universe.
A major difference between cosmologies in an expanding universe
and that in a static universe is time dilation. Whereas a tired
light process could explain the energy loss of photons it cannot
produce the effect of time dilation on the rate of arrival of
photons.
[[...]]
[[details in arXiv:1009.0953]]

In big-bang cosmology the CMBR is expected to be hotter (by a factor
of 1+z) at high redshifts. Observations support this. For example,
Ge et al., (Astrophysical Journal 474 (1997) 67, astro-ph/9607145)
used observations of spectral line ratios at a redshift of z=1.97
to measure the CMBR temperature at that place/time as 7.9+/-1.0 K.
The Big-bang prediction is (1+z) * 2.73 K = 8.1 K. (You cite this
work in your paper, along with a number of other more recent
measurements of this effect.)

It's not clear to me how a static-universe model can predict anything
other than the observed temperature today, 2.73 K. That is, it seems
to me that any temperature evolution violates the usual meaning of the
word "static". In your paper (arXiv:1009.0953, section 5.4) you
essentially state that further research is needed to fully understand
the static-universe model's predictions.

--
-- "Jonathan Thornburg [remove -animal to reply]"
Dept of Astronomy & IUCSS, Indiana University, Bloomington, Indiana, USA
"Washing one's hands of the conflict between the powerful and the
powerless means to side with the powerful, not to be neutral."
-- quote by Freire / poster by Oxfam

On Apr 1, 7:10*am, davd wrote:
Observational evidence favors a static universe.
A major difference between cosmologies in an expanding universe
and that in a static universe is time dilation. Whereas a tired
light process could explain the energy loss of photons it cannot
produce the effect of time dilation on the rate of arrival of
photons.

Actually, a static universe could produce the time dilation for the
arrival time as well. This is if the (non-Doppler) redshift mechanism
not only increases the wavelength of the electromagnetic wave but
additionally its amplitude i.e. their intensity. In this case one
would underestimate the absolute brightness of the supernova and thus
wrongly conclude (because of the correlation between absolute
brightness and decay time) that the decay time has expanded as well.
See my page http://www.physicsmyths.org.uk/redshift.htm for more.

Thomas

On Apr 3, 1:27*am, Thomas Smid wrote:
On Apr 1, 7:10 am, davd wrote:

Observational evidence favors a static universe.
A major difference between cosmologies in an expanding universe
and that in a static universe is time dilation. Whereas a tired
light process could explain the energy loss of photons it cannot
produce the effect of time dilation on the rate of arrival of
photons.

Actually, a static universe could produce the time dilation for the
arrival time as well. This is if the (non-Doppler) redshift mechanism
not only increases the wavelength of the electromagnetic wave but
additionally its amplitude i.e. their intensity. In this case one
would underestimate the absolute brightness of the supernova and thus
wrongly conclude (because of the correlation between absolute
brightness and decay time) that the decay time has expanded as well.
See my pagehttp://www.physicsmyths.org.uk/redshift.htmfor more.

Thomas

When you say "physics myths" would that be you have about physics?
Because what you wrote is rather wrong.

Plasma scatters, absorbs, and reflects EM, depending on the
wavelength. It does NOT allow it to pass unmolested except for an
increase in wavelength. Much less at *all* observed wavelengths.

I would love to see your derivation of this effect. Please use actual
plasma physics.

On Apr 4, 7:31*am, Eric Gisse wrote:
On Apr 3, 1:27 am, Thomas Smid wrote:



On Apr 1, 7:10 am, davd wrote:

Observational evidence favors a static universe.
A major difference between cosmologies in an expanding universe
and that in a static universe is time dilation. Whereas a tired
light process could explain the energy loss of photons it cannot
produce the effect of time dilation on the rate of arrival of
photons.

Actually, a static universe could produce the time dilation for the
arrival time as well. This is if the (non-Doppler) redshift mechanism
not only increases the wavelength of the electromagnetic wave but
additionally its amplitude i.e. their intensity. In this case one
would underestimate the absolute brightness of the supernova and thus
wrongly conclude (because of the correlation between absolute
brightness and decay time) that the decay time has expanded as well.
See my pagehttp://www.physicsmyths.org.uk/redshift.htm for more

Thomas

When you say "physics myths" would that be you have about physics?
Because what you wrote is rather wrong.

Plasma scatters, absorbs, and reflects EM, depending on the
wavelength. It does NOT allow it to pass unmolested except for an
increase in wavelength. Much less at *all* observed wavelengths.

I would love to see your derivation of this effect. Please use actual
plasma physics.

Actual plasma physics can not explain the effect. I am suggesting
that the redshift in an electric field is a new effect which only has
not been discovered so far because it is so small that it would
require electric field strengths of the order of the inner-atomic
field to be observed in the lab. So it can only be observed for very
long path lengths like for intergalactic distances. The point is that
the intergalactic 'plasma' is so dilute (probably only 1 particle/m^3)
that a 'photon' fully fits between two charged particles so it
experiences permanently an electric field, which, according to my
suggestions, causes a redshift (as explained on my page
http://www.plasmaphysics.org.uk/research/redshift.htm ). Again, this
has nothing to do with scattering or other common plasma processes but
is a new effect I am proposing here.

Thomas

On Apr 4, 12:12*pm, Thomas Smid wrote:
Actual plasma physics can not explain the *effect. I am suggesting
that the redshift in an electric field is a new effect which only has
not been discovered so far because it is so small that it would
require electric field strengths of the order of the inner-atomic
field to be observed in the lab.

Electric field strengths on the order of what is inside an atom are
responsible for the optical properties of matter. The simultaneous
argument they are responsible for galactic redshift is... not
credible.

So it can only be observed for very
long path lengths like for intergalactic distances. The point is that
the intergalactic 'plasma' is so dilute (probably only 1 particle/m^3)
that a 'photon' fully fits between two charged particles so it
experiences permanently an electric field, which, according to my
suggestions, causes a redshift (as explained on my pagehttp://www.plasmaphysics.org.uk/research/redshift.htm). Again, this
has nothing to do with scattering or other common plasma processes but
is a new effect I am proposing here.

Thomas

Ok. How does it explain the Tolman surface brightness test (direct
test of expansion vs other possibilities) and the multiple indirect
observations of the CMB temperature at various redshifts?

[Mod. note: quoted text trimmed -- mjh]

On Apr 4, 8:31*am, Eric Gisse wrote:
On Apr 3, 1:27 am, Thomas Smid wrote:


See my pagehttp://www.physicsmyths.org.uk/redshift.htmformore.

Thomas

When you say "physics myths" would that be you have about physics?
Because what you wrote is rather wrong.

Oh, I thought that was Physic Smyths - to do with bashing physics
about with a hammer and anvil in order to make it into something else.