A Space & astronomy forum. SpaceBanter.com

Go Back   Home » SpaceBanter.com forum » Astronomy and Astrophysics » Research
Site Map Home Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

Galaxy cluster at z=1.4 challenges BBT



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #21  
Old March 31st 05, 09:47 AM
Phillip Helbig---remove CLOTHES to reply
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

In article ,
" writes:

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


There are observations of the proximity effect: Jakobsen et al., A&A
397, 891(2003).

The conventional view is that the quasars must be turning on
and off, or have very short lifetimes. I think a better
explanation is that the quasars are not located where the BBT
says they are - due to most of the redshift of their light,
including probably most or all of the Lyman alpha forest,
occurring in space near to them. My best guess is that this
occurs due to some kind of plasma redshift or sparse particle
redshift mechanism.


Note that in gravitational lens systems, where observations without any
redshifts indicate which is the foreground and which is the background
object, it invariably turns out that the background object has the
larger redshift.

As far as I know, quasars were not generally considered to
have short lifetimes until this lack of TPE business arose.


There might not have been any direct evidence for it, but how can there
be, when we've been observing QSOs for only a few decades.

If quasars are the same as, or cousins to, "radio galaxies"
then its hard to imagine them having such short lifetimes
since (according to BBT theories) these radio galaxies have
such huge lobes that they must have been running continually
for very long periods of time.


Many QSOs ARE variable. Variability can lead to a lack of the TPE where
one would otherwise "expect" it. It doesn't mean the whole QSO turns
off forever.
  #22  
Old March 31st 05, 09:47 AM
Max Keon
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

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


[snip]


The contents of this link http://www.ozemail.com.au/~mkeon/cmb.html
is an extract from a theory which describes a universe that
originated from absolutely nothing, and it provides an alternative
explanation for the CMBR.


Can it explain why the spectrum of the CMBR is such a nice blackbody,
without any spectral lines?


Yes.


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

-----
-----

I wrote:
------------------
The temperature at the origin was zero. The universe is evolving.
Its temperature is increasing at a logarithmic rate, hence the
^1.12 adjustment to each (equally spaced relative to a fixed time
zone) curve generated from the Planck equation,
#=((8*pi*h*f^3)/(c^2*(EXP((h*f)/(k*t))-1))) ^1.12
------------------

"(equally spaced relative to a fixed time zone)" should read
"(equally spaced relative to the present)". A fixed time zone could
be anywhere, even close to the origin of the universe.

That error prompted me to check what was actually on the web page.
I was alarmed to find another three such errors, which would confuse
the hell out of anyone trying to understand it. I've listed the
offending part paragraphs below.

The remaining three black curves were each generated in three equally
separated stages in the evolution of the universe, from the origin.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Should read "from the present to the origin."


The next set of graphs is a re-run of this set, but includes twice
the number of (equally spaced from the origin) past blackbody
sources ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

Should read "equally spaced from the present to the origin"


I could add any number of equally spaced curves, from the zero
origin to the present, ^^^^^^^^^^^^^
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Should read "from the present to the zero origin"


This paragraph toward the end of the page
highlights why they are deemed errors.

But whatever the case, I cannot possibly perceive my true
circumstances of existence from where I am. I'm always the zero
point of my measuring stick to the universe. I measure 10 billion
light years to a past realm and then 20 billion light years to
another and conclude that the distance to the latter realm is twice
that to the former. But if the same measurement is taken from the
true zero mark, at the origin of the universe, the two distances
could be only infinitesimally less than identical.

Another thing I noticed while I was reading is the fact that I
hadn't adequately addressed the problem at hand. Even though the
curves were generated according to a kind of inverted logic from
the zero origin universe, when I wrote that page, it was clear to
me that words were the only problem, and I imagined that it would
be clear to anyone else. But now that my memory of the page content
has faded, I see now that it just leads to total confusion.

I thought I had found a number that would identify the current state
of evolution of the universe, and that became the priority. But what
I apparently found was more to do with the scale of the graph than
anything else.

I've stored a set of updated graphs at
http://www.ozemail.com.au/~mkeon/graphs.html
which were generated from a modified version of the Qbasic program
that generated the original graphs. The combined input curves are
first shifted to the hotter side of the CMB power spectrum peak,
then redshifted using the correct logic of the zero origin universe.

I'll update the page as soon as I can.
-----------

The link I didn't post:
"Fluctuations arising from the Sunnyaev-Zel'dovich (SZ) effect,
the up-scattering of the background spectrum by both the hot gas
surrounding galaxy clusters and the peculiar velocity of the
cluster, should be observable on spatial scales of around 3
arcminutes." (I've lost the link. I'll post it next time)

http://www.phys.unsw.edu.au/jacara/P...pasp97_mgb.pdf

-----

Max Keon
  #23  
Old March 31st 05, 09:48 AM
Bjoern Feuerbacher
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

wrote:
Bjoern,


[snip to the point]



Please point out what fine-tuning to observations was
done in the BBT.



1 - The so-called "Hubble Constant":

H_0: The Incredible Shrinking Constant, 1925-1975
Virginia Trimble, PASP v.108, p.1073-1082

http://adsabs.harvard.edu/cgi-bin/np...ASP..108.1073T

That has nothing to do with "fine-tuning to observations".
In contrast, this is standard science: determining a parameter
from observations, where the parameter often changes as measurements
get better with time.


2 - When new observations show that mature galaxy clusters
found at redshifts which (according to the BBT) date
them as being not long after the BB, BBT supporters
suggest contorting their theories of galaxy formation
into ever shorter timeframes rather than question the
validity of the BBT.


That again has nothing to do with "fine-tuning to observations".
And the reason here is simple: galaxy formation theories are plagued
with uncertainties, and the computer simulations done on them are
permitted to be inaccurate even by the very researchers working
on that. So it's quite natural to question these first instead
of questioning a well-established theory like the BBT.



3 - When no transverse proximity effect is found with a
foreground quasar, BBT supporters pursue a line of
quasar theory which is at odds with all previous
interpretations of other types of observations,
rather than question whether redshift is really as
reliable an indicator of distance as the BBT says it
is.


Essentially same comment as above.


The first example is a series of quantitative revisions,
each probably approximately as confidently made as today's
"13.7 +/-0.2 Gigayear" estimate.

The latter two are qualitative examples. These are
instances of BBT supporters choosing to revise existing
theories in dramatic ways


You conveniently ignore that people working on galaxy formation
freely admit that the current models are far from accurate,
and a lot of work has to be done on them. It's quite natural
to look for errors in uncertain theories first, don't you think?
Have you ever read an article on galaxy formation?


- to the point where many
objections can easily be made and where the revisions are
destructive of some probably sensible existing theories -


Simply wrong for point 2. Don't know for point 3.



rather than question the veracity of the BBT's insistence
on how substantial redshift can only be caused by Doppler,
expansion or whatever you want to call it.


Expansion. If you want to argue against the BBT, at least
use the right terms to describe it.


Bye,
Bjoern
  #24  
Old March 31st 05, 11:27 AM
Ulf Torkelsson
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

wrote:
Bjoern,

It doesn't matter whether the redshift of distant objects
under the BBT is called "Doppler" or something else. The
point is that apart from a little motion which is relative
to nearby objects, and a little gravitational redshift, the
BBT says that there is no redshift mechanism other than the
expansion of the Universe.

Therefore, the foreground and background quasars in the
Quasar-Quasar Transverse Proximity Effect work:

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

are, according to the BBT, at distances which can be so
reliably estimated that researchers can be sure that a
specific portion of the Lyman alpha absorption in the
background quasar's spectrum occurred at the same distance
from Earth as that of the foreground quasar. This places
that section of the path from the background quasar at a
distance from the foreground quasar which can be directly
calculated from the angle between the quasars on the sky,
and the distance to the foreground quasar, which depends on
the cosmological parameters used to convert redshift to
distance.

Contrary to their expectations, the researchers find
absorption in those parts of the spectrum corresponding to
this locality. They expected an absence of absorption
due to the foreground quasar radiating UV approximately
anisotropically and thereby ionising any hydrogen in the
area.

If the BBT is correct, then the quasar redshifts must be
attributable only to their position in the expanding
Universe - so the researcher's estimates of their distance
must be accurate. So if the BBT is correct, we must
conclude either that the foreground quasar is very narrowly
beamed (either in its intrinsic pattern of radiation or due
to some kind of shielding arrangement) or that a short time
before it emitted the light we observe, it was not emitting
sufficient UV to ionize the local hydrogen. This time
corresponds to the distance between it and the path from
the background quasar.

The researchers find this a difficult choice - and in their
papers discount beaming and shielding, for reasons which
seem reasonable to me: the beaming would have to be
implausably narrow. Rather then question their theory
about the nature of the redshift (probably because they
consider their knowledge to be a fact, rather than a
theory), and therefore question their estimates of distances
to the quasars, they conclude that the foreground quasar
wasn't radiating at a time which would have altered
absorption in the background quasar's spectrum for the light
we observe today.

No matter whether they chose beaming/shielding or a short
lifetime for each quasar (perhaps including low duty-cycles
of on/off radiation) they have a major problem: all these
explanations involve the actual number of quasars being very
much larger than is usually estimated. Amongst other things,
revising this estimate of the abundance of quasars must
surely require some major revision of the now very detailed
interlocking network of quantitative theories which
constitute the current version of the Big Bang Theory.


I cannot see a major problem at this stage in either
of the explanations. It appears today that essentially
all galaxies are harbouring a massive black hole in their
centre. Therefore it is likely that all these galaxies
have gone through one or more quasar phases in their youth.
It is well known that the quasar density is much higher at
high redshifts than in our local universe.

Let us know look at the arguments in favour of either
of the explanations of the lack of this proximity effect,
though I must admit that I do it without having looked at
the papers that report on this. Beaming would not be
surprising. Other kinds of active galaxies, in particular
Seyfert galaxies, show strong signs of that the black
holes are surrounded by dost tori on a scale of say 100 pc.
This dust torus is absorbing most of the optical and
ultraviolet radiation that is emitted in the plane of the
torus. For that reason we observe two kinds of Seyfert
galaxies, Seyfert 1s that we observe face on, so that we
see straight down to the region surrounding the black
hole in the centre, and Seyfert 2s that we see from the
side, that is through the dust torus. The Seyfert 2
galaxies are thus missing the ultraviolet radiation
and the broad spectral lines that are formed close to
the black hole. Such a dust torus in the quasar could
explain the missing proximity effect.

A short duty cycle may also explain the proximity
effect. If the quasar would only last for a few
million years at a time, which is a short time in
astronomy, then the quasar would have switched of
once its radiation would have ionised the surrounding
gas that would absorb light from the more faraway quasar.
I cannot see a serious problem with a quasar model
that turns on for a few million years, and then goes
back to a dormant stage for say five to ten million
years. The individual outbursts could then perhaps
be the result of the black hole disrupting and
swallowing a giant molecular cloud that comes too
close to it, but there can also be other mechanisms
that can explain these outbursts. The point is
that our knowledge of quasars is still sufficiently
incomplete that we cannot rule out a lot of
models for how they work.


My point is that these researchers, and it seems you too,
are pursuing a path of quasars being very narrow - in time
or beaming - for which there is no other obvious supporting
observations, when a much simpler explanation is that the
quasars are not located at the distances that the BBT says
they are.


But there are a host of other observations demonstrating
that the redshifts are a good distance estimator for the
quasar. During the last twenty five years we have observed
a number of gravitational lenses, in which a galaxy at an
intermediate redshift is producing multiple images of a
quasar with a larger redshift. For these systems it is
always the case that the lensed quasar has a significantly
larger redshift than the lensing galaxy, as it should be
if the redshift is a valid distance estimator.

When we observe the Lyman-alpha forest due to
absorption by intervening gas in the spectrum of a
quasar we always find that the Lyman-alpha
absorption lines have smaller redshifts than the
quasar, which once again is compatible with that they
are at a smaller distance from us than the quasar.

If quasars are at distances closer than their BBT-predicted
redshift distances, then a bunch of other problems are
solved. For instance the rapid changes in output become
compatible with quasars of a smaller size and smaller output
once it can be admitted that quasars are closer than the
BBT says they are.

It only takes one piercing observation, correctly
interpreted, to disprove an entire theory. Its not like
in a democracy where opinions and numbers of votes matter.

The BBT predicts that the quasars and the neutral H is
exactly where these researchers think they are, but all
other observations indicate that quasars are not
exceedingly narrowly beamed and are not prone to having
short lifetimes.

Rather than question the BBT, the researchers - and you
too it seems - prefer to pursue a view of quasars which
is seems to be incompatible with theoretical
interpretations of a vast number of observations. While
I think these interpretations are badly skewed by over-
estimates of distance, I am not aware of any reason to
question the theories of quasars being big, long-lasting
and not narrowly beamed, at least in their UV radiation.


The point here is that the big bang theory is a much
simpler and better understood theory supported by simple
observations, while our models for quasars are messy and
not always supported by the ambiguous observations that
we have of quasars, and by that I do not mean the
observations of the redshifts of the quasars, but rather
attempts to explain the features in the spectra of quasars.
Rather than throwing out the simple and well understood
theory, we prefer to think that there is something wrong
in the really messy model of the quasars.

[snipping the rest]

Ulf Torkelsson
  #25  
Old March 31st 05, 11:58 AM
Martin Hardcastle
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

In article ,
wrote:
No matter whether they chose beaming/shielding or a short
lifetime for each quasar (perhaps including low duty-cycles
of on/off radiation) they have a major problem: all these
explanations involve the actual number of quasars being very
much larger than is usually estimated.


We discussed this in the newsgroup last year, and I pointed out then
that there really isn't a problem with short duty cycles for quasars.
Here are some further thoughts:

1. The radio galaxy observations that you rely on don't put a very strong
*direct* constraint on the ages of the underlying AGN (must be 10^6
years in a few cases -- though the best estimates of the ages of those
systems are longer) and in any case there's a selection effect towards
long-lived systems in radio galaxies, which are selected on their
luminosity integrated over time.

2. Short duty cycles for quasars do *not* imply the `actual number of
quasars being very much larger than is usually estimated'. In fact,
they're entirely consistent with the consensus that all massive
galaxies host central massive black holes. In that scenario we might
well expect that every massive galaxy has a good chance of hosting a
number of AGN events in its lifetime (of varying duration and
luminosity -- these will depend on the availability of mass to fall
onto the central black hole and on the rate at which it can do so).

3. Even if point 2 were not correct, which it is, there is no way of
firing up `big bang theory' and predicting the `abundance of quasars'
as you imply. `Big bang theory' has *nothing to say* about the
abundance of quasars. Galaxy formation models need to produce the
required central supermassive black holes on a sensible timescale, and
that *is* an interesting problem, but we are a long way off having the
tools to go directly from the state of the universe on the largest
scales to the dynamics of the matter around a central AGN on scales
comparable to that of the solar system, and that's what we'd need to
do in order to use the properties of AGN to overthrow the entire
theory.

Martin
--
Martin Hardcastle
School of Physics, Astronomy and Mathematics, University of Hertfordshire, UK
Please replace the xxx.xxx.xxx in the header with star.herts.ac.uk to mail me
  #27  
Old March 31st 05, 04:28 PM
Phillip Helbig---remove CLOTHES to reply
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

In article , Max Keon
writes:

A background radiation was perhaps predicted, but not at precisely
2.73 K, was it! Doesn't that amount to fine-tuning to observation?
Not that I think there's a problem with that.


Gamow's back-of-the-envelope 1940s estimate was of the right order of
magnitude. The temparature just scales as T = T_0*(1+z). All you need
to know is the density of the universe today. The density at which the
CMB was formed is fixed, as is the temperature. Obviously the density
of the universe today cannot be calculated from first principles, since
it depends on the epoch of observation.
  #28  
Old April 1st 05, 10:07 AM
Bjoern Feuerbacher
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Max Keon wrote:
Bjoern Feuerbacher wrote:

wrote:

I haven't studies the Sachs-Wolfe effect. The supposed
precision of the BBT theory of CMB doesn't impress me or
many other critics.



Interestingly, most of the critics are not aware of most of
the evidence...



It can be easy to think of other explanations



Yes. Making up stories without bothering to do actual
quantitative checks is very easy indeed.



- and then, with sufficient effort, to
fine-tune them to observations too.



"fine-tune them to observations, too"? Please point out
what fine-tuning to observations was done in the BBT.



A background radiation was perhaps predicted, but not at precisely
2.73 K, was it!


Indeed. So what? Please point out when and where the BBT was
"fine-tuned" so that the value of 2.73 K came out. That implies
that the theory was twisted purposefully to make this value come
out. That would be news to me.


Doesn't that amount to fine-tuning to observation?


No. That amounts to "determining parameters of a theory from
observations". And that's done for *every* theory in physics.


[snip]

Bye,
Bjoern
  #29  
Old April 5th 05, 12:05 PM
Robin Whittle
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

A whole bunch of things about quasars and AGN:

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

The nature of jets.

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

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


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

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

I am on the case, but I think the first task is to
overcome the problems caused by thinking of
electromagnetic radiation and the quanta of energy which
result from it as involving independent "photons". Once
there is a good redshift theory - especially one we can
test in space or on Earth - then the only remaining task
to deal with is the BBT supporter's interpretation of
supernovae light curves, which are conventionally
understood to show time dilation. Jerry Jensen's critique
looks like a good starting point:

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

But it will be a lot of work getting the raw data and
reworking it, whilst paying close attention to all the
difficult questions of corrections and interpretation.

- Robin http://astroneu.com http://www.firstpr.com.au
  #30  
Old April 5th 05, 12:06 PM
Max Keon
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Bjoern Feuerbacher wrote:

Max Keon wrote:

Bjoern Feuerbacher wrote:

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



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


We'll see.


and why it has a blackbody spectrum?



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


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


As the universe evolves, its temperature rises. Looking back into
the past universe from the present (anytime), its combined
temperatures, right from the origin, are on display as background
radiation. There are no discrete stages of evolution of course. The
changing curve from the entire past, and the uniform temperature
curve generated in the present must all add up to equal 2.73K.
But the average temperature of the current universe alone must be
higher than when the rest of the background is added to it.

A point which I have never properly explained, anywhere, is how I
arrived at the equally spaced stages in the evolution of the
universe for my graph plots. Firstly, the universe is not expanding.
The noted redshift is due to a reduced speed of light in a lesser
evolved universe. Assuming that the current temperature of the
universe is 3.4K, the temperature at the halfway mark toward the
origin is 1.7K, where the speed of light will be halved, relative
to now.

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

The temperature at the origin was zero.


That's contrary to observations, which show that the temperature was
*greater* in the past. See the link shortly below.


The universe is evolving.


Finally something we agree on.


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


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


And I've read it so many times!

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


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


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

BTW, the Planck curve to the power of 1.12 does not give a blackbody
curve again. You even have problems with the units there!


That has become redundant.
-----
-----

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

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



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


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


Why should I explain observational evidence for predictions of
the BBT when it has nothing whatever to do with the zero origin
universe? Anyway, most of the evidence that supports the BBT is
from distant sources. In this unbounded universe, if one searches
for long enough, seeking evidence of some effect which is predicted
by a theory, that evidence will probably be found. But the real
cause for what is observed may be entirely unrelated. Compiling much
of this type of evidence forms a solid foundation which is
unjustifiably hard to wedge apart.

Since the argument is to do with your rejection of the zero origin
universe, cluttering the post with BBT predictions is pointless, so
I've snipped what I consider irrelevant. You can put it all back
again if you want.
-----
-----

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


That's the same as the BBT says.


increasing the depth of dimension, of space.


That's incomprehensible.


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

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


That's very close to what the BBT says.


within a completely black background.


That is contrary to the observations.


A universe with zero anisotropy would not exist.


Why not?


Because there is nothing there. When you better understand the zero
origin universe you'll know why.
-----
-----

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


Well, then why has this been observed?



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


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

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


This is not a scenario where those equations necessarily apply.
I'm not convinced that the wavelengths undergo permanent change.

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


That has little to do with photons and light.


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


Why should they?


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

If the balls are replaced with photons which simply follow the
changing geodesic path set up by the deepening well, it would be
a mind boggling challenge to explain why they would shift further
apart (especially if they don't have wavelength????) in order to
overcome a potential momentum change that can't possibly exist.

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

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


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


There does seem to be a case for point source shafts of E/M
radiation. The reaction wavelength will of course remain as it was
created (relative to dimension along its travels) and so too will
the energy carried over the wavelength. But it can't be described
as a particle in the zero origin universe. Planck opened a Pandora's
Box when he did that, in my opinion.

-----

Max Keon
 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
The Gravitational Instability Theory on the Formation of the Universe Br Dan Izzo Policy 6 September 7th 04 09:29 PM
A Chain Cluster: Witnessing the Formation of a Rich Galaxy Cluster7 Billion Years Ago (Forwarded) Andrew Yee Astronomy Misc 0 December 31st 03 06:52 AM
[obs] Lucy looks Skywards 23/09/2003 Morgoth Amateur Astronomy 1 September 29th 03 02:39 AM
[obs] Lucy looks Skywards 23/09/2003 Morgoth UK Astronomy 1 September 29th 03 02:39 AM
Whats in the sky today [email protected] Amateur Astronomy 3 July 14th 03 04:24 AM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 07:20 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 SpaceBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.