Galaxy cluster at z=1.4 challenges BBT

Steve Willner wrote:

QSO's _must_ have short lifetimes. The implied accretion
rates of luminous QSO's are tens to hundreds of solar
masses per year, yet the masses of black holes at the
centers of local galaxies are only of order 1E9 solar
masses. Thus accretion at typical rates must last less
than 1E8 years.

This would be true if it is assumed that the QSOs are at
the distances predicted by the BBT - and with the reasonable
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.

However the idea that a QSO's redshift, or that of any other
object, has no "intrinsic" or "nearby" component is only a
theory. I don't support Halton Arp's or anyone else's
theory of the emission lines etc. we see in QSO spectrums
starting off at different wavelengths or frequencies than
those lines do on Earth. I think a much more satisfying
explanation is that there is a redshift process occurring in
the plasma and neutral gas which makes up the IGM and space
around stars, galaxies and quasars. Ari Brynjolfsson's
plasma redshift theory is:

http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0401420

I am working on an extension of my hypothesis:

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

to generalise it to redshift and scattering processes in
sparse plasmas or neutral gas clouds.

With either of these theories, the great majority of QSO
redshift (including probably most or all of the Lyman alpha
forest) probably occurs locally to the object, so they are
not as far away as usually assumed. So they are not as
stupendously bright as the BBT assumes they are - and we
don't need to consider that they consume tens to hundreds of
solar masses a year.

I agree that the main emission of some or many QSOs is
likely to be beamed, due to an opaque torus. This is not
the explanation favoured by the Transverse Proximity
Effect researchers whose papers I reference at my site -
because they do detailed modelling to try to simulate this
and are not happy with the results. They prefer to pursue
limited lifetimes.

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. I can't see how the matter in the galaxy could be
less available to the black hole than matter it was feeding
on in the distant past. (If the BBT explanation is that
the Universe was more dense at those times, then how is
it that we can see the QSOs quite nicely, and how is it
that they are less luminous now that they are right in the
middle of huge, dense, galaxies.)

The centre of a galaxy has lots of stars cruising past each
other and this will cause some of them to be flung into
divergent orbits - so I can't imagine the whole centre of a
galaxy somehow setting down into orbits which deny food for
the black hole to a degree that the hole is much less
luminous than however it was 5 or 10 billion years ago.

Please don't complain about this "speculation" - I am not
expecting people to agree with it. The conventional
explanations for some observations are really unsatisfying to
me and some other people, so the next step is imagine
something better. Please do argue against these ideas rather
than complaining that they are not sufficiently quantitative.

For instance: why we should rule out a redshift mechanism in
sparse plasmas, when we don't understand the heating or
acceleration of the solar corona or wind.

Just because most people can't imagine how "photons" could
lose energy doesn't mean we can rule out the existence of such
a process. "Photons" are a theoretical construct - and so
shouldn't be used to rule out other theories. Theories
can only be disproven by observations.

Slight redshift of short coherence length light - (eg. black
body radiation, not emission or absorption lines) with sparse
plasmas is probably impossible to reproduce in the lab. But
there are plenty of astrophysical observations which I think
allow for or suggest the existence of such a process.

- Robin http://astroneu.com http://www.firstpr.com.au

Roger Stokes wrote:
"Ulf Torkelsson" wrote in message
...

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

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


What would a large galaxy cluster look like after it has virialized? A huge
"elliptical" made up of galaxies? Or would the individual galaxies merge
before virialization could occur?

The galaxies would gradually arrange themselves in an elliptical
shape, but there would also be mergers between galaxies.

On larger scales, a filament made up of
thousands of galaxies could presumably be considered a 1-dimensional
structure - would that collapse, and what would it look like afterwords?



If the filament would be dense enough it would eventually collapse
in the only remaning direction, that is you would eventually get
a more or less ellipsoidal cluster of galaxies. Having said that,
I may add that it will never happen, because structures larger
than clusters of galaxies are not gravitationally bound.
Strictly speaking they are merely areas where the rate of
expansion is lower than the normal rate of expansion in the
universe.

Ulf Torkelsson

Paul F. Dietz wrote:

the scienceMax Keon wrote:
^^^^^^^^^^^
It hasn't gone un-noticed that The University of Hertfordshire has
made the courageous decision to adopt me while I'm here. That rather
overwhelms me.

[Mod. note: that would appear to be a `feature' of posting with no
organization line... -- mjh]

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


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

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

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.

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.

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

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.

-----

Max Keon

I won't attempt to continue this debate forever, but I am
surprised that so many people are so confident about a grand
cosmological theory such as the BBT (conceptually and in
terms of its quantitative predictions) when we have no
proper understanding of important elements of what we are
trying to describe.

Being so confident of the BBT - to the point of preferring
more and more difficult changes to quasar and galaxy theory
over questioning the BBT - seems analogous to being really
confident about a theory of forests whilst having no real
understanding of trees due to being unaware of
photosynthesis and the various pollination mechanisms.

The BBT hangs on a slender thread. If someone can show
that light is redshifted as it passes through plasma etc.
(to a degree such as 1 part in 15 billion per light year
on average between galaxies) then the BBT is kaput.

*If* we already had really good understandings of the major
components of the Universe, including especially stars and
their coronae/winds and galaxies - then I think we would
be in a position to develop cosmological theories with a
hope of being true to Nature.

But we can't explain stellar coronae or winds, or (I think)
the IGM temperatures. We know that where plasma exists at
densities where the average inter-particle distance exceeds
the coherence length of the starlight which passes through
it, that plasma is (sometimes or always) at vastly higher
temperatures than the surfaces of the stars. We see this
in stellar coronae, in the plasma surrounding galaxies and
in the plasma which makes up the IGM.

The heating mechanism (if we discount neutrinos or new
physics) must be mechanical, low frequency magnetic waves,
or some interaction with the light etc. which passes
through the plasma. Since our conventional understanding
has not yet ruled out the role of light in these heating
mechanisms (the objections are theoretical), I believe we
cannot yet rule out the idea that the redshift of distant
objects is caused by the same or a related process to
whatever is heating these sparse plasmas.


Here are some specific responses:

Joseph Lazio, I don't think your broad-brush "scale"
critique means much with the quasar-quasar TPE. The
researchers know the BBT better than I do. They make
specific, and easy to understand, Quantitative predictions
about where they expect the absorption to be in the
spectrum of the background quasar (at a redshift the same
as the foreground quasar), and they don't find it.

Thanks for the Dave and Cen references. I don't have time
at present to follow these up, but the following paper has
references and citations which probably cover the field,
including papers by Cen and Dave:

http://citebase.eprints.org/cgi-bin/...tro-ph/0010345

I understand from a quick look at the conventional theory of
IGM X-ray emission that the IGM is supposedly heated by
"shock heating". I will have to read this material to see
how the proponents suggest it gets so hot, whilst remaining so
thin as to be so transparent. If it is hot due to
compression, then it must be correspondingly denser than
whatever was compressed, but the IGM is thinner than
anything which comes out of stars or supernovae. I suppose
that perhaps the X-ray emission only comes from tiny
portions of the IGM which are much denser - but its hard
for me to imagine huge amounts of mechanical power being
transacted by compression waves in a medium with such
low average density.

I propose that the energy needed to make the IGM continually
emit X-rays comes from some kind of interaction from
starlight of distant galaxies ripping through this sparse,
inhomogeneous, medium. I cannot imagine how how magnetic
fields (as per the conventional solar corona heating
theories) could deposit the energy over such distances in
such a poorly conductive medium.

Regarding "where are the quasars today?": The average high
redshift quasar is, according to the BBT, massively brighter
than whatever activity we see associated with most black
holes at the centre of nearby galaxies today. I can't
understand where those old, massive, quasars (according to
the BBT) went. They must surely be bigger now, and being
in the middle of a galaxy (their most likely fate according
to the BBT) doesn't seem like a place where they would be
starved of fuel.

Ulf Torkelsson wrote that the lack of quasar-quasar TPE is
a problem for any tired light theory. I don't think it a
problem for a theory based on redshift in sparse plasmas:
we can easily imagine plasma density gradients around a
quasar or galaxy which would cause most of the redshift of
some objects, such as quasars, to occur close to them.

David G. Russell suggests that some types of galaxies have
intrinsic redshift, or more intrinsic redshift than others:

Intrinsic Redshifts in Normal Spiral Galaxies
http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0310284 2003 October 10

Also: http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0408348

Maybe some types of galaxies have plasma coronae which
give rise to systematically differing redshifts.

In a plasma redshift theory - or more generally in a sparse
particle redshift and scattering theory - the distance to
both quasars cannot be determined from their redshifts. Nor
can the location of where particular parts of their
Lyman-alpha absorption took place. So such redshift
theories would be a perfectly good explanation for why the
TPE effect is not observed as the BBT predicts.

Phillip Helbig, I think you are referring to:

Caught in the act: a helium-reionizing quasar near the
line of sight to Q0302-003
P. Jakobsen, R. A. Jansen, S. Wagner, D. Reimers
Astron.Astrophys. 397 (2003) 891
http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/?0211035

I should add a link to this from my site. I haven't read
this paper fully, so I can't yet offer a proper critique.

One or more of the papers I reference at:
http://astroneu.com/plasma-redshift-1/#TPE refer to this
paper and seem to accept it as an instance of the
transverse proximity effect with a foreground quasar.

Jakobsen et. all find a new QSO 03020-0014 6.5 arcmin from
the background QSO 0302-003 and find the foreground QSO's
redshift is close to that of the absence of singly ionized
He absorption in the spectrum of the background QSO.

The 4th page of their paper shows the redshift of the
foreground QSO, with error bars +/- 0.003 located 0.006
from the centre of the (inverted) trough in the absorption.

They calculate that there is a 95% chance that this
alignment is not by chance - that it is a real observation
of the foreground quasar ionizing material in the line of
sight (LOS) from a background quasar. They describe a
geometry for the foreground QSO's beaming which would
account for the lack of absorption being located 0.3 to
3.8 Mpc further away than the foreground QSO, with a beaming
arrangement which also enabled the foreground QSO to be
visible from Earth. This involves an opening angle of
greater than 85 degrees, with the axis of the foreground
QSO's cone of emission passing close to our LOS from the
background QSO. They also need to invoke a mechanism by
which the proposed cone of ionizing radiation hasn't
affected more of the LOS. But their model would probably
give a sharp edge to the lack of absorption on the near
side of the zone, which we don't see in the spectrum.

Bjoern, I can't comment in detail on SN light curves - it
would be a huge task to understand and replicate the
processing of these observations. As far as I can see the
raw data of the observations and exact details, including
software, of how the various corrections were made is not
freely available. I simply noted that if the BBT is to be
disproven, for instance with a new redshift mechanism,
than the conventional analysis of these light curves will
also need to be successfully challenged. I don't
necessarily support whatever alternative explanations
Jerry Jensen is suggesting and will consider your
critiques whenever I look at this again.

- Robin http://astroneu.com http://www.firstpr.com.au

Max Keon wrote:


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, this would require completely unbelievable coincidences to work.
Remember, the CMBR is a blackbody a few parts per million, over
a broad range of frequencies, over the entire sky. You are requiring
that on each patch of the sky, at each wavelength, all these nonthermal
emitters are adding up to the right value, to more than five significant
digits.


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.

Um, no. There are ways to measure the absolute temperature of
certain molecules in gas clouds at cosmological distances.
This has nothing to do with 'foreground'.

Paul

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.

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.


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.

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?

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.

Ulf Torkelsson

Robin Whittle wrote:
Steve Willner wrote:


QSO's _must_ have short lifetimes. The implied accretion
rates of luminous QSO's are tens to hundreds of solar
masses per year, yet the masses of black holes at the
centers of local galaxies are only of order 1E9 solar
masses. Thus accretion at typical rates must last less
than 1E8 years.


This would be true if it is assumed that the QSOs are at
the distances predicted by the BBT - and with the reasonable
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.

However the idea that a QSO's redshift, or that of any other
object, has no "intrinsic" or "nearby" component is only a
theory. I don't support Halton Arp's or anyone else's
theory of the emission lines etc. we see in QSO spectrums
starting off at different wavelengths or frequencies than
those lines do on Earth. I think a much more satisfying
explanation is that there is a redshift process occurring in
the plasma and neutral gas which makes up the IGM and space
around stars, galaxies and quasars. Ari Brynjolfsson's
plasma redshift theory is:

http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0401420

I am working on an extension of my hypothesis:

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

to generalise it to redshift and scattering processes in
sparse plasmas or neutral gas clouds.

With either of these theories, the great majority of QSO
redshift (including probably most or all of the Lyman alpha
forest) probably occurs locally to the object, so they are
not as far away as usually assumed. So they are not as
stupendously bright as the BBT assumes they are - and we
don't need to consider that they consume tens to hundreds of
solar masses a year.

As some of us have pointed out, there is strong
evidence that the redshift is a good distance
indicator, for instance in the redshifts of the
lensed and lensing objects in gravitational lenses.
The lensed object always has the higher redshift.
This conclusion is independent of how the redshift
is created, that is it is independent of whether
there has been a big bang! We can calibrate the
relation between redshift and distance in the
universe, that is what people do when they
determine Hubble's constant, and this does not
depend on the assumption that there is a big bang.
If you want to argue that the quasars are not as
distant as we say, then you have to show where
these measurements are wrong, but that would kill
not only the big bang theory, but also any
alternative theory that concludes that the
redshift increases with increasing distance.

I agree that the main emission of some or many QSOs is
likely to be beamed, due to an opaque torus. This is not
the explanation favoured by the Transverse Proximity
Effect researchers whose papers I reference at my site -
because they do detailed modelling to try to simulate this
and are not happy with the results. They prefer to pursue
limited lifetimes.

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. I can't see how the matter in the galaxy could be
less available to the black hole than matter it was feeding
on in the distant past. (If the BBT explanation is that
the Universe was more dense at those times, then how is
it that we can see the QSOs quite nicely, and how is it
that they are less luminous now that they are right in the
middle of huge, dense, galaxies.)

The centre of a galaxy has lots of stars cruising past each
other and this will cause some of them to be flung into
divergent orbits - so I can't imagine the whole centre of a
galaxy somehow setting down into orbits which deny food for
the black hole to a degree that the hole is much less
luminous than however it was 5 or 10 billion years ago.

Well, it is not so difficult to understand why the
galaxies are so quiescent today. We just have to look
at the centre of our own galaxy, and we see that the stars
are mostly orbiting on stable orbits at a safe distance
from the black hole, and the material that gets close
to the black hole is small amounts of gas that has been
blown off the stars. The real problem is to explain
how the black holes could be fed such huge amounts of
gas in the beginning. Perhaps forming galaxies contain
much larger amounts of gas with a low specific angular
momentum.

Please don't complain about this "speculation" - I am not
expecting people to agree with it. The conventional
explanations for some observations are really unsatisfying to
me and some other people, so the next step is imagine
something better. Please do argue against these ideas rather
than complaining that they are not sufficiently quantitative.

For instance: why we should rule out a redshift mechanism in
sparse plasmas, when we don't understand the heating or
acceleration of the solar corona or wind.

Because this is a completely unrelated mechanism!

Just because most people can't imagine how "photons" could
lose energy doesn't mean we can rule out the existence of such
a process. "Photons" are a theoretical construct - and so
shouldn't be used to rule out other theories. Theories
can only be disproven by observations.

Slight redshift of short coherence length light - (eg. black
body radiation, not emission or absorption lines) with sparse
plasmas is probably impossible to reproduce in the lab. But
there are plenty of astrophysical observations which I think
allow for or suggest the existence of such a process.

Why should it be impossible to measure a redshift of short
coherence light in the laboratory? Most of our light
sources, apart from lasers, have short coherence lengths,
and that goes for both continuum sources as well as sources
producing spectral lines. Why do you say that we should
study black body radiation rather then spectral lines?
We do use spectral lines to measure the redshifts of
astrophysical objects.

Ulf Torkelsson

"Robin Whittle" writes:

The BBT hangs on a slender thread. If someone can show
that light is redshifted as it passes through plasma etc.
(to a degree such as 1 part in 15 billion per light year
on average between galaxies) then the BBT is kaput.

It's not clear that's true.

A non cosmological theory of redshifts would have a lot of serious
problems to address, namely,

* how cepheid variable stars, which have a known period-luminosity
relationship in the local universe, would have a period-luminosity
relationship in redshifted galaxies which is exactly tuned to the
redshift of the galaxy? I.e. how would each cepheid know to tune
its luminosity to the intrinsic redshift of the galaxy?

* how could the Lyman alpha forest exist? I.e. how could absorption
systems be seen at multiple intervening redshifts, but not at higher
redshifts?

http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/Ly...ha-forest.html

* if redshift is intrinsic to the host galaxy, how could the *same*
Lyman alpha absorption system appear in two *different* galaxy
spectra, which are on nearby lines of sight?

Young, P. A., Impey, C. D., Foltz, C. B. 2001, ApJ, 549, 76

* for Arp-like theories where the redshift is intrinsic to the
galactic nucleus, how could maser systems exist distinct from the
nucleus which have the same redshift as the nucleus?

Kondratko, P. T., Greenhill, L. J., Moran, J. M. 2005, ApJ, 618, 618
Herrnstein, J. R. et al. 1999, Nature, 400, 539
Yates, J. A. et al 2000, MNRAS, 317, 28

* for non Arp-like theories, where the redshift is created in the
neighborhood of the galaxy by some gas or plasma, how could the
redshift "process" -- whatever it is -- physically generate
indentical redshifts at both microwave and optical wavelengths?
I.e. all electromagnetic processes I am aware of are highly
chromatic.

* for that matter, how could any "plasma effect" shift the wavelength
of emission, without doing other things like line broadening?
I.e. why aren't high redshift lines also highly broadened?

* why the cosmic microwave background in the high redshift universe
was apparently hotter?

Molaro, P., et al. 2002, A&A, 381, L64
Silva, A. I. & Viegas, S. M. 2002 MNRAS, 329, 135
Srianand, R. Petitjean, P. & Ledoux, C. 2000, Nature, 408, 931

* in NGC 4258, which has maser emissions from a disk of material
around the nucleus, both radial (Doppler) and transverse (proper
motion) velocity measurements have been made. These follow exactly
the profile of a Keplerian disk, but only if the distance is 7.2 +/-
0.3 Mpc. This compares well to the cepheid distance to the galaxy,
assuming the Hubble law.

Caputo, F., Marconi, M., & Musella, I. 2002, ApJ, 566, 833
Herrnstein, J. R. et al. 1999, Nature, 400, 539

* and of course, as you point out, how to explain the apparent time
dilation of type Ia supernova light curves in the high redshift
universe.


.....
But we can't explain stellar coronae or winds, or (I think)
the IGM temperatures.

This claim needs more elaboration. Of course there has been extensive
study of stellar winds and coronae.

I would hazard a guess that most of the IGM in the high redshift
universe is cold hydrogen gas, and that it does not emit X-rays (on
the basis of the Lyman alpha forest). If you are relying on the
Marshall et al (1980) paper for your claims of an extensive hot IGM,
then you also need to be aware that this paper used an instrument that
did not have high resolution imaging capabilities. Newer surveys
based on high resolution imagers have been able to resolve a large
percentage of the "diffuse" X-ray background into point sources
(e.g. Moretti et al. 2003 ApJ 588, 696).

.....
Regarding "where are the quasars today?": The average high
redshift quasar is, according to the BBT, massively brighter
than whatever activity we see associated with most black
holes at the centre of nearby galaxies today. I can't
understand where those old, massive, quasars (according to
the BBT) went. They must surely be bigger now, and being
in the middle of a galaxy (their most likely fate according
to the BBT) doesn't seem like a place where they would be
starved of fuel.

Well first of all, accretion by black hole systems in binaries is well
known to be episodic. (This is a property of the accretion disk and
the accretion rate). Also, there is some evidence that the accretion
rate of the super-massive black hole at the center of our own galaxy
is not constant. (Maeda, Y. et al. 2002, ApJ, 570, 671; Baganoff,
F. K. et al. 2003, ApJ, 591, 891). Finally, I think it is not
unreasonable to expect that conditions were quite different in the
early universe, when galaxies were still forming.

CM

Paul F. Dietz wrote:

the scienceMax Keon wrote:
^^^^^^^^^^^
I responded to the prefix to my name:
-- It hasn't gone un-noticed that The University of Hertfordshire has
-- made the courageous decision to adopt me while I'm here. That rather
-- overwhelms me.

- [Mod. note: that would appear to be a `feature' of posting with no
- organization line... -- mjh]

I noticed that Paul's temporary organization was also University
of Hertfordshire. The prefix added to my name made me a little
curious, and I was seeking clarification. Many thanks.

But, please, feel free to adopt me at any time.
-----

I wrote, in reply to Paul:
When the universe has sufficiently evolved, the present
universe will probably form part of the background as well.

That sentence should read; When the universe has sufficiently
evolved, the present universe will *definitely* form part of the
background as well.

-----

Max Keon

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.
-----
-----

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

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

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.

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. I don't perceive you as being dopey.

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? You've learnt the doctrine of physics. I can't elaborate
too much on that though, with one hand tied behind my back. But
"learning" can be be done in so many places, and in each place of
learning, the key to truth has been found.

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.

But every attempt at describing this variable dimension

What do you mean with "variable dimension"?

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

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

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

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

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.

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.

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. Within that added
dimension, the time/light/dimension balance won't alter (not much
anyway), but, to matter existing in that realm, point to point
distances will increase (in a 3D realm). Clocks will slow.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Pardon? Collecting together means becoming further apart to you?

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

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.

-----

Max Keon