REDSHIFT IN A STABLE UNIVERSE

REDSHIFT IN A STABLE UNIVERSE
_____________________________

INTRODUCTION
____________

Old massives galaxies, giant strings of galaxies, or iron-rich quasars
can be observed at enormous distances.
Those findings contradict the big bang theory, according to which
the universe should appear very young at such distances.

Here are a few pertinent references:

- Is the Universe older than expected? (1)
10 July 2002

"An analysis of 13.5 thousand million-year-old X-rays (from
quasar APM 8279+5255) , captured by ESA's XMM-Newton satellite,
has shown that either the Universe may be older than astronomers
had thought or that mysterious, undiscovered "iron factories"
litter the early Universe."

And also,

A Universe Older Than Itself?, by Tom Van Flandern (2)

"The large iron content of the quasar is therefore a major puzzle.
Only two explanations appear possible, and either one is going to
upset some theorists:

(1) the Big Bang redshift-distance-age relationship is wrong; or
(2) the early universe contained "iron factories" producing
extra iron by an unknown physical means."

Notice that a third explanation is plausible:
The universe is stable, and the Big Bang never happenend.

- Very Large Telescope unravels new population of very old
massive galaxies (3)

"Those galaxies must have formed when the Universe was only about
2,000 million years old, that is some 12,000 million years ago."
"... these galaxies have structures and shapes more or less identical
to those of the present-day massive elliptical galaxies"
"Says Andrea Cimatti (INAF, Firenze, Italy), leader of the team:
"Our new study now raises fundamental questions about our understanding
and knowledge of the processes that regulated the genesis and
the evolutionary history of the Universe and its structures."


- GIANT GALAXY STRING DEFIES MODELS OF HOW UNIVERSE EVOLVED (4)

"Wide-field telescope observations of the remote and therefore
early Universe, looking back to a time when it was a fifth of
its present age (redshift = 2.38), have revealed an enormous
string of galaxies about 300 million light-years long. This new
structure defies current models of how the Universe evolved,
which can't explain how a string this big could have formed so early."
"The team compared their observations to supercomputer simulations
of the early Universe, which could not reproduce strings this large.
"The simulations tell us that you cannot take the matter in the early
Universe and line it up in strings this large," said Francis.
"There simply hasn't been enough time since the Big Bang for it
to form structures this colossal".

POSTULATES:
__________

1) The universe is infinite, Euclidean, stable (non-expanding),
homogeneous and isotropic.
2) The range of the gravitational force is finite.
3) The Cosmological Principle, according to which the universe,
when viewed on sufficiently large distance scales, has no preferred
directions or preferred places, applies.

CONSEQUENCES OF THE POSTULATES:
______________________________

At each point of their trajectory, light and material objects are
subject to a negative acceleration cK.

Indeed, each point of the trajectory can be considered as the center
of a sphere of radius R and mean density rho, which corresponds to
the mean density of the universe itself. This is valid according to
the second and third postulates.

At the surface of the sphere, the acceleration of gravity is given
by the formula a = GM/R^2, where G is the gravitational constant.
As rho = M/V and V = (4/3)*pi*R^3, M/R^3 = (4/3)*pi*rho, hence
a = (4/3)*G*pi*rho * R

As the dimension of a is L/T^2, the dimension of (4/3)*G*pi*rho
is 1/T^2, and the square root of this expression corresponds to
the inverse of a time.

The formula a = (4/3)*G*pi*rho * R can thus be written
a = K^2 * d, where K = sqrt((4/3)*G*pi*rho).

To the maximum possible value of R corresponds
a = c^2/R = K^2 * R, hence R(max) = c/K.

Replacing R by c/K in the formula a = K^2 * R, one gets
a = cK, which is the acceleration of gravity at the surface
of a sphere of radius c/K.

As, according to the above postulates, the trajectory of a photon
corresponds to an infinity of such centers, the moving photon will
be subject to a constant negative acceleration cK during its whole
trip, which will lead to its reddening.


THE REDSHIFT IN A STABLE UNIVERSE
_________________________________

A light ray of wavelength lambda is sent from a point P.
At a distance d from P, the energy loss of a photon of
frequency Nu is

(hNu/c^2) * cK * d = hNu * (K/c) * d,
where h is the Plank constant.

The residual energy hNu(o) of the photon at the distance d is

hNu(o) = hNu - hNu * (K/c) * d = hNu (1 - K*d/c), hence
Nu(o) = Nu (1 - (K*d/c), and
lambda(o) = (1 - (K*d/c) / lambda

Thus, in a stable homogeneous universe,

z = (lambda(o) - lambda) / lambda
= (K/c)d * (1+z), and

d = (c/K) * z/(1+z)
z = d / ((c/K)-d),

where d is the distance between the observer and
the emitter at the instant when the light was emitted.

Interestingly enough, the formula d = (c/K) * z/(1+z), which gives
the light travel time, leads, assuming c/K = 15 Gly, to results which
are very close to those obtained by Ned Wright's calculator when
hypothetizing a flat universe, c/H0 = 13.7 Gly and Omega M = 0.27

z d Calculator (5,6)

0.1 1.36 1.29
0.5 5.00 5.02
1.0 7.50 7.73
3.0 11.25 11.48
6.0 12.86 12.72

The correlation coefficient between those two series of results
is 0.999.

CONCLUSION
__________

Recent cosmological observations are so much at variance with the
predictions of the big bang theory, that an alternative should be
considered. The most obvious one is a stable, non-expanding universe.
The existence of a cosmological negative acceleration explains
the reddening of light relatively to the distance of its source,
according to the relation d = (c/K) * z/(1+z).
Such relation leads to distances which are very close to those
calculated with the help of general relativity.
On the other hand, a negative acceleration cK would explain the Pioneer
anomaly (7,8), that the ESA intends "to put to the test". (9)


Marcel Luttgens
Oct. 9, 2004


REFERENCES:
__________

(1) http://www.esa.int/esaSC/Pr_5_2002_s_en.html
(2) Apeiron, Vol. 9, No. 3, July 2002
(3) http://www.rednova.com/news/stories/.../story003.html
(4) http://www.gsfc.nasa.gov/topstory/20...7filament.html
(5) http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/CosmoCalc.html
(6) Formula used in the calculator: see
http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/Distances_details.gif
(7) Study of the anomalous acceleration of Pioneer 10 and 11, by
John D. Anderson et al., gr- qc/ 0104064 19 Apr 2001
(8) http://perso.wanadoo.fr/mluttgens/pioneer1.htm
(9) http://physicsweb.org/articles/world/17/9/3
Poster une réaction en réponse à ce message


From :MP )
Object : REDSHIFT IN A STABLE UNIVERSE
sci.physics.research
Date :2004-11-03 07:53:58 PST


"Marcel Luttgens" wrote in message
om...

.... [snip]

Old massives galaxies, giant strings of galaxies, or iron-rich quasars
can be observed at enormous distances.
Those findings contradict the big bang theory, according to which
the universe should appear very young at such distances.

The findings shed some doubts on the standard cosmological model,
contradiction is too hard a word, yet.

"An analysis of 13.5 thousand million-year-old X-rays (from
quasar APM 8279+5255) , captured by ESA's XMM-Newton satellite,
has shown that either the Universe may be older than astronomers
had thought or that mysterious, undiscovered "iron factories"
litter the early Universe."

.... [snip]

"The large iron content of the quasar is therefore a major puzzle.
Only two explanations appear possible, and either one is going to
upset some theorists:

(1) the Big Bang redshift-distance-age relationship is wrong; or
(2) the early universe contained "iron factories" producing
extra iron by an unknown physical means."

A very conventional explanation for the iron problem is, that we might
have the value of the Hubble-Constant wrong by 10-15%. Unfortunately the
often quoted WMAP-value H = 71 km s^-1 MPc^-1 with is small margin of
error (statistical!) gives a false impression of accuracy. Any
systematic error in H will effect the age of the universe, as t \propto
1/H in any cosmology. The systematic errors in H are still large, so the
WMAP-age of 13.7 Gy (with its far too small margin of error!) cannot be
taken as the holy grail of cosmology. Absolute methods (SZ-effect,
lensing, etc) give lower values for H, in the range 60-65 (some lower).
Fits to the recent supernova data give values in the same range low
(60-63). If one assumes H = 62.5 in obvious units, the "WMAP-age" (13.7
Gy) goes up to 15.6 Gy.

Notice that a third explanation is plausible:
The universe is stable, and the Big Bang never happenend.

Why would this be plausible? What with nucleosynthesis? What with the
CMBR-temperature?

- Very Large Telescope unravels new population of very old
massive galaxies (3)

"Those galaxies must have formed when the Universe was only about
2,000 million years old, that is some 12,000 million years ago."
"... these galaxies have structures and shapes more or less identical
to those of the present-day massive elliptical galaxies"
"Says Andrea Cimatti (INAF, Firenze, Italy), leader of the team:
"Our new study now raises fundamental questions about our understanding
and knowledge of the processes that regulated the genesis and
the evolutionary history of the Universe and its structures."

This surely is a problem. However, structure formation is messy. Maybe
some new fit parameters, bias-values etc. will save the standard model
once again?!

- GIANT GALAXY STRING DEFIES MODELS OF HOW UNIVERSE EVOLVED (4)

"Wide-field telescope observations of the remote and therefore
early Universe, looking back to a time when it was a fifth of
its present age (redshift = 2.38), have revealed an enormous
string of galaxies about 300 million light-years long. This new
structure defies current models of how the Universe evolved,
which can't explain how a string this big could have formed so early."
"The team compared their observations to supercomputer simulations
of the early Universe, which could not reproduce strings this large.
"The simulations tell us that you cannot take the matter in the early
Universe and line it up in strings this large," said Francis.
"There simply hasn't been enough time since the Big Bang for it
to form structures this colossal".

see above

POSTULATES:
__________
1) The universe is infinite, Euclidean, stable (non-expanding),
homogeneous and isotropic.
2) The range of the gravitational force is finite.
3) The Cosmological Principle, according to which the universe,
when viewed on sufficiently large distance scales, has no preferred
directions or preferred places, applies.

These postulates are neither self-evident, nor do they explain anything
better than the standard "big bang" model. Some things (as
nucleosynthesis, CMBR-temperature, position of the acoustic peaks etc.)
they don't explain at all and it is impossible to see, how these things
could be explained in your model without further postulates. In fact,
your model would need several more postulates to explain the even the
more basic observations. This isn't attractive at all.

Some advice for future efforts: Some people, like me, with much free
time ;-) might be willing to look at an alternative model. But even then
this only makes sense, if an alternative model is derived from some
deeper principle or theory. In such a case one might be willing to
(temporarily) look over the weakness of every new model, whenever it is
first proposed: That it can only explain some very few rather general
features. You have to keep in mind, against what you are up: The
standard cosmological model has been imminently successful. Several
hundred thousands of man-years of research have produced answers to
myriads of questions. It might be, that the standard cosmological model
is being stretched to its limits now. I also see some of its foundations
crumbling, but I expect the standard FRW-model to still stand a long
long time. The reason is simple: You cannot expect anybody who has
invested half of his professional career into the study of this model,
to turn from it, unless the evidence for some other model is
overwhelmingly strong and the inadequeties of the old model cannot be
ignored, not even by the blind. Even then, most senior researches will
not turn from their old hobby. But you may be able to convince some
young, less experienced folk, that are more inclined to take some risk
;-). However, in order to convince somebody to "convert" to your model,
you must give them something valuable in return: Your new model must
have the potential, at least in principle, to calculate all relevant
quantities that can be observed in the real universe in an unambigous
way. I don't see this in any of your Postulates. In fact, these
postulates appear to be clearly in conflict with observations - and even
logic.

CONSEQUENCES OF THE POSTULATES:
______________________________

At each point of their trajectory, light and material objects are
subject to a negative acceleration cK.

Indeed, each point of the trajectory can be considered as the center
of a sphere of radius R and mean density rho, which corresponds to
the mean density of the universe itself. This is valid according to
the second and third postulates.

At the surface of the sphere, the acceleration of gravity is given
by the formula a = GM/R^2, where G is the gravitational constant.
As rho = M/V and V = (4/3)*pi*R^3, M/R^3 = (4/3)*pi*rho, hence
a = (4/3)*G*pi*rho * R

Newton's gravity, nothing new

As the dimension of a is L/T^2, the dimension of (4/3)*G*pi*rho
is 1/T^2, and the square root of this expression corresponds to
the inverse of a time.

The formula a = (4/3)*G*pi*rho * R can thus be written
a = K^2 * d, where K = sqrt((4/3)*G*pi*rho).

To the maximum possible value of R corresponds
a = c^2/R = K^2 * R, hence R(max) = c/K.

Replacing R by c/K in the formula a = K^2 * R, one gets
a = cK, which is the acceleration of gravity at the surface
of a sphere of radius c/K.

As, according to the above postulates, the trajectory of a photon
corresponds to an infinity of such centers, the moving photon will
be subject to a constant negative acceleration cK during its whole
trip, which will lead to its reddening.

no need to comment on this

THE REDSHIFT IN A STABLE UNIVERSE
_________________________________


..... [snip]

Interestingly enough, the formula d = (c/K) * z/(1+z), which gives
the light travel time, leads, assuming c/K = 15 Gly, to results which
are very close to those obtained by Ned Wright's calculator when
hypothetizing a flat universe, c/H0 = 13.7 Gly and Omega M = 0.27

z d Calculator (5,6)

0.1 1.36 1.29
0.5 5.00 5.02
1.0 7.50 7.73
3.0 11.25 11.48
6.0 12.86 12.72

The correlation coefficient between those two series of results
is 0.999.

Interesting, but in not very conclusive. You can always find a tight
correlation of your model with a hypothezed universe. What one generally
wants to see is a genuine calculation of the luminosity distance versus
redshift in your model and a comparison with the best available data on
standard candles, i.e. the most recent supernova data. Don't bother to
do it though, it won't work.

CONCLUSION
__________

Recent cosmological observations are so much at variance with the
predictions of the big bang theory, that an alternative should be
considered. The most obvious one is a stable, non-expanding universe.

this is not obvious at all! What with Olber's paradox in a stable,
non-expanding universe? If there is non-zero acceleration (as you
claim), how can your model be non-expanding?

The existence of a cosmological negative acceleration explains
the reddening of light relatively to the distance of its source,
according to the relation d = (c/K) * z/(1+z).
Such relation leads to distances which are very close to those
calculated with the help of general relativity.

I thought, your postulates should vindicate GR. Why then bother to
compare to GR?

On the other hand, a negative acceleration cK would explain the Pioneer
anomaly (7,8), that the ESA intends "to put to the test". (9)

How do you explain, that the Pioneer-acceleration is supposed to be in
the direction of the sun? This is in clear conflict with your postulate
of an isotropic, homogeneous universe!

May I suggest, that you take a good book about GR and start some serious
study of this truly remarkable and by no way easy subject. To me this
seems the best way to find out, "was die Welt im Innersten
zusammenhält". Maybe when you have understood the more intricate details
of GR (which is very hard work, I can assure you that, at least if you
are interested in true, deep understanding), you might find some new and
interesting model, which surplants the big bang?!

Best wishes, MP.

My response was rejected by the NG moderator, because in his opinion,
the article is too speculative:

"MP" wrote in message ...
"Marcel Luttgens" wrote in message
om...

... [snip]

Thank you for your interesting comments.

You consider that recent observations shed some doubts on the standard
cosmological model, but maybe some new fit parameters, bias-values etc.
will save the standard model once again?! (meaning the addition of more
and more epicycles?).
For instance, in order to explain the excess iron in a 13.5 thousand
million-year-old quasar (APM 8279+5255), you propose that the "WMAP-age"
(13.7 Gy) of the universe should go up to 15.6 Gy.

In short, you recognize that the standard cosmological model
is being stretched to its limits now, and that some of its foundations
are crumbling, but you expect that it will still stand a very long time,
because of former successes and the reluctance of senior researchers
to desert the current paradigm, in which they have invested so many
efforts and time.

You somewhat express the hope that younger scientists could take
some risks, and be interested in a promising new model. But you don't
think that this is the case of my model of a stable universe, where
a negative acceleration explains the redshift of light and should slow
down moving material bodies.
You for instance claim that my model can't explain nucleosynthesis,
the CMBR-temperature, position of the acoustic peaks etc., without further
postulates. Are you so sure? Such claim should be supported by a careful
study of the consequences of the relation d = (c/K) * z/(1+z).
Hopefully some younger cosmologist will do this, even if the evidence
for my model is not *overwhelmingly* strong. A reasonable evidence
suffices in my opinion, as the inadequacies of the old model are more
and more obvious. No chance of progress should be neglected.

You are asking for a comparison of the luminosity distance versus
redshift in my model with the best available data on standard candles,
i.e. the most recent supernova data, adding "Don't bother to do it though,
it won't work.".
It won't work, either because SN Ia are not standard candles or/and
because those best available data are affected by some "Malmquist bias".
In fact, a formula giving a good fit with the supernova data
is d (luminosity distance for an empty universe)= (c/H0) * z(1 + z/2).
As you have some spare time :-), try it.
Or this formula gives distances greater than c/H0 (13.7 Gly) when
z 0.732 !

Btw, you shouldn't have come up with the Olber's paradox, because
with my formula, the redshift becomes infinite when d c/K.

You also asked "If there is non-zero acceleration, how can your
model be non-expanding?". The answer is given by the second postulate,
i.e. the range of the gravitational force is finite.

You also asked "Your postulates should vindicate GR. Why then bother to
compare to GR?". Simply because the GR results should logically mimic
some underlying reality.

And "How do you explain, that the Pioneer-acceleration is supposed to be in
the direction of the sun? This is in clear conflict with your postulate
of an isotropic, homogeneous universe!".
The key word here is "supposed". As for me, it is opposed to the velocity
vector. It would be interesting to rewrite the Kepler laws taking into
account the very small negative acceleration cK, and also to determine
if the non-Newtonian component of the precession of Mercury
(about 43" / century) could be explained by such tangential deceleration,
as the decrease rate of its aphelion shoud be significatively greater
than that of its perihelion.

Certainly, my model offers good opportunities for younger scientists with
an inquiring mind.

Marcel Luttgens

Marcel Luttgens wrote:
REDSHIFT IN A STABLE UNIVERSE
_____________________________

Oh, you are back! With the same tired old arguments!


INTRODUCTION
____________

Old massives galaxies,

Galaxies which are apparently too big to explain by our current
model of galaxy formation, but nevertheless contain only young
stars.


giant strings of galaxies, or iron-rich quasars
can be observed at enormous distances.

See below.



Those findings contradict the big bang theory,

The first and second one contradict only our theories about galaxy and
large-structure formation.


according to which
the universe should appear very young at such distances.

And it does mostly. You chose to pick out the very few peculiar
outliers, and even those you misrepresent, and choose to ignore
some contradictory facts.



Here are a few pertinent references:

- Is the Universe older than expected? (1)
10 July 2002

"An analysis of 13.5 thousand million-year-old X-rays (from
quasar APM 8279+5255) , captured by ESA's XMM-Newton satellite,
has shown that either the Universe may be older than astronomers
had thought or that mysterious, undiscovered "iron factories"
litter the early Universe."

The figure 13.5 thousand million years above is probably wrong.
No quasar is that old!

Looking at your reference, I notice that this text asserts at the same
time that this object is 13.5 billion years old and at a distance
of 13.5 billion light years. So indeed, there is something wrong here.
This is an error typical of popular science accounts of cosmology...

The real scientific article on which this is based seems to
be this: astro-ph/0207005. They give a red shift z = 3.91. This does
*not* correspond to an age of 13.5 billion years, using the
standard cosmological parameters! Going on, they indeed say that they
use a Hubble constant of 50 km / s / Mpc, and a deceleration parameter
of q_0 = 0.5. Since these are *not* the parameters of the standard model
of cosmology, but even a long way away from the standard parameters, any
conclusions they draw using these parameters are moot.

Next article, please. Or at least a re-analysis of this data for the
accepted standard parameters.



And also,

A Universe Older Than Itself?, by Tom Van Flandern (2)

Oh no, not *that* man again...



"The large iron content of the quasar is therefore a major puzzle.
Only two explanations appear possible, and either one is going to
upset some theorists:

(1) the Big Bang redshift-distance-age relationship is wrong; or
(2) the early universe contained "iron factories" producing
extra iron by an unknown physical means."

Notice that a third explanation is plausible:
The universe is stable, and the Big Bang never happenend.

Only possible if General Relativity is wrong.


- Very Large Telescope unravels new population of very old
massive galaxies (3)

"Those galaxies must have formed when the Universe was only about
2,000 million years old, that is some 12,000 million years ago."
"... these galaxies have structures and shapes more or less identical
to those of the present-day massive elliptical galaxies"
"Says Andrea Cimatti (INAF, Firenze, Italy), leader of the team:
"Our new study now raises fundamental questions about our understanding
and knowledge of the processes that regulated the genesis and
the evolutionary history of the Universe and its structures."

We already discussed that, and you kept ignoring all arguments.



- GIANT GALAXY STRING DEFIES MODELS OF HOW UNIVERSE EVOLVED (4)

"Wide-field telescope observations of the remote and therefore
early Universe, looking back to a time when it was a fifth of
its present age (redshift = 2.38), have revealed an enormous
string of galaxies about 300 million light-years long. This new
structure defies current models of how the Universe evolved,
which can't explain how a string this big could have formed so early."
"The team compared their observations to supercomputer simulations
of the early Universe, which could not reproduce strings this large.
"The simulations tell us that you cannot take the matter in the early
Universe and line it up in strings this large," said Francis.
"There simply hasn't been enough time since the Big Bang for it
to form structures this colossal".

You conveniently leave out the possible, quite sensible explanation,
which is directly following:
""Our best guess right now is that it's a tip-of-the-iceberg effect," he
said. "All we are seeing is the brightest few galaxies. That's probably
far less than 1% of what's really out there, most of which is the
mysterious invisible dark matter. It could be that the dark matter is
not arranged in the same way as the galaxies we are seeing." Recently,
evidence has accumulated for the presence of dark matter in the
Universe, an invisible form of matter only detectable by the
gravitational pull it exerts on ordinary matter (and light). There are
many possibilities for what dark matter might be, but its true nature is
currently unknown.

In recent years, Francis explained, it had been found that in the local
Universe, dark matter is distributed on large scales in very much the
same way the galaxies are, rather than being more clumpy, or less. But
go back 10 billion years and it could be a very different story.
Galaxies probably form in the center of dark matter clouds. But in the
early Universe, most galaxies had not yet formed, and most dark matter
clouds will not yet contain a galaxy.

"To explain our results," said Francis, "the dark matter clouds that lie
in strings must have formed galaxies, while the dark matter clouds
elsewhere have not done so. We've no idea why this happened - it's not
what the models predict.""


Yes, there are problems - but yet again, these problems are not with the
BBT, but with our models of galaxy and large structure formation!!!



POSTULATES:
__________

1) The universe is infinite, Euclidean, stable (non-expanding),
homogeneous and isotropic.
2) The range of the gravitational force is finite.

In other words, General Relativity is wrong? And even Newton's law of
gravity?

What force law do you propose for gravity, specifically?


3) The Cosmological Principle, according to which the universe,
when viewed on sufficiently large distance scales, has no preferred
directions or preferred places, applies.

You are repeating yourself. This is merely restating what you
already said aboe: the universe is homogeneous and isotropic.



CONSEQUENCES OF THE POSTULATES:
______________________________

At each point of their trajectory, light and material objects are
subject to a negative acceleration cK.

Indeed, each point of the trajectory can be considered as the center
of a sphere of radius R and mean density rho, which corresponds to
the mean density of the universe itself. This is valid according to
the second and third postulates.

At the surface of the sphere, the acceleration of gravity is given
by the formula a = GM/R^2, where G is the gravitational constant.
As rho = M/V and V = (4/3)*pi*R^3, M/R^3 = (4/3)*pi*rho, hence
a = (4/3)*G*pi*rho * R

Stop right here. You use Newton's law of gravity here. But that
law contradicts your second postulate above.

For the problems with calculating the gravitational field
of an infinite, homogeneous universe, using Newton's law of gravity,
see the thread "Gravitational field of a homogeneous universe" in
sci.physics. Especially the contributions by Steve Carlip, Theo
Wollenleben and Jim Black.


As the dimension of a is L/T^2, the dimension of (4/3)*G*pi*rho
is 1/T^2, and the square root of this expression corresponds to
the inverse of a time.

The formula a = (4/3)*G*pi*rho * R can thus be written
a = K^2 * d, where K = sqrt((4/3)*G*pi*rho).

BFD.


To the maximum possible value of R corresponds
a = c^2/R

Why?


= K^2 * R, hence R(max) = c/K.

Replacing R by c/K in the formula a = K^2 * R, one gets
a = cK, which is the acceleration of gravity at the surface
of a sphere of radius c/K.

As, according to the above postulates, the trajectory of a photon
corresponds to an infinity of such centers,

The above postulate imply this in no way.


the moving photon will
be subject to a constant negative acceleration cK during its whole
trip, which will lead to its reddening.

THE REDSHIFT IN A STABLE UNIVERSE
_________________________________

A light ray of wavelength lambda is sent from a point P.
At a distance d from P, the energy loss of a photon of
frequency Nu is

(hNu/c^2) * cK * d = hNu * (K/c) * d,
where h is the Plank constant.

The residual energy hNu(o) of the photon at the distance d is

hNu(o) = hNu - hNu * (K/c) * d = hNu (1 - K*d/c), hence
Nu(o) = Nu (1 - (K*d/c), and
lambda(o) = (1 - (K*d/c) / lambda

Thus, in a stable homogeneous universe,

z = (lambda(o) - lambda) / lambda
= (K/c)d * (1+z), and

d = (c/K) * z/(1+z)
z = d / ((c/K)-d),

where d is the distance between the observer and
the emitter at the instant when the light was emitted.

Nice. And now please compare this to the actual data. You keep
evading that. I wonder why...



Interestingly enough, the formula d = (c/K) * z/(1+z), which gives
the light travel time, leads, assuming c/K = 15 Gly, to results which
are very close to those obtained by Ned Wright's calculator when
hypothetizing a flat universe, c/H0 = 13.7 Gly and Omega M = 0.27

z d Calculator (5,6)

0.1 1.36 1.29
0.5 5.00 5.02
1.0 7.50 7.73
3.0 11.25 11.48
6.0 12.86 12.72

The correlation coefficient between those two series of results
is 0.999.

The results of the calculator is irrelevant. Address the *observed data*.


CONCLUSION
__________

Recent cosmological observations are so much at variance with the
predictions of the big bang theory,

No. Merely with our models of structure formation.


that an alternative should be considered.

Hint: much brighter people than you have considered alternatives for
decades. And in contrast to you, they actually looked at the data. And
they failed.


The most obvious one is a stable, non-expanding universe.

This is in no way obvious, since it is incompatible with GR and even
with Newtonian gravity.


The existence of a cosmological negative acceleration explains
the reddening of light relatively to the distance of its source,
according to the relation d = (c/K) * z/(1+z).

Hand waving. Address the data.


Such relation leads to distances which are very close to those
calculated with the help of general relativity.

Hand waving. Address the data.


On the other hand, a negative acceleration cK would explain the Pioneer
anomaly (7,8), that the ESA intends "to put to the test". (9)

Your calculation of this negative acceleration required the
assumption of homogenity, remember? A small hint for you: the matter in
the solar system is anything but homogeneously distributed. So
this can *not* explain the Pioneer anomaly.



Marcel Luttgens
Oct. 9, 2004


REFERENCES:
__________

(1) http://www.esa.int/esaSC/Pr_5_2002_s_en.html
(2) Apeiron, Vol. 9, No. 3, July 2002
(3) http://www.rednova.com/news/stories/.../story003.html
(4) http://www.gsfc.nasa.gov/topstory/20...7filament.html
(5) http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/CosmoCalc.html
(6) Formula used in the calculator: see
http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/Distances_details.gif
(7) Study of the anomalous acceleration of Pioneer 10 and 11, by
John D. Anderson et al., gr- qc/ 0104064 19 Apr 2001
(8) http://perso.wanadoo.fr/mluttgens/pioneer1.htm
(9) http://physicsweb.org/articles/world/17/9/3
Poster une réaction en réponse à ce message


[snip some repetitions]

I notice that you quote here your complete post, together with
some counterarguments to it, and then after that, your answer. Strange
way of posting this...



"The large iron content of the quasar is therefore a major puzzle.
Only two explanations appear possible, and either one is going to
upset some theorists:

(1) the Big Bang redshift-distance-age relationship is wrong; or
(2) the early universe contained "iron factories" producing
extra iron by an unknown physical means."


A very conventional explanation for the iron problem is, that we might
have the value of the Hubble-Constant wrong by 10-15%. Unfortunately the
often quoted WMAP-value H = 71 km s^-1 MPc^-1 with is small margin of
error (statistical!) gives a false impression of accuracy.

Please explain why the error margin should be smaller than the one given
by the WMAP team.


Any
systematic error in H will effect the age of the universe, as t \propto
1/H in any cosmology. The systematic errors in H are still large,

What systematic errors affect the value obtained by the WMAP team,
by a combination of data from several sources?


so the
WMAP-age of 13.7 Gy (with its far too small margin of error!) cannot be
taken as the holy grail of cosmology. Absolute methods (SZ-effect,
lensing, etc) give lower values for H, in the range 60-65 (some lower).
Fits to the recent supernova data give values in the same range low
(60-63).

I notice that no references are given here.


If one assumes H = 62.5 in obvious units, the "WMAP-age" (13.7
Gy) goes up to 15.6 Gy.

This is one possible solution, but not a very likely one.


[snip]


CONCLUSION
__________

Recent cosmological observations are so much at variance with the
predictions of the big bang theory, that an alternative should be
considered. The most obvious one is a stable, non-expanding universe.


this is not obvious at all! What with Olber's paradox in a stable,
non-expanding universe? If there is non-zero acceleration (as you
claim), how can your model be non-expanding?

Well, something like self-consistency does not bother Marcel Luttgens.
Apparently this acceleration acts only on the photons - for the
matter, there is a counter-force, so that it is not accelerated...


[snip]


My response was rejected by the NG moderator, because in his opinion,
the article is too speculative:

That is a rather mild assessment.


"MP" wrote in message ...

"Marcel Luttgens" wrote in message
.com...

... [snip]


Thank you for your interesting comments.

You consider that recent observations shed some doubts on the standard
cosmological model, but maybe some new fit parameters, bias-values etc.
will save the standard model once again?! (meaning the addition of more
and more epicycles?).

New fit parameters etc. are not necessarily "epicycles".


For instance, in order to explain the excess iron in a 13.5 thousand
million-year-old quasar (APM 8279+5255), you propose that the "WMAP-age"
(13.7 Gy) of the universe should go up to 15.6 Gy.

In short, you recognize that the standard cosmological model
is being stretched to its limits now, and that some of its foundations
are crumbling, but you expect that it will still stand a very long time,
because of former successes and the reluctance of senior researchers
to desert the current paradigm, in which they have invested so many
efforts and time.

Well, that is the opinion of MP, yes. He has not shown that he is
qualified to judge that so far.


[snip]


You for instance claim that my model can't explain nucleosynthesis,
the CMBR-temperature, position of the acoustic peaks etc., without further
postulates. Are you so sure? Such claim should be supported by a careful
study of the consequences of the relation d = (c/K) * z/(1+z).
Hopefully some younger cosmologist will do this,

Well, you are the one who claims that your model works. So it is your
responsibility to show that.


even if the evidence
for my model is not *overwhelmingly* strong.

It is almost non-existent.


A reasonable evidence
suffices in my opinion, as the inadequacies of the old model are more
and more obvious.

Only in *your* *unqualified* opinion.

I listed lots of pieces of evidence for the old model, several
times. You keep ignoring about 95% of them.


No chance of progress should be neglected.

Well, your model is no chance. It is based on false premises and faulty
logic.


You are asking for a comparison of the luminosity distance versus
redshift in my model with the best available data on standard candles,
i.e. the most recent supernova data, adding "Don't bother to do it though,
it won't work.".
It won't work, either because SN Ia are not standard candles

That would be a complete ad hoc hypothesis, contradicted by lots
of data and physical knowledge.


or/and
because those best available data are affected by some "Malmquist bias".

*yawn*

*That* old nonsensical argument again...


In fact, a formula giving a good fit with the supernova data
is d (luminosity distance for an empty universe)= (c/H0) * z(1 + z/2).

Take the SN data and show that this formula provides a good fit
for them.



As you have some spare time :-), try it.

It is *your* job to back up your assertions.


Or this formula gives distances greater than c/H0 (13.7 Gly) when
z 0.732 !

And why do you think there is a problem with distances greater
than c times the age of the universe?


Btw, you shouldn't have come up with the Olber's paradox, because
with my formula, the redshift becomes infinite when d c/K.

You also asked "If there is non-zero acceleration, how can your
model be non-expanding?". The answer is given by the second postulate,
i.e. the range of the gravitational force is finite.

1) You did not give a formula for this.
2) In your calculation of the relation for the acceleration, you
used Newton's law of gravity, according to which the range of
the gravitational force is *infinite*.
3) A finite range for the gravitational force does not explain why
your model is stable.


[snip]


And "How do you explain, that the Pioneer-acceleration is supposed to be in
the direction of the sun? This is in clear conflict with your postulate
of an isotropic, homogeneous universe!".
The key word here is "supposed".

A better formulation might be "measured"...


As for me, it is opposed to the velocity vector.

If you have data showing that, feel free to present it.

Also please notice that your argument can not apply in this case,
since the matter distribution in the solar system is anything but
homogeneous!


It would be interesting to rewrite the Kepler laws taking into
account the very small negative acceleration cK,

Kepler's laws are derived from *observations*. You can't rewrite them
due to theoretical considerations!


and also to determine
if the non-Newtonian component of the precession of Mercury
(about 43" / century) could be explained by such tangential deceleration,
as the decrease rate of its aphelion shoud be significatively greater
than that of its perihelion.

Why?


Certainly, my model offers good opportunities for younger scientists with
an inquiring mind.

Your model is inconsistent, based on false premises, and uses faulty logic.


Bye,
Bjoern

"Marcel Luttgens" ha scritto nel messaggio
om...

Old massives galaxies, giant strings of galaxies, or iron-rich quasars
can be observed at enormous distances.
Those findings contradict the big bang theory, according to which
the universe should appear very young at such distances.

Following last theories, universe is only a huge computer simulation.
So why bother about long distance objects that seem strange.
The important thing is to have a good simulation in our small environment.

See http://www.simulation-argument.com
or for an easier reading
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article...358588,00.html

We live in a sort of planetarium and galaxies are only 3d pictures on the so
called sky.
So they shouldn't have much sense...

In this way you solve immediately problems like:
1. Dark matter
2. Dark energy
3. Anomalous redshift
4. Indetermination principle
5. Incredible constants fine tuning
and so on

They're only approximations of a real world...

Luigi Caselli

"Marcel Luttgens" wrote in message
om...
REDSHIFT IN A STABLE UNIVERSE
....
POSTULATES:
__________

1) The universe is infinite, Euclidean, stable (non-expanding),
homogeneous and isotropic.
2) The range of the gravitational force is finite.
3) The Cosmological Principle, according to which the universe,
when viewed on sufficiently large distance scales, has no preferred
directions or preferred places, applies.

CONSEQUENCES OF THE POSTULATES:
______________________________

At each point of their trajectory, light and material objects are
subject to a negative acceleration cK.

Indeed, each point of the trajectory can be considered as the center
of a sphere of radius R and mean density rho, which corresponds to
the mean density of the universe itself. This is valid according to
the second and third postulates.

It is consistent with the first and third.

At the surface of the sphere, the acceleration of gravity ...

"each point of the trajectory can be considered
as the _center_ of a sphere". At the centre of a
sphere of uniform density, there is no acceleration
of gravity.

You cannot say "each point of the trajectory can
be considered to be on the surface of a sphere"
because that conflicts with your first and third
postulates.

The rest of your post is invalid as it was based
on this change from being at the centre to being
on the surface.

George

(Marcel Luttgens) wrote in message . com...
REDSHIFT IN A STABLE UNIVERSE
_____________________________

INTRODUCTION
____________

Old massives galaxies, giant strings of galaxies, or iron-rich quasars
can be observed at enormous distances.
Those findings contradict the big bang theory, according to which
the universe should appear very young at such distances.


Supporters of BB claimed until recently that the young galaxies
predominating at large distances "proved" BB. They should have known
that young galaxies are brighter, and therefore easier to see at long
range- they should have realised that they were NOT seeing a
representative sample of galaxy ages. Now deep space imagary is
better, we clearly see that the universe is homogenous at large
scales. That shoots down BB right there, and the theory should be
binned.
........and there were those who claimed BB "proof" of Relativity, so
down goes that particular domino.

Jim G
c'=c+v

Jim Greenfield wrote:
(Marcel Luttgens) wrote in message . com...

REDSHIFT IN A STABLE UNIVERSE
_____________________________

INTRODUCTION
____________

Old massives galaxies, giant strings of galaxies, or iron-rich quasars
can be observed at enormous distances.
Those findings contradict the big bang theory, according to which
the universe should appear very young at such distances.



Supporters of BB claimed until recently that the young galaxies
predominating at large distances "proved" BB.

More to the point: they provide evidence for it.


They should have known that young galaxies are brighter,

Not necessarily.


and therefore easier to see at long
range- they should have realised that they were NOT seeing a
representative sample of galaxy ages.

So you think that hundreds of thousands of astronomers were too stupid
to think of such an obvious selection bias?


Now deep space imagary is
better, we clearly see that the universe is homogenous at large
scales. That shoots down BB right there,

Huh? Sorry, but didn't you notice that "the universe is homogeneous at
large scales" is one of the building blocks of the BBT?


[snip]

Bye,
Bjoern

Bjoern Feuerbacher wrote in message ...
Jim Greenfield wrote:
(Marcel Luttgens) wrote in message . com...

REDSHIFT IN A STABLE UNIVERSE
_____________________________

INTRODUCTION
____________

Old massives galaxies, giant strings of galaxies, or iron-rich quasars
can be observed at enormous distances.
Those findings contradict the big bang theory, according to which
the universe should appear very young at such distances.



Supporters of BB claimed until recently that the young galaxies
predominating at large distances "proved" BB.

More to the point: they provide evidence for it.


They should have known that young galaxies are brighter,

Not necessarily.

Give us a quick run down on how galaxies ARE aged


and therefore easier to see at long
range- they should have realised that they were NOT seeing a
representative sample of galaxy ages.

So you think that hundreds of thousands of astronomers were too stupid
to think of such an obvious selection bias?

Only those with the mindset that "I can't see over the hill; therefore
there is nothing there!"


Now deep space imagary is
better, we clearly see that the universe is homogenous at large
scales. That shoots down BB right there,

Huh? Sorry, but didn't you notice that "the universe is homogeneous at
large scales" is one of the building blocks of the BBT?

Bull****! I am referring (obviously) to AGE of galaxies. Those at
great distance are being recognised as the same as locals. As a view
back 13by is supposed to be of a time shortly after BB, when all
(most) galaxies formed, ALL distant ones should appear young. Not
so!...so down it goes...........

Jim G
c'=c+v

Jim Greenfield wrote:
Bjoern Feuerbacher wrote in message ...

Jim Greenfield wrote:

(Marcel Luttgens) wrote in message . com...


REDSHIFT IN A STABLE UNIVERSE
_____________________________

INTRODUCTION
____________

Old massives galaxies, giant strings of galaxies, or iron-rich quasars
can be observed at enormous distances.
Those findings contradict the big bang theory, according to which
the universe should appear very young at such distances.



Supporters of BB claimed until recently that the young galaxies
predominating at large distances "proved" BB.

More to the point: they provide evidence for it.



They should have known that young galaxies are brighter,

Not necessarily.


Give us a quick run down on how galaxies ARE aged

Well, you made the claim, so why don't you back it up?



and therefore easier to see at long
range- they should have realised that they were NOT seeing a
representative sample of galaxy ages.

So you think that hundreds of thousands of astronomers were too stupid
to think of such an obvious selection bias?


Only those with the mindset that "I can't see over the hill; therefore
there is nothing there!"

Well, since most astronomers don't have this mindset, we can safely
conclude that this selection bias was long ago already noticed and taken
into account.


Now deep space imagary is
better, we clearly see that the universe is homogenous at large
scales. That shoots down BB right there,

Huh? Sorry, but didn't you notice that "the universe is homogeneous at
large scales" is one of the building blocks of the BBT?


Bull****! I am referring (obviously) to AGE of galaxies.

Then don't say "the universe is homogeneous at large scales", since that
refers to the *density* distribution, not to the ages of galaxies.


Those at
great distance are being recognised as the same as locals.

Wrong. Those at great distances are almost without exception very
different from the locals.


As a view
back 13by is supposed to be of a time shortly after BB, when all
(most) galaxies formed, ALL distant ones should appear young. Not
so!...so down it goes...........

There are a few examples of galaxies which look more massive than
expected at that time. So what? Ever heard of statistical fluctuations?
In some regions of the universe, the density fluctuations are greater,
and the galaxies grow faster therefore. What's so surprising about that?



Bye,
Bjoern

Bjoern Feuerbacher wrote in message ...
Jim Greenfield wrote:
Bjoern Feuerbacher wrote in message ...

Jim Greenfield wrote:

(Marcel Luttgens) wrote in message . com...


REDSHIFT IN A STABLE UNIVERSE
_____________________________

INTRODUCTION
____________

Old massives galaxies, giant strings of galaxies, or iron-rich quasars
can be observed at enormous distances.
Those findings contradict the big bang theory, according to which
the universe should appear very young at such distances.



Supporters of BB claimed until recently that the young galaxies
predominating at large distances "proved" BB.

More to the point: they provide evidence for it.



They should have known that young galaxies are brighter,

Not necessarily.


Give us a quick run down on how galaxies ARE aged

Well, you made the claim, so why don't you back it up?



and therefore easier to see at long
range- they should have realised that they were NOT seeing a
representative sample of galaxy ages.

So you think that hundreds of thousands of astronomers were too stupid
to think of such an obvious selection bias?


Only those with the mindset that "I can't see over the hill; therefore
there is nothing there!"

Well, since most astronomers don't have this mindset, we can safely
conclude that this selection bias was long ago already noticed and taken
into account.


Now deep space imagary is
better, we clearly see that the universe is homogenous at large
scales. That shoots down BB right there,

Huh? Sorry, but didn't you notice that "the universe is homogeneous at
large scales" is one of the building blocks of the BBT?


Bull****! I am referring (obviously) to AGE of galaxies.

Then don't say "the universe is homogeneous at large scales", since that
refers to the *density* distribution, not to the ages of galaxies.


Those at
great distance are being recognised as the same as locals.

Wrong. Those at great distances are almost without exception very
different from the locals.


As a view
back 13by is supposed to be of a time shortly after BB, when all
(most) galaxies formed, ALL distant ones should appear young. Not
so!...so down it goes...........

There are a few examples of galaxies which look more massive than
expected at that time. So what? Ever heard of statistical fluctuations?
In some regions of the universe, the density fluctuations are greater,
and the galaxies grow faster therefore. What's so surprising about that?



Bye,
Bjoern

I took the trouble to find this; I won't waste my time following up
such well known material again.

Andrew Yee
sci astro
2004-01-05
Subject:Faintest Spectra Ever Raise Glaring Question:Why Do Galaxies
in the Young Universe Appear so Mature?

Jim G
c'=c+v

Jim Greenfield wrote:
Bjoern Feuerbacher wrote in message ...

Jim Greenfield wrote:

Bjoern Feuerbacher wrote in message ...


Jim Greenfield wrote:


(Marcel Luttgens) wrote in message . com...



REDSHIFT IN A STABLE UNIVERSE
_____________________________

INTRODUCTION
____________

Old massives galaxies, giant strings of galaxies, or iron-rich quasars
can be observed at enormous distances.
Those findings contradict the big bang theory, according to which
the universe should appear very young at such distances.



Supporters of BB claimed until recently that the young galaxies
predominating at large distances "proved" BB.

More to the point: they provide evidence for it.




They should have known that young galaxies are brighter,

Not necessarily.


Give us a quick run down on how galaxies ARE aged

Well, you made the claim, so why don't you back it up?

As expected: you don't bother.


and therefore easier to see at long
range- they should have realised that they were NOT seeing a
representative sample of galaxy ages.

So you think that hundreds of thousands of astronomers were too stupid
to think of such an obvious selection bias?


Only those with the mindset that "I can't see over the hill; therefore
there is nothing there!"

Well, since most astronomers don't have this mindset, we can safely
conclude that this selection bias was long ago already noticed and taken
into account.

As expected: you choose to ignore this.



Now deep space imagary is
better, we clearly see that the universe is homogenous at large
scales. That shoots down BB right there,

Huh? Sorry, but didn't you notice that "the universe is homogeneous at
large scales" is one of the building blocks of the BBT?


Bull****! I am referring (obviously) to AGE of galaxies.

Then don't say "the universe is homogeneous at large scales", since that
refers to the *density* distribution, not to the ages of galaxies.

As expected: you choose to ignore this.


Those at
great distance are being recognised as the same as locals.

Wrong. Those at great distances are almost without exception very
different from the locals.

As expected: you choose to ignore this.



As a view
back 13by is supposed to be of a time shortly after BB, when all
(most) galaxies formed, ALL distant ones should appear young. Not
so!...so down it goes...........

There are a few examples of galaxies which look more massive than
expected at that time. So what? Ever heard of statistical fluctuations?
In some regions of the universe, the density fluctuations are greater,
and the galaxies grow faster therefore. What's so surprising about that?

As expected: you choose to ignore this.



I took the trouble to find this; I won't waste my time following up
such well known material again.

Andrew Yee
sci astro
2004-01-05
Subject:Faintest Spectra Ever Raise Glaring Question:Why Do Galaxies
in the Young Universe Appear so Mature?

I'm well aware of that the stuff discussed in that thread. Your point?


Bye,
Bjoern