|
|
|||||||
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
|
#11
March 19th 05, 12:22 PM
|
|||
|
|||
Max Keon wrote:
jacob navia wrote: wrote: jacob navia wrote: ----- ----- The scopes have arrived at the immediate neighborhood of the supposed big bang and there is not the slightest hint of a bang to see. You mean besides the cosmic microwave background radiation that already confirms the BBT to several decimals of precision? There was a discussion in sci.astro about "overaveraging" and the whole "wrinkles in the face of god" story. I remain a sceptic about that. But yes, there is no alternative explanation to the cosmic background. The problem is that it could very well be that we just do not know what the Cosmic Background *is*, and we see it as we can: as a "BB " relic. Since the validity of the BB theory is very much in question, Not by the actual scientists working in cosmology. I assume that arguments posed by alternative theories are now open for discussion? Everyone is free everytime to propose alternative theories. See the moderator's comment below. 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? Why its temperature changes with time in accordance with the predictions of the BBT? The fact that if the CMBR is assumed to have a cosmological origin, the parameters we derive from it (Hubble parameter, density of dark energy etc.) are nicely consistent with determinations using other methods? Why computer simulations which study how the density fluctuations grow with time produce the observed large-scale structure? The power spectrum (hint: I don't talk about the blackbody spectrum) of the CMBR, especially the acoustic peak? The Sunyaev-Zel'dovich effect? The integrated Sachs-Wolfe effect But without some prior understanding of the theory the link may not make much sense. If your theory can explain all the things listed above (quantitatively), I'll look at it. [snip] [Mod. note: Just in case people aren't aware of the policy, `alternative theories' have always been up for discussion on s.a.r., but they should be discussed in a scientific (and polite!) way. A descent to personalities (by either side) or arguments that blatantly ignore the experimental evidence are likely to run foul of the moderation policy -- mjh] That is a really good point: one should first be aware of the experimental evidence before one starts proposing alternative theories. Bye, Bjoern 
|
|
#12
March 21st 05, 10:07 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
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? Why its temperature changes with time in accordance with the predictions of the BBT? The fact that if the CMBR is assumed to have a cosmological origin, the parameters we derive from it (Hubble parameter, density of dark energy etc.) are nicely consistent with determinations using other methods? Why computer simulations which study how the density fluctuations grow with time produce the observed large-scale structure? The power spectrum (hint: I don't talk about the blackbody spectrum) of the CMBR, especially the acoustic peak? The Sunyaev-Zel'dovich effect? The integrated Sachs-Wolfe effect Oh, and let's add the observed polarization of the CMBR. [snip] Bye, Bjoern
|
|
#13
March 23rd 05, 01:28 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Bjoern Feuerbacher wrote:
Max Keon wrote: jacob navia wrote: ----- ----- There was a discussion in sci.astro about "overaveraging" and the whole "wrinkles in the face of god" story. I remain a sceptic about that. But yes, there is no alternative explanation to the cosmic background. The problem is that it could very well be that we just do not know what the Cosmic Background *is*, and we see it as we can: as a "BB " relic. Since the validity of the BB theory is very much in question, Not by the actual scientists working in cosmology. I assume that arguments posed by alternative theories are now open for discussion? Everyone is free everytime to propose alternative theories. See the moderator's comment below. 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. Why its temperature changes with time in accordance with the predictions of the BBT? The BBT predicts a blackbody curve, but not the specific temperature of course. My theory predicts a similar curve, and that has been tweaked to the shape of the CMBR with a multiplier which indicates the current state of evolution of the universe. The CMBR paints the picture to which we all fit our theories. The fact that if the CMBR is assumed to have a cosmological origin, the parameters we derive from it (Hubble parameter, density of dark energy etc.) are nicely consistent with determinations using other methods? Dark matter can certainly be explained, if it's required. Why computer simulations which study how the density fluctuations grow with time produce the observed large-scale structure? The power spectrum (hint: I don't talk about the blackbody spectrum) of the CMBR, especially the acoustic peak? Every time I study the WMAP maps, all I can see is a well formed universe that could have been there forever. The Sunyaev-Zel'dovich effect? The integrated Sachs-Wolfe effect I wasn't aware of the Sachs-Wolf effect. Thanks. But what's to explain? The zero origin universe works just fine. What evidence supports that effect anyway? The assumption seem to be that photons behave like matter when in gravitational potential wells, that they can gain or lose energy, but by contracting or extending their wavelengths. 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. It would be hard to explain where the trailing edge of a very long wavetrain in the visible light spectrum might be stored while it's waiting for the extended train length in front of it to exit the potential well. Even if time slows in the deepening well and the light path length increases, that path length will again shorten when the wavetrain moves away from the well. Whatever is assumed to happen, what is going to permanently alter? What experimental evidence directly supports such a thing? If the deepening potential well was moving away from an observer, that effect may be noted. But that's not relevant to the CMBR, is it? But without some prior understanding of the theory the link may not make much sense. If your theory can explain all the things listed above (quantitatively), I'll look at it. [snip] [Mod. note: Just in case people aren't aware of the policy, `alternative theories' have always been up for discussion on s.a.r., but they should be discussed in a scientific (and polite!) way. A descent to personalities (by either side) or arguments that blatantly ignore the experimental evidence are likely to run foul of the moderation policy -- mjh] That is a really good point: one should first be aware of the experimental evidence before one starts proposing alternative theories. One should also be aware that the evidence can be interpreted in more ways than one. From the time of my initial encounter with the zero origin universe (around 30 years ago) I've tested the theory to the best of my ability against emerging evidence. The universe seems to be falling into place very nicely. Even the electron and positron, through experimental evidence, have emerged with amazing precision to fill the role of the postulated components which I initially labeled "absolute opposite stress characters". ---------- The polarization found in the CMBR that you refer to in your follow-up post is a question I need to address. Could it be caused by light bouncing around a rotation polarized universe (if it can be termed thus)? ----- Max Keon
|
|
#14
March 24th 05, 10:52 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
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, and why it has a blackbody spectrum? Why its temperature changes with time in accordance with the predictions of the BBT? The BBT predicts a blackbody curve, but not the specific temperature of course. Err, that was not my point. Read again what I actually wrote, please. I did not talk about temperature - I talked about *changes* in temperature. See e.g. he http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/stdystat.htm#Tvsz [snip more irrelevant arguments] The fact that if the CMBR is assumed to have a cosmological origin, the parameters we derive from it (Hubble parameter, density of dark energy etc.) are nicely consistent with determinations using other methods? Dark matter can certainly be explained, if it's required. That has nothing to do with my argument above. Try again, please. Why computer simulations which study how the density fluctuations grow with time produce the observed large-scale structure? The power spectrum (hint: I don't talk about the blackbody spectrum) of the CMBR, especially the acoustic peak? Every time I study the WMAP maps, all I can see is a well formed universe that could have been there forever. That has nothing to do with either of my two arguments above. Try again, please. The Sunyaev-Zel'dovich effect? The integrated Sachs-Wolfe effect I wasn't aware of the Sachs-Wolf effect. Thanks. But you were aware of the Sunyaev-Zel'dovich effect? If yes, could you please outline how your model explains the observations? But what's to explain? The zero origin universe works just fine. Well, then please show how your model explains these two effects. Quantitatively. What evidence supports that effect anyway? Which one? Sunyaev-Zel'dovich or integrated Sachs-Wolfe? For the first one, see e.g. he http://cfa-www.harvard.edu/~aas/tenmeter/sz.htm For the second, see e.g. he astro-ph/0307335 The assumption seem to be that photons behave like matter when in gravitational potential wells, that they can gain or lose energy, but by contracting or extending their wavelengths. Err, that is not an assumption. That has actually been experimentally confirmed. Both in the lab and in astronomical observations. 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? It would be hard to explain where the trailing edge of a very long wavetrain in the visible light spectrum might be stored while it's waiting for the extended train length in front of it to exit the potential well. What makes you think that this trailing edge has to be stored somewhere and has to wait? Even if time slows in the deepening well and the light path length increases, that path length will again shorten when the wavetrain moves away from the well. Pardon? When the light moves away from the well, the path length *inside the well* shortens? Sorry, I can't follow you here. If you talk about the path length *outside* the well, then what has that to do with the redshift occuring *inside* the well? Whatever is assumed to happen, what is going to permanently alter? What experimental evidence directly supports such a thing? Try this, for starters: http://scienceworld.wolfram.com/biography/Pound.html If the deepening potential well was moving away from an observer, that effect may be noted. But that's not relevant to the CMBR, is it? No. But without some prior understanding of the theory the link may not make much sense. If your theory can explain all the things listed above (quantitatively), I'll look at it. So far, you have addressed nothing but the very first point. And even there, you did not bother to gave an explanation - you merely asserted that your model explains that. [snip] That is a really good point: one should first be aware of the experimental evidence before one starts proposing alternative theories. One should also be aware that the evidence can be interpreted in more ways than one. As I already said: feel free to address the evidence. Quantitatively. From the time of my initial encounter with the zero origin universe (around 30 years ago) I've tested the theory to the best of my ability against emerging evidence. You admitted yourself above that you weren't aware of some pieces of evidence, and apparently misunderstood other pieces. [snip more irrelevancies] The polarization found in the CMBR that you refer to in your follow-up post is a question I need to address. http://www-news.uchicago.edu/releases/02/020918.carlstrom.shtml http://astro.uchicago.edu/dasi/polexpert/ Could it be caused by light bouncing around a rotation polarized universe (if it can be termed thus)? Don't merely speculate. Address the results. Quantitatively. Bye, Bjoern
|
|
#15
March 29th 05, 05:20 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
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, As I previously indicated, to "explain here shortly" is almost impossible. But the rest of my reply may help. 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. Why its temperature changes with time in accordance with the predictions of the BBT? The BBT predicts a blackbody curve, but not the specific temperature of course. Err, that was not my point. Read again what I actually wrote, please. I did not talk about temperature - I talked about *changes* in temperature. 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 The ^1.12 exponent is near enough to constant for the blackbody plot of the universe that we can meaningfully comprehend. It would have been infinitesimally greater than 1 for the plot at the origin. So there's still a long way left for us to go. See e.g. he http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/stdystat.htm#Tvsz [snip more irrelevant arguments] The fact that if the CMBR is assumed to have a cosmological origin, the parameters we derive from it (Hubble parameter, density of dark energy etc.) are nicely consistent with determinations using other methods? 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. Why computer simulations which study how the density fluctuations grow with time produce the observed large-scale structure? The power spectrum (hint: I don't talk about the blackbody spectrum) of the CMBR, especially the acoustic peak? Every time I study the WMAP maps, all I can see is a well formed universe that could have been there forever. That has nothing to do with either of my two arguments above. Try again, please. But it has a lot to do with my argument. The all sky picture of the universe from the zero origin is crystal clear. According to that picture, matter is slowly clumping together, increasing the depth of dimension, of space. 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 within a completely black background. A universe with zero anisotropy would not exist. The Sunyaev-Zel'dovich effect? The integrated Sachs-Wolfe effect I wasn't aware of the Sachs-Wolf effect. Thanks. But you were aware of the Sunyaev-Zel'dovich effect? No, not until you mentioned it. A quick search at the time found only this sentence; "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) According to that sentence the effect has yet to be noted, or is already factored in as a component within the anisotropy. It really doesn't have any more relevance to my argument than the Sachs-Wolfe effect though. If yes, could you please outline how your model explains the observations? But what's to explain? The zero origin universe works just fine. Well, then please show how your model explains these two effects. Quantitatively. What evidence supports that effect anyway? Which one? Sunyaev-Zel'dovich or integrated Sachs-Wolfe? For the first one, see e.g. he http://cfa-www.harvard.edu/~aas/tenmeter/sz.htm For the second, see e.g. he astro-ph/0307335 The assumption seem to be that photons behave like matter when in gravitational potential wells, that they can gain or lose energy, but by contracting or extending their wavelengths. Err, that is not an assumption. That has actually been experimentally confirmed. Both in the lab and in astronomical observations. 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. 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. 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. The additional restraining forces applied by the deepening well are applied equally to each billiard ball along train (2). Nothing will change. Now replace the billiard balls with photons. Either the speed of light in not isotropic over the train length, or the photons overlap to accommodate their added wavelengths???? Not wishing to break from the subject, but the concept of photons as particles has no place in the zero origin universe. It would be hard to explain where the trailing edge of a very long wavetrain in the visible light spectrum might be stored while it's waiting for the extended train length in front of it to exit the potential well. What makes you think that this trailing edge has to be stored somewhere and has to wait? ----- ----- The polarization found in the CMBR that you refer to in your follow-up post is a question I need to address. http://www-news.uchicago.edu/releases/02/020918.carlstrom.shtml http://astro.uchicago.edu/dasi/polexpert/ Could it be caused by light bouncing around a rotation polarized universe (if it can be termed thus)? Don't merely speculate. Address the results. Quantitatively. I'll need time of course. ----- Max Keon
|
|
#16
March 29th 05, 05:21 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
For why mature galaxies are observed so soon after the Big
Bang, see Robert Karl Stonjek's Dark Time hypothesis: "Article: Most distant galaxy cluster yet is revealed" (sci.physics, 2 March). I propose a non-BBT explanation for the Sunyaev-Zel'dovich effect. But first . . . Bjoern, what do you think of the failure to find evidence for the transverse proximity effect with a foreground quasar? http://astroneu.com/plasma-redshift-1/#TPE 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. If the BBT is true, then the quasars are exactly where the conventional researchers say they are, and therefore the quasars must have very limited lifetimes in order to have not ionized the neutral H in their vicinity, which these researchers believe they observe in the Lyman alpha forest of the background quasar. (The conventional researchers generally reject the other two explanations: very narrow quasar beaming and some kind of shielding effect, which is much the same as beaming.) The researchers do not seem to consider that these observations constitute a good challenge to the theory that the redshift of quasars is due to Doppler / expansion of the Universe. (I wrote to them about this a year ago and got no response.) Do you think quasars have such short lifetimes or such low duty cycles as to not generally ionize neutral H in their vicinity? As far as I know, quasars were not generally considered to have short lifetimes until this lack of TPE business arose. 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. Here is a hypothesis I made up a year ago, regarding the CMB and the Sunyaev-Zel'dovich effect. (See above URL.) The CMB is produced by the graveyard of black dwarfs and their collision fragments, produced from dead stars over countless billennia (many galaxies are very old indeed - this is a non-BBT theory). These spin out of the plane of the spiral galaxy since they survive close encounters, which would rip active stars apart due to tidal forces. This halo of dead cold solid matter constitutes the dark matter which explains galactic rotation curves. Over time (we have lots of time . . . ) they attain the average radiative temperature of the Universe, which is about the same temperature as the CMB. (So far, this theory, or most of was not first proposed by me - sorry I can't find the URL of the site of the chap who proposed this a few years ago.) To this model, I add redshift of the CMB as it passes through the void IGM - for instance due to a plasma or sparse particle redshift mechanism. By the way, I am considering redshift mechanisms which do not necessarily involve loss of energy - just the change in the short impulse length em wave so that more quanta of lower energies are delivered. (I reject the "photon" - one quantum of energy lost to one quantum of energy received, without interaction with the emr caused by other quanta - view of electromagnetic radiation - but that's another story.) In my hypothesis, CMB from galaxies beyond a nearer galaxy (or galaxy cluster) will generally be redshifted compared to the contribution of CMB coming from nearer galaxy's black dwarf halo. Therefore we observe somewhat hotter CMB from the vicinity of the nearby galaxy or cluster - which is my understanding of the Sunyaev-Zel'dovich effect. 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. It can be easy to think of other explanations - and then, with sufficient effort, to fine-tune them to observations too. - Robin http://astroneu.com http://www.firstpr.com.au
|
|
#17
March 30th 05, 09:59 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Max, I looked at your page:
http://members.ozemail.com.au/~mkeon/the1-1a.html and had the same experience I have with many contrarian physics sites - too many things seemed to make no plausible sense and I couldn't find a reason for looking at any of it in sufficient detail to assemble a critique. If, as I understand, your theory is different from that of conventional Big Bang cosmology, and if you suggest yours is a better theory, then I think you should be able to point out which observations the BBT fails to properly explain, and how yours offers a better explanation. Can you list such observations? You don't need to explain your theory - just present evidence that the BBT predicts things different from what is observed. Or are you simply arguing that your explanations are more elegant than the BBT's - with exactly the same predictions? Progress in science can involve simply disproving someone else's theory. Its not necessary to have a better one - though it is nice if you do. - Robin http://astroneu.com http://www.firstpr.com.au
|
|
#18
March 30th 05, 09:59 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Max Keon wrote:
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, 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? Why its temperature changes with time in accordance with the predictions of the BBT? The BBT predicts a blackbody curve, but not the specific temperature of course. Err, that was not my point. Read again what I actually wrote, please. I did not talk about temperature - I talked about *changes* in temperature. 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? 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. 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! The ^1.12 exponent is near enough to constant for the blackbody plot of the universe that we can meaningfully comprehend. I have no clue what this is supposed to mean. It would have been infinitesimally greater than 1 for the plot at the origin. Why? So there's still a long way left for us to go. See e.g. he http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/stdystat.htm#Tvsz I notice you did not bother to address this. [snip more irrelevant arguments] The fact that if the CMBR is assumed to have a cosmological origin, the parameters we derive from it (Hubble parameter, density of dark energy etc.) are nicely consistent with determinations using other methods? 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 computer simulations which study how the density fluctuations grow with time produce the observed large-scale structure? The power spectrum (hint: I don't talk about the blackbody spectrum) of the CMBR, especially the acoustic peak? Every time I study the WMAP maps, all I can see is a well formed universe that could have been there forever. That has nothing to do with either of my two arguments above. Try again, please. But it has a lot to do with my argument. So what? You claimed that you can explain all the evidence which the BBT can explain. So why don't you address this? 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. 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? The Sunyaev-Zel'dovich effect? The integrated Sachs-Wolfe effect I wasn't aware of the Sachs-Wolf effect. Thanks. But you were aware of the Sunyaev-Zel'dovich effect? No, not until you mentioned it. So, we have now at least three pieces of evidence for the BB explanation of the CMBR which you were not aware of. And please keep in mind that I am by no means an expert in cosmology - just a physicist with a private interest in cosmology. You should think about what this might imply about the amount of evidence you are not aware of... A quick search at the time found only this sentence; "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) According to that sentence the effect has yet to be noted, or is already factored in as a component within the anisotropy. The quote you give above is outdated. Look at the link I provide below. The effect *has* been observed. It really doesn't have any more relevance to my argument than the Sachs-Wolfe effect though. Err, both are effects which are explained by the BB model for the CMBR. So why do you think you can simply ignore these two effects? If yes, could you please outline how your model explains the observations? I notice that you don't bother to do that. But what's to explain? The zero origin universe works just fine. Well, then please show how your model explains these two effects. Quantitatively. I notice that you don't bother to do that. What evidence supports that effect anyway? Which one? Sunyaev-Zel'dovich or integrated Sachs-Wolfe? For the first one, see e.g. he http://cfa-www.harvard.edu/~aas/tenmeter/sz.htm I notice that you choose to ignore that. For the second, see e.g. he astro-ph/0307335 I notice that you choose to ignore that. The assumption seem to be that photons behave like matter when in gravitational potential wells, that they can gain or lose energy, but by contracting or extending their wavelengths. Err, that is not an assumption. That has actually been experimentally confirmed. Both in the lab and in astronomical observations. 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. 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? The additional restraining forces applied by the deepening well are applied equally to each billiard ball along train (2). Nothing will change. I can't follow your logic. What "restraining forces"? Now replace the billiard balls with photons. That would be a false analogy. Either the speed of light in not isotropic over the train length, or the photons overlap to accommodate their added wavelengths???? "their" added wavelengths? Due to grammar, the "their" seems to refer to the photons. But photons do not have wavelengths. Only electromagnetic waves have wavelengths. So, what are you talking about? 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!) [snip more of that] The polarization found in the CMBR that you refer to in your follow-up post is a question I need to address. http://www-news.uchicago.edu/releases/02/020918.carlstrom.shtml http://astro.uchicago.edu/dasi/polexpert/ Could it be caused by light bouncing around a rotation polarized universe (if it can be termed thus)? Don't merely speculate. Address the results. Quantitatively. I'll need time of course. While you are at it, you can also look at all the stuff you ignored above. Bye, Bjoern
|
|
#20
March 30th 05, 06:06 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
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. 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. 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. A lot of the problems with understanding quasars are due to the BBT's insistence that they are at vast distances due to their generally high redshift. I suppose that if someone considers the BBT to be a precise, well-developed, locked-together theory with few observational challenges, then it would make sense to be prepared to consider otherwise implausible things about quasars. But other folk see the BBT as a big mess and can tentatively imagine various other forms of redshift, which would lead to theories with greater explanatory power. It is not necessary for me to provide a new theory or any quantitative material at all to make scientific progress. All I need to do is disprove an existing theory. I say the failure to find the TPE with a foreground quasar is a disproof of the BBT. It so happens that I am working on a redshift mechanism which occurs in sparse plasmas or gasses. There is another theory with comparable characteristics, by Ari Brynjolfsson. http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0401420 However I don't have to provide a replacement theory to disprove the BBT. Since the BBT causes a lot of problems in explaining quasars, since there are no satisfactory conventional explanations for astrophysically crucial processes such as coronal heating and stellar wind acceleration, and since the BBT relies on the notion that electromagnetic radiation is not changed at all in terms of the quanta of energy it deposits as it travels for billions of years in sparse plasma, I say it is a very vulnerable theory. You used the word "quantitative" five times in your response. No-one needs any new theory, with or without quantitative predictions, in order to show that the BBT is broken. You wrote: Why don't we see stars older than about 13 billion years then? Our knowledge of the age of stars is entirely theoretical. We do not observe the age of stars. I don't know enough about this area to point to evidence for stars being older than this, but perhaps someone can. Since most workers in this field depend entirely on funding arrangements which would be threatened if they questioned the prevailing paradigm - or if they produced results which were obviously wrong according to that paradigm - it would not surprise me if they generally failed to theorise, or at least publish, stellar theories which indicate some stars are older than whatever the age of the Universe was considered to be at the time. What is the "average radiative temperature of the universe"? I am not sure. Googling "average temperature of the universe" yields lots of references to 2.7k or 3k. I haven't investigated beyond this. The question is, if you put a largish black object out in the middle of intergalactic space, or on the edge of a galaxy, or in the midst of a galaxy cluster and let it sit there for a long time, what will its temperature be? I don't make any great claims about my black dwarf hypothesis for galactic missing mass and the CMB. (Does anyone know of other such proposals? I think I was mistaken about the site http://hometown.aol.com/wmitch8493/myhomepage/ I thought mentioned such a theory.) All I was saying is that its not hard to think of half-way plausible explanations which do not involve the Big Bang. Since the BBT has no explanation for the galactic missing mass (without recourse to exotic physics) and since the black dwarf hypothesis looks promising, I suggest it as part of an alternative set of theories which explains things better than the BBT. Guessing is a perfectly valid activity when contemplating new explanations for observations which currently have little or no explanation. I don't claim to have a solid theory - just one that may interest some folk. Feel free to explain the photo effect and the Compton effect. I'll let you know when I work up a good critique of the photon idea. While I know it is attractive for considering X-rays and electrons, I think it is not at all adequate for a number of other aspects of electromagnetic radiation. I think that the assumption that emr involves "photons" which start at one point and end (with the magical collapse of the wavefunction at another point) and which do not interfere with each other at all, is a terrible mistake. In my hypothesis, CMB from galaxies beyond a nearer galaxy (or galaxy cluster) will generally be redshifted compared to the contribution of CMB coming from nearer galaxy's black dwarf halo. Why? By whatever sparse particle or plasma redshift mechanism I propose is shifting the visible light of the galaxies and quasars. Therefore we observe somewhat hotter CMB from the vicinity of the nearby galaxy or cluster - which is my understanding of the Sunyaev-Zel'dovich effect. Feel free to come up with a quantitative explanation, instead of just handwaving. Suggesting a hypothesis which explains the observations in principle is a constructive contribution - not handwaving. A hypothesis doesn't have to be quantitative to warrant consideration and provoke people to think of better ideas than I suggest. If we consider spiral galaxies to be vastly older than the BBT allows, then what do you think of the idea of their collapsed stellar remnants being so robust in close gravitational encounters (compared to active stars) that they are flung out to orbits wider and wider and not aligned with the galactic plane? There, over time, I think they would occasionally collide and so have a much larger surface area than if they remained intact black dwarfs. I do not expect anyone to accept this hypothesis seriously. Its just a suggestion to show that there are other explanations for the observations which do not depend on the BBT. 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 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. 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. 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 - to the point where many objections can easily be made and where the revisions are destructive of some probably sensible existing theories - 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. - Robin http://astroneu.com http://www.firstpr.com.au
|
| Thread Tools | |
| Display Modes | |
|
|
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 05:52 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 |
Linear Mode
