|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
Galaxy cluster at z=1.4 challenges BBT
The astro research newsgroup seems to have gone into
hybernation, which is restricting my right to reply. Thus I'm complelled to broaden my horizons. This is one of two unpresentable submissions to the above subject. The rest of the story can be found on sci.astro.research ------- Bjoern Feuerbacher wrote: Max Keon wrote: Ulf Torkelsson wrote: Max Keon wrote: ----- ----- In the zero origin universe, the image of the early universe will continue to flow in from everywhere, from right back to the infinitely distant origin. But because the evolution rate of the universe is increasing at a squaring rate per fixed time rate, the early universe had a closer background/foreground relationship than exists today. The background will eventually disappear altogether when the universe really gets going. This does not make any sense. How could it, in your universe? Unfortunately for you, "our" universe is the real one. I'm beginning to see the pointlessness in trying to explain the zero origin universe to you while your universe still (barely) survives. Some of its failings are so blatantly obvious that it's hard to imagine how anyone could believe in it, especially the good folk of the physics community. Peddling this kind of stuff as some kind of reality can only be detrimental to the good name of physics. Can you not see that????? During the first 300,000 years after the big bang event the average expansion rate of the universe was 31.3 times faster than it was at the moment when the universe became transparent. That era of ultra expansion extended the radius of the universe, from everywhere to the bang, to 9394690 light years. That amazing feat of magic coincidentally fitted in perfectly so that the universe could then continue to expand while under scrutiny, and the CMBR would arrive here at its current temperature. If the expansion had been constant right from the big bang, the CMBR temperature would now be .087 degrees K. You don't find all of that just a little speculative? Here's something else for you to worry about. At the time when the universe became transparent, the entire matter of the universe was housed in a 9394690 light year radius about the big bang, and was necessarily all within a very deep gravity well. Two atomic clocks which were previously synchronized adjacent, and then positioned apart at the top and the base of a tower so that their tick rates can be compared via a numeric display, attached to each clock and driven by each clock's oscillator, is proof beyond doubt that time was running much slower in the intense gravity well of the early universe than it is now. The tick rate shown on the base clock's display is very positively noted to be slower than the tick rate shown on the top clock's display. There is clearly no room for photon energy variation enroute between clocks. Gravitational redshifting of the characteristic spectral lines of elements has nothing whatever to do with diminished photon energy either. They were made that way. The entire spectrum of the 4000 K radiator which made up the CMBR would have been created in an **extremely** redshifted state. In a universe where only the earth and an atomic clock exist, where the mass of the earth represents the mass of the universe, at the radius of 9394690 light years (8.888E+19km) when the universe became transparent, the clock time rate ratio relative to the time rate of the clock if it was positioned at the center of earth's mass, is (G * M) / (r * c ^ 2) t1' = (6.67E-11 * 5.97E+24) / (8.888E+19 * 300000^2) = 4.98E-17 to 1 The clock time rate ratio when the earth(universe) is 13.7E+9 light year (1.296E+23km) radius away is t2' = (6.67E-11 * 5.97E+24) / (1.296E+23 * 300000^2) = 3.41E-20 to 1 The clock difference ratio between t1' and t2' is t1' / t2' = 1458 to 1 Now replace the earth with a mass of i.e. 1E+99kg. The 1458 to 1 ratio is still the same. So it really doesn't matter what the mass of the universe is, does it. Every reaction in the early universe would have been redshifted **enormously** compared with the same reaction in the present universe. My first submission of this post was justifiably rejected. The fault was corrected. But the next two submission attempts have resulted in complete silence. I think that's, game, set and match? ----- Max Keon |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
My contributions to the astro research newsgroup seem to be no
longer welcome because this post was rejected on what I consider to be a biased appraisal of its content. I won't elaborate on the content of an email, but can anybody see a valid reason why this post should be damned to the rubbish bin? -------- Bjoern Feuerbacher wrote: Max Keon wrote: I'm beginning to see the pointlessness in trying to explain the zero origin universe to you while your universe still (barely) survives. The only reason why a discussion with you is pointless is that you simply ignore most of the experimental evidence, and misunderstand the little bits you don't ignore. Some of its failings are so blatantly obvious that it's hard to imagine how anyone could believe in it, especially the good folk of the physics community. Please give examples for such failings. The absolute proof that your universe fails was given in the second part of the post which you replied to. Your response to that proof was not unexpected. Peddling this kind of stuff as some kind of reality can only be detrimental to the good name of physics. Can you not see that????? No. Hint: I'm in a much better position than you to judge that. I don't know how you arrive at that conclusion. You choose to know absolutely nothing about the zero origin universe. I'm in a far better position to make a judgment on which universe is the more realistic. During the first 300,000 years after the big bang event the average expansion rate of the universe was 31.3 times faster than it was at the moment when the universe became transparent. Where on earth did you get that from? That era of ultra expansion extended the radius of the universe, from everywhere to the bang, to 9394690 light years. Where on earth did you get that from? That amazing feat of magic Which you just invented yourself. Exactly. I was expecting to have difficulty getting my post accepted because it contained absolute proof that the big bang never happened. I invented something that could be easily attacked. The original post was written in an excessively careless manner and was rejected. I corrected the basic errors and also clarified my real intention in the second part of the post. I expected to have even greater problems getting that version posted. In hindsight, I think I was over reacting. My apologies. ------ ------ At the time when the universe became transparent, the entire matter of the universe was housed in a 9394690 light year radius about the big bang, Wrong. Where on earth did you get that from? It was part of the charade. The size doesn't matter a damn. Even if it happened just down the road, the big bang is falsified. and was necessarily all within a very deep gravity well. Wrong. Try to understand the difference between a Schwarzschild and a Robertson-Walker metric. Two atomic clocks which were previously synchronized adjacent, and then positioned apart at the top and the base of a tower so that their tick rates can be compared via a numeric display attached to each clock and driven by each clock's oscillator is proof beyond doubt that time was running much slower in the intense gravity well of the early universe than it is now. The two situations are by no means comparable. There *was* no gravity well. But a relatively *enormous* gravitational potential existed back then, didn't it? And that's all that's needed to falsify the big bang theory. The tick rate shown on the base clock's display is very positively noted to be slower than the tick rate shown on the top clock's display. There is clearly no room for photon energy variation enroute between clocks. Non sequitur. Huh! Gravitational redshifting of the characteristic spectral lines of elements has nothing whatever to do with diminished photon energy either. Explain why gamma radiation emitted by an iron sample at the bottom can't be absorbed by an iron sample at the top, while there is no problem with absorption as long as they are on the same height. When they are at different heights, of course their frequencies are not the same any more. Exactly as the atomic clock scenario demonstrated. But that has absolutely nothing to do with photons gaining or losing energy, has it. The atomic clock scenario proved that not to be so, beyond any doubt. I'll go through it all again. Two atomic clocks which were previously synchronized adjacent, and then positioned apart at the top and the base of a tower so that their tick rates can be compared via a numeric display attached to each clock and driven by each clock's oscillator is proof beyond doubt that the frequency generated in the Caesium atom configuration that drives each display, slows in the deeper potential well at the tower base. That slowing all happens within the clock mechanism, simply because it's running in a deeper potential well, and that's the only reason. An atomic clock's tick rate would be slowed enormously in the densely populated environment of the early universe, and so too would every frequency generated in that environment which made up the spectrum of the CMBR. Then the expansion takes over. The CMBR would be well and truly undetectable by the time it reaches us. ----- Max Keon |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
"Max Keon" wrote in message
... My contributions to the astro research newsgroup seem to be no longer welcome because this post was rejected on what I consider to be a biased appraisal of its content. I won't elaborate on the content of an email, but can anybody see a valid reason why this post should be damned to the rubbish bin? Don't worry about it, Max. SAR has a long history of rejecting any post with which the "moderators" disagree. Just be happy if they bother to notify you that they're not going to allow your post. When they do, simply enjoy the farcial reasoning that they often employ. The simplest recourse on your part is simply to do what you have done. Post the 'rejected' submission to sci.astro. At least the discussion can continue. -- greywolf42 ubi dubium ibi libertas {remove planet for e-mail} |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
greywolf42 wrote:
"Max Keon" wrote in message ... My contributions to the astro research newsgroup seem to be no longer welcome because this post was rejected on what I consider to be a biased appraisal of its content. I won't elaborate on the content of an email, but can anybody see a valid reason why this post should be damned to the rubbish bin? Don't worry about it, Max. SAR has a long history of rejecting any post with which the "moderators" disagree. Just be happy if they bother to notify you that they're not going to allow your post. When they do, simply enjoy the farcial reasoning that they often employ. The simplest recourse on your part is simply to do what you have done. Post the 'rejected' submission to sci.astro. At least the discussion can continue. I have answered his post one week ago. He entirely ignored my arguments (as he already did in s.a.r, BTW). Doesn't look like as if he is actually interested in discussion... BTW: I notice that you have also fled the thread in sci.physics where we two discussed French's paper (and others), after proclaiming victory. You simply ignored all my counterarguments. Bye, Bjoern |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
Bjoern Feuerbacher wrote:
greywolf42 wrote: "Max Keon" wrote in message ... My contributions to the astro research newsgroup seem to be no longer welcome because this post was rejected on what I consider to be a biased appraisal of its content. I won't elaborate on the content of an email, but can anybody see a valid reason why this post should be damned to the rubbish bin? Don't worry about it, Max. SAR has a long history of rejecting any post with which the "moderators" disagree. Just be happy if they bother to notify you that they're not going to allow your post. When they do, simply enjoy the farcial reasoning that they often employ. The simplest recourse on your part is simply to do what you have done. Post the 'rejected' submission to sci.astro. At least the discussion can continue. I have answered his post one week ago. He entirely ignored my arguments (as he already did in s.a.r, BTW). Doesn't look like as if he is actually interested in discussion... I too am having some trouble believing that you are interested in that part of the discussion you are referring to because when I seek clarification on some of the terminology you use, I get nothing more than a smoke screen in reply. As I've said before, how could I possibly keep in touch with the evolving terminology in your world when I don't live there? You employ very strange methods to defend your theory. And the way I see it, defending your theory is exactly what you should be doing because it seem to be rapidly falling apart. You have so far failed to address the two clock and the tower scenario that I continue to put to you. So here it is again; -Two atomic clocks which were previously synchronized adjacent, and -then positioned apart at the top and the base of a tower so that -their tick rates can be compared via a numeric display attached to -each clock and driven by each clock's oscillator is proof beyond -doubt that the frequency generated in the Caesium atom configuration -that drives each display, slows in the deeper potential well at the -tower base. That slowing all happens within the clock mechanism, -simply because it's running in a deeper potential well, and that's -the only reason. I'm still waiting for your in depth explanation that proves me wrong. Now take your atomic clock back to the early universe, to the time when the universe became transparent. Have you any idea how slow that clock would be running in that environment? The ratio between the radius of the universe relative to the big bang at the time of transparency and the current radius should give you some idea of the difference in the average gravitational potential then and the average potential now. Hence the re-run of this next paragraph. -An atomic clock's tick rate would be slowed enormously in the -densely populated environment of the early universe, and so too -would every frequency generated in that environment which made up -the spectrum of the CMBR. Then the expansion takes over. The CMBR -would be well and truly undetectable by the time it reaches us. The obvious conclusion is that the big bang theory is nothing more than a fantasy. Which I would be only too happy to go along with if there was no alternative universe to take its place. But even then, I could never accept it as reality. I honestly don't think anyone could. ----- Max Keon |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
Max Keon wrote: Bjoern Feuerbacher wrote: greywolf42 wrote: "Max Keon" wrote in message ... My contributions to the astro research newsgroup seem to be no longer welcome because this post was rejected on what I consider to be a biased appraisal of its content. I won't elaborate on the content of an email, but can anybody see a valid reason why this post should be damned to the rubbish bin? Don't worry about it, Max. SAR has a long history of rejecting any post with which the "moderators" disagree. Just be happy if they bother to notify you that they're not going to allow your post. When they do, simply enjoy the farcial reasoning that they often employ. The simplest recourse on your part is simply to do what you have done. Post the 'rejected' submission to sci.astro. At least the discussion can continue. I have answered his post one week ago. He entirely ignored my arguments (as he already did in s.a.r, BTW). Doesn't look like as if he is actually interested in discussion... I too am having some trouble believing that you are interested in that part of the discussion you are referring to because when I seek clarification on some of the terminology you use, I get nothing more than a smoke screen in reply. Pardon??? The only time you asked for clarification of terminology was, IIRC, when you asked about the meaning of z. I answered that clearly. The only smoke screens in our discussion came from *you* when *I* asked for clarification. As I've said before, how could I possibly keep in touch with the evolving terminology in your world when I don't live there? The terminology in my world is not "evolving". z has meant the same thing for about 80 years now. You employ very strange methods to defend your theory. There is a saying about a pot and a kettle... And the way I see it, defending your theory is exactly what you should be doing because it seem to be rapidly falling apart. Again that saying... You have so far failed to address the two clock and the tower scenario that I continue to put to you. So here it is again; -Two atomic clocks which were previously synchronized adjacent, and -then positioned apart at the top and the base of a tower so that -their tick rates can be compared via a numeric display attached to -each clock and driven by each clock's oscillator is proof beyond -doubt that the frequency generated in the Caesium atom configuration -that drives each display, slows in the deeper potential well at the -tower base. That slowing all happens within the clock mechanism, -simply because it's running in a deeper potential well, and that's -the only reason. I'm still waiting for your in depth explanation that proves me wrong. The above is an entirely *hypothetical* scenario. The experiment has never been done in that way. So why do you keep asserting so confidently what the results would be? And why do you keep ignoring the *actual* experiment which *has* been done? Now take your atomic clock back to the early universe, to the time when the universe became transparent. Have you any idea how slow that clock would be running in that environment? Why on earth should it run slower??? The ratio between the radius of the universe relative to the big bang at the time of transparency and the current radius should give you some idea of the difference in the average gravitational potential then and the average potential now. The potential is (on average) zero, and always was. If you think otherwise, you show nicely that you don't understand gravity. Hence the re-run of this next paragraph. -An atomic clock's tick rate would be slowed enormously in the -densely populated environment of the early universe, No, it wouldn't. It would tick at the same rate as today. And, BTW: it's not the first time that I tell you that. [snip more based on this wrong premise] Bye, Bjoern |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
Bjoern Feuerbacher wrote:
Max Keon wrote: Bjoern Feuerbacher wrote: greywolf42 wrote: The simplest recourse on your part is simply to do what you have done. Post the 'rejected' submission to sci.astro. At least the discussion can continue. I have answered his post one week ago. He entirely ignored my arguments (as he already did in s.a.r, BTW). Doesn't look like as if he is actually interested in discussion... I too am having some trouble believing that you are interested in that part of the discussion you are referring to because when I seek clarification on some of the terminology you use, I get nothing more than a smoke screen in reply. Pardon??? The only time you asked for clarification of terminology was, IIRC, when you asked about the meaning of z. I answered that clearly. I have already found the meaning of z in the Penguin dictionary of science, without your "help". This is what I was referring to though; I wrote: Redshift 2.34 I assume means that the characteristic spectral line wavelengths are 2.34 times longer than they are currently. Is that correct? You replied: No. That would be the case for redshift 1.34, not for redshift 2.34. Could you *please* try to get at least the most basic things right? ----- ----- You have so far failed to address the two clock and the tower scenario that I continue to put to you. So here it is again; -Two atomic clocks which were previously synchronized adjacent, and -then positioned apart at the top and the base of a tower so that -their tick rates can be compared via a numeric display attached to -each clock and driven by each clock's oscillator is proof beyond -doubt that the frequency generated in the Caesium atom configuration -that drives each display, slows in the deeper potential well at the -tower base. That slowing all happens within the clock mechanism, -simply because it's running in a deeper potential well, and that's -the only reason. I'm still waiting for your in depth explanation that proves me wrong. The above is an entirely *hypothetical* scenario. The experiment has never been done in that way. So why do you keep asserting so confidently what the results would be? The experiment is done every second of every minute of every day. A clock at GPS altitude is noted to be running 5.288E-10 seconds faster per second than a ground based clock fixed with the ECI frame. The reason according to general relativity is that, although the tick rates are the same in each clock, the tick frequency from the ground based clock arriving at the GPS altitude clock has been slowed by its climb from the gravity well, while the frequency from the GPS altitude clock has increased because it's falling into the gravity well. That's what I gather from your interpretation of the Pound and Rebka experiment. And the Sachs-Wolfe effect of course. But the tick shortfall per second between the two would just keep on adding up if they were in fact created. And that can go on for years. After only one hour the tick shortfall is 17,500 . If they were created, where the hell are they? The obvious answer is of course that they were never made. The oscillator which drives the atomic clock is slowed in the deeper gravity well, and that's obviously all that happens. It would seem that the GR (and yours) interpretation of the Pound and Rebka result is nonsense. Bring one of the GPS clocks back to ground and see if the missing ticks held in limbo between the previously separated clocks suddenly appear. What you are peddling is so obviously wrong that it can only be an embarrassment for the physics community. And why do you keep ignoring the *actual* experiment which *has* been done? Now take your atomic clock back to the early universe, to the time when the universe became transparent. Have you any idea how slow that clock would be running in that environment? Why on earth should it run slower??? That should now be *very* obvious. The ratio between the radius of the universe relative to the big bang at the time of transparency and the current radius should give you some idea of the difference in the average gravitational potential then and the average potential now. The potential is (on average) zero, and always was. If you think otherwise, you show nicely that you don't understand gravity. There was an enormous concentration of matter then relative to now, so there was an enormous gravitational potential then relative to now. To bring that all into perspective, the mass of the earth, or any other constant mass, of any size (it matters not), can be used to compare how a clock would behave at different stages in the evolution of the universe from the big bang. The expansion of space between two points is going to be reasonably uniform throughout the universe. So by comparing the tick rate of an atomic clock at different radii from the earth with the tick rate of that clock if it was fixed at the center of earth's mass, I would get a reasonable indication of how the clock would behave, on average, anywhere across the entire universe at any stage of evolution. The changing relationship between the clock and the earth would be exactly proportionally to the clock's changing relationship with all of the matter in the universe. And so; For the clock at a 13E+9 light year radius (1.23E+20km) from the earth, (G*M)/(r*c^2) (6.67E-11*1E+38)/(1.23E+20*300000^2)= 3.6E-20 to 1 per earth clock. For the clock at, allowing for a very rapid initial expansion, a whopping 10,000,000 light year radius (9.46E+19km) from the earth in the environment of the big bang universe at the time when the universe became transparent, (6.67E-11*1E+38)/(9.46E+19*300000^2)= 4.7E-17 to 1. The clock tick ratio between the two stages is 4.7E-17 / 3.6E-20 = 1300 to 1. The clock was ticking 1300 times slower than it is now, so every frequency generated in that environment was necessarily 1300 times slower. The spectrum generated at that time would be that of a 5.5 K radiator, relative to now. That's before the expansion is even thought about. Even if you don't agree with the logic, the effect is certainly present in rather enormous proportions. The spectrum of the CMBR was that of a 4000 K blackbody relative to the time rate in the environment in which it began its journey, but it was nothing like that of a present day 4000 K blackbody. Hence the re-run of this next paragraph. -An atomic clock's tick rate would be slowed enormously in the -densely populated environment of the early universe, No, it wouldn't. It would tick at the same rate as today. Your handwaving is far from convincing. The zero origin universe is looking good. ----- Max Keon |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
Max Keon wrote:
Bjoern Feuerbacher wrote: Max Keon wrote: Bjoern Feuerbacher wrote: [snip] You have so far failed to address the two clock and the tower scenario that I continue to put to you. So here it is again; -Two atomic clocks which were previously synchronized adjacent, and -then positioned apart at the top and the base of a tower so that -their tick rates can be compared via a numeric display attached to -each clock and driven by each clock's oscillator is proof beyond -doubt that the frequency generated in the Caesium atom configuration -that drives each display, slows in the deeper potential well at the -tower base. That slowing all happens within the clock mechanism, -simply because it's running in a deeper potential well, and that's -the only reason. I'm still waiting for your in depth explanation that proves me wrong. The above is an entirely *hypothetical* scenario. The experiment has never been done in that way. So why do you keep asserting so confidently what the results would be? The experiment is done every second of every minute of every day. A clock at GPS altitude is noted to be running 5.288E-10 seconds faster per second than a ground based clock fixed with the ECI frame. The reason according to general relativity is that, although the tick rates are the same in each clock, the tick frequency from the ground based clock arriving at the GPS altitude clock has been slowed by its climb from the gravity well, while the frequency from the GPS altitude clock has increased because it's falling into the gravity well. That's what I gather from your interpretation of the Pound and Rebka experiment. And the Sachs-Wolfe effect of course. But the tick shortfall per second between the two would just keep on adding up if they were in fact created. And that can go on for years. After only one hour the tick shortfall is 17,500 . If they were created, where the hell are they? The obvious answer is of course that they were never made. The oscillator which drives the atomic clock is slowed in the deeper gravity well, and that's obviously all that happens. It would seem that the GR (and yours) interpretation of the Pound and Rebka result is nonsense. Bring one of the GPS clocks back to ground and see if the missing ticks held in limbo between the previously separated clocks suddenly appear. What you are peddling is so obviously wrong that it can only be an embarrassment for the physics community. And why do you keep ignoring the *actual* experiment which *has* been done? I'll address the above as soon as you show me that you have actually looked up and understood what was done in the Pound-Rebka experiment, and explain its *actual* results, instead of the straw men you keep bringing up. [snip] The ratio between the radius of the universe relative to the big bang at the time of transparency and the current radius should give you some idea of the difference in the average gravitational potential then and the average potential now. The potential is (on average) zero, and always was. If you think otherwise, you show nicely that you don't understand gravity. There was an enormous concentration of matter then relative to now, Right. so there was an enormous gravitational potential then relative to now. Wrong. Non sequitur. The matter was almost homogeneously distributed. In a homogenous matter distribution, the gravitational potential is *zero*. [snip a lot based on a false premise] Hence the re-run of this next paragraph. -An atomic clock's tick rate would be slowed enormously in the -densely populated environment of the early universe, No, it wouldn't. It would tick at the same rate as today. Your handwaving is far from convincing. Your assertions about the gravitational potential in the early universe are even less. The zero origin universe is looking good. Only to you. Bye, Bjoern |
#9
|
|||
|
|||
Bjoern Feuerbacher wrote:
Max Keon wrote: Bjoern Feuerbacher wrote: Max Keon wrote: ----- ----- It would seem that the GR (and yours) interpretation of the Pound and Rebka result is nonsense. Bring one of the GPS clocks back to ground and see if the missing ticks held in limbo between the previously separated clocks suddenly appear. What you are peddling is so obviously wrong that it can only be an embarrassment for the physics community. And why do you keep ignoring the *actual* experiment which *has* been done? I'll address the above as soon as you show me that you have actually looked up and understood what was done in the Pound-Rebka experiment, and explain its *actual* results, instead of the straw men you keep bringing up. If the radioactive iron frequency generator used in the Pound and Rebka experiment is placed at the tower base, it would naturally generate photons that were already redshifted compared with the photons generated from a similar frequency generator located at the tower top. Neither one will absorb the frequency from the other. That's what Pound and Rebka found, and that's what GR predicts. But GR also predicts that the frequency generated at the tower base will be further redshifted enroute to the tower top because the photons all lose energy through the climb from the gravity well. That's the part that can't happen because every oscillation cycle of a continuous frequency generated at the tower base will relentlessly pile up between the tower base and tower top because they are passing by the tower top at a slower rate than they are being produced (whatever way you want to measure time). And that can go on indefinitely. You may be interested in this little excerpt from Britannica. -- Two-way, round-the-world flights of atomic clocks in 1971 produced changes in clock epochs that agreed well with the predictions of special and general relativity. The results have been cited as proof that the gravitational red shift in the frequency of a photon is produced when the photon is formed, as predicted by Einstein, and not later, as the photon moves in a gravitational field. In effect, gravitational potential is a perturbation that lowers the energy of a quantum state. -- I'm sure you would like to know how this all works in the zero origin universe. This wavetrain traveling between the tower ends Tower wave Tower base top crests -- constant space -- with earth I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I not present changes to this when the gravity well set by the earth is included. Tower wave Tower base top crests stretching space -- on earth's I I I I I I I I I surface At first glance, the wavetrain probably appears redshifted as it dives into the gravity well, but nothing really changes because the speed of light has increased along with the stretching space. With time measured from a fixed point, the wave crests produced per second in a precision frequency generator placed at each end, will pass by the other end at exactly the same number of wave crests per second as they were created. But the frequency generated in the *stretched space* at the tower base is slower than at the top because everything to do with generating the frequency is further apart. Each oscillation cycle now takes longer. Quite simple isn't it? [snip] The ratio between the radius of the universe relative to the big bang at the time of transparency and the current radius should give you some idea of the difference in the average gravitational potential then and the average potential now. The potential is (on average) zero, and always was. If you think otherwise, you show nicely that you don't understand gravity. There was an enormous concentration of matter then relative to now, Right. so there was an enormous gravitational potential then relative to now. Wrong. Non sequitur. The matter was almost homogeneously distributed. In a homogenous matter distribution, the gravitational potential is *zero*. But the gravitational potential between then and now is not zero. Every potential well is separated through time, so why can't I compare now with the era when the universe became transparent? But it really makes no difference whether it's a gravitational potential well or not because the only thing that matters is that there was an *enormous* concentration of matter everywhere in the early big bang universe. A clock tick rate would be slowed enormously in that environment compared to now. The magnitude of the effect is summed up in this extract from my previous post: ------- To bring that all into perspective, the mass of the earth, or any other constant mass, of any size (it matters not), can be used to compare how a clock would behave at different stages in the evolution of the universe from the big bang. The expansion of space between two points is going to be reasonably uniform throughout the universe. So by comparing the tick rate of an atomic clock at different radii from the earth with the tick rate of that clock if it was fixed at the center of earth's mass, I would get a reasonable indication of how the clock would behave, on average, anywhere across the entire universe at any stage of evolution. The changing relationship between the clock and the earth would be exactly proportionally to the clock's changing relationship with all of the matter in the universe. And so; For the clock at a 13E+9 light year radius (1.23E+20km) from the earth, (G*M)/(r*c^2) (6.67E-11*1E+38)/(1.23E+20*300000^2)= 3.6E-20 to 1 per earth clock. For the clock at, allowing for a very rapid initial expansion, a whopping 10,000,000 light year radius (9.46E+19km) from the earth in the environment of the big bang universe at the time when the universe became transparent, (6.67E-11*1E+38)/(9.46E+19*300000^2)= 4.7E-17 to 1. The clock tick ratio between the two stages is 4.7E-17 / 3.6E-20 = 1300 to 1. The clock was ticking 1300 times slower than it is now, so every frequency generated in that environment was necessarily 1300 times slower. The spectrum generated at that time would be that of a 5.5 K radiator, relative to now. That's before the expansion is even thought about. Even if you don't agree with the logic, the effect is certainly present in rather enormous proportions. The spectrum of the CMBR was that of a 4000 K blackbody relative to the time rate in the environment in which it began its journey, but it was nothing like that of a present day 4000 K blackbody. ------- ----- Max Keon |
#10
|
|||
|
|||
Max Keon wrote:
Bjoern Feuerbacher wrote: Max Keon wrote: Bjoern Feuerbacher wrote: Max Keon wrote: ----- ----- It would seem that the GR (and yours) interpretation of the Pound and Rebka result is nonsense. Bring one of the GPS clocks back to ground and see if the missing ticks held in limbo between the previously separated clocks suddenly appear. What you are peddling is so obviously wrong that it can only be an embarrassment for the physics community. And why do you keep ignoring the *actual* experiment which *has* been done? I'll address the above as soon as you show me that you have actually looked up and understood what was done in the Pound-Rebka experiment, and explain its *actual* results, instead of the straw men you keep bringing up. If the radioactive iron frequency generator used in the Pound and Rebka experiment is placed at the tower base, it would naturally generate photons that were already redshifted compared with the photons generated from a similar frequency generator located at the tower top. Why would they be "naturally" "already redshifted"? Are you talking about gravitational time dilation, or what? Neither one will absorb the frequency from the other. That's what Pound and Rebka found, and that's what GR predicts. But GR also predicts that the frequency generated at the tower base will be further redshifted enroute to the tower top because the photons all lose energy through the climb from the gravity well. Wrong. GR does *not* predict that there is a "further" redshift. The gravitational time dilation and the redshift are simply two different ways to see the same effect. Thanks for showing that you don't understand GR. That's the part that can't happen because every oscillation cycle of a continuous frequency generated at the tower base will relentlessly pile up between the tower base and tower top because they are passing by the tower top at a slower rate than they are being produced (whatever way you want to measure time). And that can go on indefinitely. Plain nonsense, as already explained before. You may be interested in this little excerpt from Britannica. -- Two-way, round-the-world flights of atomic clocks in 1971 produced changes in clock epochs that agreed well with the predictions of special and general relativity. The results have been cited as proof that the gravitational red shift in the frequency of a photon is produced when the photon is formed, as predicted by Einstein, and not later, as the photon moves in a gravitational field. In effect, gravitational potential is a perturbation that lowers the energy of a quantum state. -- Why should I care about what a dictionary says, which was very probably *not* written by physicists who understand GR? I'm sure you would like to know how this all works in the zero origin universe. No. I'm only interested in the *real* universe. [snip] The potential is (on average) zero, and always was. If you think otherwise, you show nicely that you don't understand gravity. There was an enormous concentration of matter then relative to now, Right. so there was an enormous gravitational potential then relative to now. Wrong. Non sequitur. The matter was almost homogeneously distributed. In a homogenous matter distribution, the gravitational potential is *zero*. But the gravitational potential between then and now is not zero. What on earth is "gravitational potential between then and now" supposed to mean??? Every potential well is separated through time, What on earth is this supposed to mean??? so why can't I compare now with the era when the universe became transparent? You can. But you do the comparison in a wrong way. But it really makes no difference whether it's a gravitational potential well or not because the only thing that matters is that there was an *enormous* concentration of matter everywhere in the early big bang universe. A clock tick rate would be slowed enormously in that environment compared to now. No, it wouldn't, since the average gravitational potential was zero then and is still zero now. You conveniently ignore that argument. [snip calculation based on false premise] Bye, Bjoern |
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 |