#1
|
|||
|
|||
Static Universe
Observational evidence favors a static universe.
A major difference between cosmologies in an expanding universe and that in a static universe is time dilation. Whereas a tired light process could explain the energy loss of photons it cannot produce the effect of time dilation on the rate of arrival of photons. In an expanding universe cosmology the equations for the distance modulus and for the angular size include a term, (1+z), to allow for time dilation. Since the similar equations for a static-universe cosmology do include this term its presence (or absence) makes a suitable test for determining whether the universe is expanding. Recently I have published three papers in the Journal of Cosmology that investigates this proposal. The references a http://journalofcosmology.com/crawford1.pdf: 2022, JCos, 13, ? http://journalofcosmology.com/crawford2.pdf: 2022, JCos, 13, ? http://journalofcosmology.com/crawford3.pdf: 2022, JCos, 13, ? A single file version that is essentially identical to the three papers is available at arXiv 1009.0953: http://arxiv.org/abs/1009.0953 It includes a table of contents,hyperlinks and several minor corrections. Be warned it has 96 pages and is about 1MB in length. Part 1 shows that for all of the topicsTolman) surface brightness, angular size, type 1a supernovae, gamma ray bursts, galaxy luminosity distribution and quasar luminosity distribution the data are consistent with a static universe. A Big Bang cosmology is only consistent with the data if there is evolution both in angular size and luminosity (for all objects) that in effect removes the time dilation term. Since evolution is a local characteristic and has nothing to do with the expansion this would be a remarkable coincidence. Furthermore galaxy collisions and interactions should reset the evolution clock for a significant number of galaxies. Also quasar variability shows no dependence on redshift. Although Part 1 used a static cosmology, curvature cosmology, as a foil the results are valid for any reasonable static cosmology. Parts 2 and 3 describe curvature cosmology that is consistent with the observations and can explain part of the background X-ray observations, the cosmic microwave background radiation and many other observations. It accurately predicts the temperature of the cosmic plasma, the Hubble constant and makes a good prediction of the CMBR temperature. Finally it could explain the solar neutrino deficiency and it can explain the anomalous acceleration of Pioneer 10. Regardless of the validity of curvature cosmology the observational data strongly suggests that the cosmological paradigm be changed from Big Bang to that for a static universe that has no inflation, no dark matter and no dark energy. David F. Crawford (remove the bird) |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
Static Universe
In article , davd
writes: Observational evidence favors a static universe. I saw the title and the author and I immediately noted that I had seen similar titles from the same author in the past. Is there anything new in these new papers compared to your previous papers on the subject? Recently I have published three papers in the Journal of Cosmology To be perfectly frank, this journal doesn't have the best of reputations. Probably anyone considering taking a deeper look at your proposal would be put off by the fact that you publish in the Journal of Cosmology. Yes, the establishment might be hostile to new ideas etc. However, these days it is possible to "publish" something only on the ArXiv. In the case of a non-mainstream paper, this is probably actually better than publishing it in an offbeat journal. IIRC, Perelman published his proof of the Poincaré conjecture only on ArXiv. It was noticed, he turned out to be right and is respected by the community. (Whether he respects the community is another question, as indicated by his declining the Fields Medal.) |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
Static Universe
On Apr 2, 5:35*am, Phillip Helbig---undress to reply
wrote: In article , davd writes: Observational evidence favors a static universe. I saw the title and the author and I immediately noted that I had seen similar titles from the same author in the past. Is there anything new in these new papers compared to your previous papers on the subject? Yes there is a lot that is new. All of section 1 is an examination of the observations that strongly support a static universe. Recently I have published three papers in the Journal of Cosmology To be perfectly frank, this journal doesn't have the best of reputations. *Probably anyone considering taking a deeper look at your proposal would be put off by the fact that you publish in the Journal of Cosmology. Yes, the establishment might be hostile to new ideas etc. *However, these days it is possible to "publish" something only on the ArXiv. * In the case of a non-mainstream paper, this is probably actually better than publishing it in an offbeat journal. IIRC, Perelman published his proof of the Poincar conjecture only on ArXiv. *It was noticed, he turned out to be right and is respected by the community. *(Whether he respects the community is another question, as indicated by his declining the Fields Medal.) I am well aware of the reputation of the Journal of Cosmology. I have tried more main stream journals without success. Please read and see if you can refute my arguments. |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
Static Universe
On Apr 1, 12:10*am, davd wrote:
Observational evidence favors a static universe. Not a good start when your position is one that was abandoned nearly a century ago. A major difference between cosmologies in an expanding universe and that in a static universe is time dilation. That, and the actual expansion of the universe. Whereas a tired light process could explain the energy loss of photons it cannot produce the effect of time dilation on the rate of arrival of photons. If that were the only problem with tired light, it'd be in a lot better shape. In an expanding universe cosmology the equations for the distance modulus and for the angular size include a term, (1+z), to allow for (1+z)^2 Time dilation and expansion. time dilation. Since the similar equations for a static-universe cosmology do include this term its presence (or absence) makes a suitable test for determining whether the universe is expanding. That test is called the Tolman surface brightness test. Recently I have published three papers in the Journal of Cosmology that investigates this proposal. The references a http://journalofcosmology.com/crawford1.pdf:2022, JCos, 13, ? http://journalofcosmology.com/crawford2.pdf:2022, JCos, 13, ? http://journalofcosmology.com/crawford3.pdf:2022, JCos, 13, ? A single file version that is essentially identical to the three papers is available at arXiv 1009.0953:http://arxiv.org/abs/1009.0953 It includes a table of contents,hyperlinks and several minor corrections. Be warned it has 96 pages and is about 1MB in length. Let's run through this till I get annoyed and stop, or run out of paper to read. Page 3 - citing tired light as a credible alternative to Hubble expansion. Seeing tired light once was a warning sign, twice is a major red flag that further deep misunderstandings are afoot. Page 4 Arguing that the effects from expansion and time dilation must cancel out --- Not even wrong. Arguing anything about "curvature pressure" --- Not even wrong. Arguing that photons lose energy from interactions with spacetime --- Not even wrong + a transparent attempt to opening a door to invoking tired light. Page 5 AGAIN! Expansion and time dilation contribute a (1+z)^2 factor. Not 1+z. "The analysis is complex and is based on the premise that the most constant characteristic of the supernova explosion is its total energy and not its peak magnitude." This isn't even wrong-adjacent. Good lord. The only constant feature of type 1a supernovae is their luminosity. Not the total energy, not the peak magnitude. I'm done with this paper. Five pages in and there's too many fundamental and repeated errors of understanding. [don't care about the rest] |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
Static Universe
davd wrote:
Observational evidence favors a static universe. A major difference between cosmologies in an expanding universe and that in a static universe is time dilation. Whereas a tired light process could explain the energy loss of photons it cannot produce the effect of time dilation on the rate of arrival of photons. [[...]] [[details in arXiv:1009.0953]] In big-bang cosmology the CMBR is expected to be hotter (by a factor of 1+z) at high redshifts. Observations support this. For example, Ge et al., (Astrophysical Journal 474 (1997) 67, astro-ph/9607145) used observations of spectral line ratios at a redshift of z=1.97 to measure the CMBR temperature at that place/time as 7.9+/-1.0 K. The Big-bang prediction is (1+z) * 2.73 K = 8.1 K. (You cite this work in your paper, along with a number of other more recent measurements of this effect.) It's not clear to me how a static-universe model can predict anything other than the observed temperature today, 2.73 K. That is, it seems to me that any temperature evolution violates the usual meaning of the word "static". In your paper (arXiv:1009.0953, section 5.4) you essentially state that further research is needed to fully understand the static-universe model's predictions. -- -- "Jonathan Thornburg [remove -animal to reply]" Dept of Astronomy & IUCSS, Indiana University, Bloomington, Indiana, USA "Washing one's hands of the conflict between the powerful and the powerless means to side with the powerful, not to be neutral." -- quote by Freire / poster by Oxfam |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
Static Universe
On Apr 1, 7:10*am, davd wrote:
Observational evidence favors a static universe. A major difference between cosmologies in an expanding universe and that in a static universe is time dilation. Whereas a tired light process could explain the energy loss of photons it cannot produce the effect of time dilation on the rate of arrival of photons. Actually, a static universe could produce the time dilation for the arrival time as well. This is if the (non-Doppler) redshift mechanism not only increases the wavelength of the electromagnetic wave but additionally its amplitude i.e. their intensity. In this case one would underestimate the absolute brightness of the supernova and thus wrongly conclude (because of the correlation between absolute brightness and decay time) that the decay time has expanded as well. See my page http://www.physicsmyths.org.uk/redshift.htm for more. Thomas |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
Static Universe
On Apr 3, 1:27*am, Thomas Smid wrote:
On Apr 1, 7:10 am, davd wrote: Observational evidence favors a static universe. A major difference between cosmologies in an expanding universe and that in a static universe is time dilation. Whereas a tired light process could explain the energy loss of photons it cannot produce the effect of time dilation on the rate of arrival of photons. Actually, a static universe could produce the time dilation for the arrival time as well. This is if the (non-Doppler) redshift mechanism not only increases the wavelength of the electromagnetic wave but additionally its amplitude i.e. their intensity. In this case one would underestimate the absolute brightness of the supernova and thus wrongly conclude (because of the correlation between absolute brightness and decay time) that the decay time has expanded as well. See my pagehttp://www.physicsmyths.org.uk/redshift.htmfor more. Thomas When you say "physics myths" would that be you have about physics? Because what you wrote is rather wrong. Plasma scatters, absorbs, and reflects EM, depending on the wavelength. It does NOT allow it to pass unmolested except for an increase in wavelength. Much less at *all* observed wavelengths. I would love to see your derivation of this effect. Please use actual plasma physics. |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
Static Universe
On Apr 4, 7:31*am, Eric Gisse wrote:
On Apr 3, 1:27 am, Thomas Smid wrote: On Apr 1, 7:10 am, davd wrote: Observational evidence favors a static universe. A major difference between cosmologies in an expanding universe and that in a static universe is time dilation. Whereas a tired light process could explain the energy loss of photons it cannot produce the effect of time dilation on the rate of arrival of photons. Actually, a static universe could produce the time dilation for the arrival time as well. This is if the (non-Doppler) redshift mechanism not only increases the wavelength of the electromagnetic wave but additionally its amplitude i.e. their intensity. In this case one would underestimate the absolute brightness of the supernova and thus wrongly conclude (because of the correlation between absolute brightness and decay time) that the decay time has expanded as well. See my pagehttp://www.physicsmyths.org.uk/redshift.htm for more Thomas When you say "physics myths" would that be you have about physics? Because what you wrote is rather wrong. Plasma scatters, absorbs, and reflects EM, depending on the wavelength. It does NOT allow it to pass unmolested except for an increase in wavelength. Much less at *all* observed wavelengths. I would love to see your derivation of this effect. Please use actual plasma physics. Actual plasma physics can not explain the effect. I am suggesting that the redshift in an electric field is a new effect which only has not been discovered so far because it is so small that it would require electric field strengths of the order of the inner-atomic field to be observed in the lab. So it can only be observed for very long path lengths like for intergalactic distances. The point is that the intergalactic 'plasma' is so dilute (probably only 1 particle/m^3) that a 'photon' fully fits between two charged particles so it experiences permanently an electric field, which, according to my suggestions, causes a redshift (as explained on my page http://www.plasmaphysics.org.uk/research/redshift.htm ). Again, this has nothing to do with scattering or other common plasma processes but is a new effect I am proposing here. Thomas |
#9
|
|||
|
|||
Static Universe
On Apr 4, 12:12*pm, Thomas Smid wrote:
Actual plasma physics can not explain the *effect. I am suggesting that the redshift in an electric field is a new effect which only has not been discovered so far because it is so small that it would require electric field strengths of the order of the inner-atomic field to be observed in the lab. Electric field strengths on the order of what is inside an atom are responsible for the optical properties of matter. The simultaneous argument they are responsible for galactic redshift is... not credible. So it can only be observed for very long path lengths like for intergalactic distances. The point is that the intergalactic 'plasma' is so dilute (probably only 1 particle/m^3) that a 'photon' fully fits between two charged particles so it experiences permanently an electric field, which, according to my suggestions, causes a redshift (as explained on my pagehttp://www.plasmaphysics.org.uk/research/redshift.htm). Again, this has nothing to do with scattering or other common plasma processes but is a new effect I am proposing here. Thomas Ok. How does it explain the Tolman surface brightness test (direct test of expansion vs other possibilities) and the multiple indirect observations of the CMB temperature at various redshifts? [Mod. note: quoted text trimmed -- mjh] |
#10
|
|||
|
|||
Static Universe
On Apr 4, 8:31*am, Eric Gisse wrote:
On Apr 3, 1:27 am, Thomas Smid wrote: See my pagehttp://www.physicsmyths.org.uk/redshift.htmformore. Thomas When you say "physics myths" would that be you have about physics? Because what you wrote is rather wrong. Oh, I thought that was Physic Smyths - to do with bashing physics about with a hammer and anvil in order to make it into something else. |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
ago fancy her static range | [email protected] | Amateur Astronomy | 0 | November 7th 07 05:55 AM |
Static = no Inertia | G=EMC^2 Glazier | Misc | 1 | January 19th 06 07:51 PM |
baloon static in air | Keith Harwood | Science | 7 | September 9th 04 04:07 PM |
baloon static in air | Michael Smith | Science | 0 | July 22nd 04 12:18 PM |
static electricity/MER-A breakdown | Science | 0 | January 24th 04 10:18 PM |