Edwin Hubble's original data

I want to thank Phillip Helbig, conjk, and our moderator for comments
on my questions. As a side note, my absence from the newsgroup for
the last few years is because I took Dr. Helbig's suggestion about
reading E.A. Harrison's Cosmology to heart. I disappeared soon after
getting my copy, and I've been studying it repeatedly for a couple
years along with a few other choice books from the NAS bookstore,
which is just a couple blocks from the courthouse. Feel free to make
references to Harrison's chapters more specifically if you believe
I've missed something. (Right now, I'm packing the book to go with
me to a convention so I can re-read the redshift chapter in between
continuing legal ed classes.) As a layperson, I join the
professionals here in agreeing that Harrison's book is a terrific,
though somewhat exorbitantly priced, source for serious laypeople.

Nevertheless, after studying Harrison carefully, I am left with the
question of how our observations from the inside of a massive white
hole caused by a massive matter-anti-matter collision (or other
collision resulting in significant anti-matter blow-off) would be
inconsistent with inflation theory; it answers all the same questions
with the same answers. For example, the white hole equally solves
monopoles, flatness, and the horizon problem. The background
radiation should remain homogenous and isotropic. The question turns
away from Archytas's might and main, and we look instead to the
nature of the boundary, for a white hole boundary is an
unapproachable and nearly impermeable boundary. I suppose we'd need
to explain a new concept of inverse Hawking radiation, but I'm
unpersuaded by the current explanation of short GRBs: if GRBs result
from quasi-polarized or pulsar-like directed axial blow-off of
supernovae collapsing into black holes, why do they come in different
sizes? Under this thesis, are long GRBs still unrelated? (If the GRBs
are the results of collisions at the outer boundary of the Big Bang
analogous to shooting stars dancing across the Earth's atmosphere, we
would expect them to come in many sizes and along many trajectories.)
If we are detecting these short GRBs from residual energy left in the
cloud surrounding a supernova event instead of directly, what
physical explanation can be proffered for how the energy remains
polarized when being re-radiated from the debris cloud? Shouldn't the
re-radiated energy in our direction be some fraction of the input
energy from the GRB? If the energy of a short GRB is de-polarized or
dis-oriented by the debris cloud that lets us see it for more than a
few seconds, isn't the energy we see way too powerful to be from a
distant source? So, are we back to the Oort Cloud thesis? Is anybody
considering the possibility that this might be blue-shifted light in
a red-shifted universe? Moreover, ought it not be troubling that
other research seems to find black holes in a range of sizes,
challenging the notion that they are exclusively the byproduct of
supernovae collapses? If those black holes result instead from the
Big Bang as detritus from the explosion that could not keep up, then
they, too, are boundary conditions, potentially explaining the many
similarities between conditions at the edges of the universe and a
black hole, and that might also explain some really funny reciprocals
found in quantum mechanics. The super-string folks should be curious,
too, because their extra dimensions would no longer have to be hidden
in furls within plain sight. If one could construct the suitable
experiment Dr. Helbig mentions, Occam should be begging from Hades
for a non-null result.

In addition to posing these as questions and begging your indulgence
for my exuberance, I have a couple follow-up questions for Philip
Helbig:

First, is there any way I can access the Loeb paper? Included in that
are two sub-questions. (1) Is arXiv:astro-ph/9802122 a citation to a
subscription journal which I can only access if my lab or my law
office has a subscription? And, eh-h-h, realistically speaking, (2)
can a math moron with a whole bunch of advanced degrees and
impressive honors in the wrong field actually read the paper, or
would I be wasting my time until Brian Green or Stephen Hawking or
(on a good day) Roger Penrose translates it?

Second, your last paragraph is fascinating, but I need more
explanation. Is it possible to use this to measure acceleration along
the t-axis? Please further explain:

the theory is trivial. We need ONE
observation of an object with brightness and redshift to get the
Hubble
constant; with 3 objects at different redshifts we can measure 3
cosmological parameters. The problem in practice is that the absolute
brightness is not known exactly and/or might have scatter, so most of
the work goes into trying to understand the physics of the sources
(several astrophysicists have made a career of this) and collecting
enough data to overcome the statistical noise introduced by real
scatter
in the brightness.

Don't we need multiple observations of the SAME object in order to
cancel out the thetas? If I have three objects at different redshifts
and different distances in xyz space, I might be able to deduce the
Hubble constant in xyz space. But, am I missing something you are
communicating about translating that into xyzt space-time? I believe
I understand your point that much of the problem is in the pudding:
like conjk, you seem to be noting that the error in observation might
overwhelm any measurement of differences in velocity along the t axis
during a human lifespan. But, are you also suggesting an approach --
or a hope -- that measurements of three objects could be used to
measure a different cosmological parameter other than acceleration in
xyz space? Could that lead to the data of acceleration along the t-
axis that I am seeking?


-- Richard S. Sternberg, Esquire



[[Mod. note -- arXiv:astro-ph/9802122 is a reference to a preprint
on the internet preprint archive at http://www.arxiv.org . If you
just type astro-ph/9802122 into the search box at the top right
corner of that page, it will take you to
http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/9802122
which gives the title, author, and abstract of the paper, and has
links to where you can download the full paper in postscript, pdf,
or other formats.

While you're at the arxiv.org preprint archives, you might enjoy
browsing around some of the other stuff there. There is a *lot*
of material there...
-- jt]]