Gravitational Redshift, complete Placid Universe Model

Actually the big bang "something from nothing" , or a moment of creation, would be just as good at helping my faith as "the universe has always been and always will be" Why have you introduced religion? Religion is the only reason people question currently accepted theories you think? That's weird. Where would science be if we didn’t question the status quo? There would be no discoveries and no new knowledge. That would be sad.

You have just postured yourself as the church, society, and the accepted scientific community during the flat earth debates, or while the Sun was orbiting the Earth. Most scientists are not personally offended by a new question, and most scientists are willing to admit or discuss the anomalies or unresolved issues surrounding a current working model, no matter how it affects their personal faith, or monetary gain. I’m a heretic and I’m OK with that. What seems to be your particular faith, political, or professional involvement in the subject that warrant’s such an emotional response to a valid alternate theory?

You and I could have a great discussion about science’s role in religion, or religion’s role in science in the philosophy section, or comparative religions, but that's not why I posted here.

Give scientific, or logical, reasons why this guy’s model is flawed, or give me more reasons to believe that the universe is expanding. Redshift is all we have as far as I understand, and I think it has been misinterpreted. Correct me on that. Or… is the expanding Universe fact? It’s a good model, no doubt, but there are questions that have not been answered. Perhaps, since it is your “truth”, it is unquestionable, infallible, perfect, and sinless?

With all due respect, please critique the model put forth, not my motives or personal faith.
 
Well, the first critique offered is demonstrably false. There have been a number of surveys that have tracked the density for a given volume that do find things to be more dense in the past.

The second (and third) critique is based on a mistake: the author thinks that the expanding universe means that structures within galaxies also expanded. This is not the case. In many cases, there is no expansion within galaxy clusters or super clusters. The expansion happens in space outside of large structures formed by local gravity.

The fourth critique is also based on a mistake: the author thinks that the standard cosmological claims that the universe has a center. This is not a claim made by the model.

The author also shows that he or she doesn't understand cosmological distances with the fifth critique.

The author doesn't actually work through the conservation of energy for the standard cosmological model for the sixth critique. Such work is required to demonstrate that there is indeed a violation of any conservation laws.

The author also doesn't understand that the CMB does not look like a black body spectrum from a body that is 2.7K. It looks like the spectrum from a body that is much, much higher that has been redshifted. There is a difference.

The author also addresses "nonsense phrases" about the CMB, but never actually addresses the science. This is the sign of a true crackpot.

Crap, the author also says this: "Radiation cannot be said to have a given temperature, where did the idea of saying so come from?" Earlier, the author was explaining the idea of blackbody radiation. Is the author really this stupid? This makes his or her seventh critique laughable.

Of course, the failure of the author to understand that the light from the CMB is highly redshifted makes his or her critique eight useless.

The author of the piece is a joke, let's not go any further.
 
PhysBang said:
Well, the first critique offered is demonstrably false. There have been a number of surveys that have tracked the density for a given volume that do find things to be more dense in the past.

The second (and third) critique is based on a mistake: the author thinks that the expanding universe means that structures within galaxies also expanded. This is not the case. In many cases, there is no expansion within galaxy clusters or super clusters. The expansion happens in space outside of large structures formed by local gravity.

The fourth critique is also based on a mistake: the author thinks that the standard cosmological claims that the universe has a center. This is not a claim made by the model.

The author also shows that he or she doesn't understand cosmological distances with the fifth critique.

The author doesn't actually work through the conservation of energy for the standard cosmological model for the sixth critique. Such work is required to demonstrate that there is indeed a violation of any conservation laws.

The author also doesn't understand that the CMB does not look like a black body spectrum from a body that is 2.7K. It looks like the spectrum from a body that is much, much higher that has been redshifted. There is a difference.

The author also addresses "nonsense phrases" about the CMB, but never actually addresses the science. This is the sign of a true crackpot.

Crap, the author also says this: "Radiation cannot be said to have a given temperature, where did the idea of saying so come from?" Earlier, the author was explaining the idea of blackbody radiation. Is the author really this stupid? This makes his or her seventh critique laughable.

Of course, the failure of the author to understand that the light from the CMB is highly redshifted makes his or her critique eight useless.

The author of the piece is a joke, let's not go any further.
Click to expand...

The author is a scientific illiterate like every other crackpot.
 
Scott Myers said:
Give scientific, or logical, reasons why this guy’s model is flawed, or give me more reasons to believe that the universe is expanding. Redshift is all we have as far as I understand, and I think it has been misinterpreted.
Click to expand...
If you think that redshift is not due to expansion, then you have to explain why the amount of redshift changes over cosmological time in just the way that measures a certain amount of matter and dark energy that matches the measurements of these things that we measure in other ways.
 
In addition to PhysBang's observation of concordance of various predictions of the big bang model on one set of parameters of the big bang, we have the observation that super novae in red-shifted galaxies are time-dilated exactly as expected from the hypothesis of cosmological redshift.
 
PhysBang said:
If you think that redshift is not due to expansion, then you have to explain why the amount of redshift changes over cosmological time in just the way that measures a certain amount of matter and dark energy that matches the measurements of these things that we measure in other ways.
Click to expand...

How can it be observed that redshift has changed over cosmological time? That may be the prediction, but I have been doing some math at the scale needed to observe either the change in redshift, or the actual observed locations of celestial bodies over time. With the current accuracy of our methods we need something in the range of 10,000 years to confirm, or deny, actual movement, or sufficient change in redshift to show acceleration, constant recession, or a placid state.

As far as mass and energy, please correct me, but the dark energy is not observed, or measured by any method. Dark energy is the ‘what’s left’ after the math has failed to work isn’t it? It is the ‘X’ force required to make the universe expand, even though it should not according to known mass, energy and gravity, no? Because it is required for our accepted EU model to work, does not make it actually exist. It has never been observed or measured, only assumed and injected out of need. It works for the purpose of our model quite well, but to say we understand it or can measure it would be a huge stretch I think.
 
rpenner said:
In addition to PhysBang's observation of concordance of various predictions of the big bang model on one set of parameters of the big bang, we have the observation that super novae in red-shifted galaxies are time-dilated exactly as expected from the hypothesis of cosmological redshift.
Click to expand...



I have no issue with cosmological redshift, and it is not really hypothesis. Redshift is a fact. Acceleration, or recessional velocity is what I am questioning. Point me in the right direction to understand the time-dilation of the super novae. I'll just do some google searches, but if you have any good references on this I would appreciate it.
 
Scott Myers said:
I have no issue with cosmological redshift, and it is not really hypothesis. Redshift is a fact. Acceleration, or recessional velocity is what I am questioning. Point me in the right direction to understand the time-dilation of the super novae. I'll just do some google searches, but if you have any good references on this I would appreciate it.
Click to expand...

What acceleration are you talking about? As far as the redshift of light you have three components, Doppler, gravitational, and cosmological. You should read about all three components to find out where they apply. You can get some knowledge of the gravitational component from the Box on page 2-31 'Sample Problem 3 Shining Upward' from the GR text Exploring Black Holes , Edwin F. Taylor and John Archibald Wheeler.
Chapter Two Curving
http://www.eftaylor.com/pub/chapter2.pdf
Downloads
http://www.eftaylor.com/download.html

That site you linked is nothing more than collected nonsense written by somebody who doesn't understand the physics he's complaining about. The real natural phenomena is what makes our universe interesting. Nonsense flowing from eschewed world views is a bore.
 
Scott Myers said:
How can it be observed that redshift has changed over cosmological time? That may be the prediction, but I have been doing some math at the scale needed to observe either the change in redshift, or the actual observed locations of celestial bodies over time. With the current accuracy of our methods we need something in the range of 10,000 years to confirm, or deny, actual movement, or sufficient change in redshift to show acceleration, constant recession, or a placid state.
Click to expand...
You might remember all the type Ia supernovae observations that people have been going on about since 1998? If you don't, then do not do anything else to do with cosmology until you acquaint yourself with these observations. To do otherwise is to dishonestly ignore the core of contemporary cosmology.

As far as mass and energy, please correct me, but the dark energy is not observed, or measured by any method.
Click to expand...
You are wrong. Again, see the type Ia supernovae observations. And the CMB anisotropy measurements.

A 2001 paper by Goldhaber et al. in the ApJ covers time dilation associated with redshift in type Ia supernovae observations.
 
Scott Myers said:
I have no issue with cosmological redshift, and it is not really hypothesis. Redshift is a fact. Acceleration, or recessional velocity is what I am questioning. Point me in the right direction to understand the time-dilation of the super novae. I'll just do some google searches, but if you have any good references on this I would appreciate it.
Click to expand...

Ok I get it. You read the phys.org article about Professor Mike Hawkins. He brought up the same analysis in the mid 1990's and it was debunked back then. He brought it up again in a more recent paper. He didn't agree with the debunking.

http://phys.org/news190027752.html
April 2010 paper [reboot]
http://xxx.lanl.gov/pdf/1004.1824v1.pdf

Can't find the original paper from circa 93-95 but it was almost identical to the 2010 paper. Except he left out some of the fringe reasons to explain his results. He left the one in about the static universe. Clueless.

This is the original paper debunking his analysis.
http://articles.adsabs.harvard.edu/...&page=13&epage=13&send=Send+PDF&filetype=.pdf

Further debunking of the static universe explanation. From 1996.
http://arxiv.org/pdf/astro-ph/9605134v1.pdf

Phys.org is a joke. They didn't even understand the history of this nonsense and reported it as a new finding.
 
rpenner said:
In addition to PhysBang's observation of concordance of various predictions of the big bang model on one set of parameters of the big bang, we have the observation that super novae in red-shifted galaxies are time-dilated exactly as expected from the hypothesis of cosmological redshift.
Click to expand...
Scott Myers said:
I have no issue with cosmological redshift, and it is not really hypothesis. Redshift is a fact. Acceleration, or recessional velocity is what I am questioning. Point me in the right direction to understand the time-dilation of the super novae. I'll just do some google searches, but if you have any good references on this I would appreciate it.
Click to expand...
Fairly recently, I posted four links on this topic. But since this forum interprets links as attempts to spam, I will point you to post 164 in the following conversation with the white-on-blue chevrons.

rpenner said:
Once again you are equating change with time. This is clearly not the case.

...

Thus change and time are not related as you would have it, or we would measure time in the number of changes and time would move more rapidly for the more radioactive material.

Further, experiments with moving atoms and similar radioactive particles demonstrates that the rate of change of these clocks experienced by a ponderable body in motion relative to me is slowed down relative to me, and if moving relative to you is slowed down relative to you. Since this applies to all clocks, radioactive or electronic or mechanical, this experimentally demonstrated time dilation refutes the notion that time experiences by one is experienced by all. The relative rate of time is related to position and state of motion and tied up with displacement through space in a way that preserves a type of geometry of space-time, whereby a change in a state of motion is an analogue of rotation of time and space.
Click to expand...
This is a summary of some of the evidence in favor of Einstein's General Relativity.

OnlyMe said:
First, I almost alway enjoy your posts. A few go a little deeper into the math than I wish to spend the effort necessary to fully appreciate.

... when you include mechanical clocks in the above statement, is there any experimental evidence incorporating, say a spring wound clock, that confirms the statement of inclusion? I have always thought the limitations in accuracy involved, left clocks such as spring wound clocks, I'll suited for experimental confirmation, within the physical limits, of present technology.
Click to expand...

rpenner said:
It has been demonstrated with respect to all aspects of electromagnetism and quantum physics. And mechanical clocks work only because of an elaborate web of electromagnetic connections and quantum properties.
Since the most accurate mechanical watches (i.e. those that don't depend on pendulums and the local acceleration due to gravity) are marine chronometers of roughly 1 ppm accuracy (0.1 seconds per day) , special relativity effects need to be larger than 1 ppm to measure this and this requires relative velocites singificantly larger than a million miles per hour (0.096 seconds per day) which is faster than any man-made vehicle, no direct test has been made with mechanical watches. Nevertheless, some mechanical systems exist which allow us to more directly test the hypothesis -- exploding stars are time dilated exactly as you would expect from their red shifts (which are cosmological red shifts, and not special relativity specifically).

... [Four Links Removed to prevent need for moderators to release this post] ....
Click to expand...
This last is post #164 of the thread "STRENGTHS and WEAKNESSES of the THEORY OF RELATIVITY"
 
Scott Myers said:
How can it be observed that redshift has changed over cosmological time? That may be the prediction, but I have been doing some math at the scale needed to observe either the change in redshift, or the actual observed locations of celestial bodies over time. With the current accuracy of our methods we need something in the range of 10,000 years to confirm, or deny, actual movement, or sufficient change in redshift to show acceleration, constant recession, or a placid state.

As far as mass and energy, please correct me, but the dark energy is not observed, or measured by any method. Dark energy is the ‘what’s left’ after the math has failed to work isn’t it? It is the ‘X’ force required to make the universe expand, even though it should not according to known mass, energy and gravity, no? Because it is required for our accepted EU model to work, does not make it actually exist. It has never been observed or measured, only assumed and injected out of need. It works for the purpose of our model quite well, but to say we understand it or can measure it would be a huge stretch I think.
Click to expand...

Why would the HST need 10,000 years to measure the cosmological component of the redshift due to the expansion of space? There's light arriving from as far away as the boundary of the observable universe. IE observable universe. So tell me why the light coming from Andromeda wouldn't have a cosmological redshift component? Your 2nd paragraph is complete nonsense. That's what you think science does? Make crap up so it fits some preconceived world view?

Measurements
http://web.mit.edu/asf/www/SSP_7.3.06/SSP_Guest_Lecture_7.3.06.pdf

http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/astro/univacc.html
 
brucep said:
What acceleration are you talking about? As far as the redshift of light you have three components, Doppler, gravitational, and cosmological. You should read about all three components to find out where they apply. You can get some knowledge of the gravitational component from the Box on page 2-31 'Sample Problem 3 Shining Upward' from the GR text Exploring Black Holes , Edwin F. Taylor and John Archibald Wheeler.
Click to expand...

There are only two kinds of redshift. GRS and DRS. Though if you wish, we could divide DRS into two categories; localized Doppler redshift due to localized (non-expansion) velocity and the other; ‘cosmological’ redshift, due to recessional velocity per expansion in the current EU model. I actually think it should be divided into two categories. Doppler redshift is what is presumed to be the Hubble expansion factor. I presume it is due to GRS at the cosmological level. That is what I wish to debate. Or do Taylor and Wheeler show the only example of GRS possible?

GRS and DRS is all there is, and ever was, let’s not make it more complicated than it is.

brucep said:
Why would the HST need 10,000 years to measure the cosmological component of the redshift due to the expansion of space? There's light arriving from as far away as the boundary of the observable universe.
Click to expand...

HST does not need 10,000 years to measure the current redshift of any cosmologically significant object (don’t be silly), but to actually witness any measurable change in the redshift (per EU predictions) or actual change in location (per EU prediction) it would take about 10,000 years. Our currently published accuracy rates of measuring distances at cosmologically significant distances (cosmologically red shifted objects) are far too inferior to measure such changes in the few decades we wish it could be done. If it could be directly observed that would be helpful, but as yet, we do not have the technology to see this in action, period. If you would like me to run through the math at some point I will, but it is not observable with any other method than the one we have been using; i.e. the spectrum. One method is not sufficient when there are other possible other explanations like GRS to explain cosmological redshift, IMHO

brucep said:
So tell me why the light coming from Andromeda wouldn't have a cosmological redshift component?
Click to expand...

I don’t really have to explain “why the light coming from Andromeda wouldn't have a cosmological redshift component?”, because it doesn’t and is not far enough away to help discover anything regarding cosmologically significant objects. It is moving toward us at 121 kilometers per second, so it is blue shifted in the spectrum. This would be localized Doppler shift and shows a velocity toward the observer, us. NGC 224 has no cosmological significance whatsoever, unless the universe is about to collapse right here.

brucep said:
Your 2nd paragraph is complete nonsense. That's what you think science does? Make crap up so it fits some preconceived world view?
Click to expand...

From NASA,
“Theorists still don't know what the correct explanation is, but they have given the solution a name. It is called dark energy.”
“More is unknown than is known. We know how much dark energy there is because we know how it affects the Universe's expansion. Other than that, it is a complete mystery. But it is an important mystery.”

From WIKI,
“In physical cosmology and astronomy, dark energy is a hypothetical form of energy that permeates all of space and tends to accelerate the expansion of the universe.[1] Dark energy is the most accepted hypothesis to explain observations since the 1990s that indicate that the universe is expanding at an accelerating rate. In the standard model of cosmology, dark energy currently accounts for 73% of the total mass–energy of the universe.[2]”

I did not make up Dark energy, the scientific community did. Dark Energy is a hypothetical form of energy that makes up the math that does not work within our current EU model. Not my idea, but the scientific, peer reviewed, community. It sounds as though you know better than them?

World views are of no interest to me as it involves this subject.
 
Scott Myers said:
There are only two kinds of redshift. GRS and DRS. Though if you wish, we could divide DRS into two categories; localized Doppler redshift due to localized (non-expansion) velocity and the other; ‘cosmological’ redshift, due to recessional velocity per expansion in the current EU model. I actually think it should be divided into two categories. Doppler redshift is what is presumed to be the Hubble expansion factor. I presume it is due to GRS at the cosmological level. That is what I wish to debate. Or do Taylor and Wheeler show the only example of GRS possible?
Click to expand...
NOOOOOOOOOOOO.

Cosmological redshift certainly is a form of redshift. One might consider it a form of gravitational redshift, but not in the form that one usually identifies gravitational redshift. Cosmological redshift is definitely not Doppler redshift.

This is very, very basic cosmology. Why do you think that you can analyze cosmology if you haven't studied the basics?
HST does not need 10,000 years to measure the current redshift of any cosmologically significant object (don’t be silly), but to actually witness any measurable change in the redshift (per EU predictions) or actual change in location (per EU prediction) it would take about 10,000 years.
Click to expand...
One needs to look at things that are farther away, since the finite speed of light guarantees that things that are farther away are older.
 
PhysBang said:
NOOOOOOOOOOOO.

Cosmological redshift certainly is a form of redshift. One might consider it a form of gravitational redshift, but not in the form that one usually identifies gravitational redshift. Cosmological redshift is definitely not Doppler redshift.

This is very, very basic cosmology. Why do you think that you can analyze cosmology if you haven't studied the basics?

One needs to look at things that are farther away, since the finite speed of light guarantees that things that are farther away are older.
Click to expand...

Even stuff 2 million Ly distant are gravitationally bound. Scott probably won't understand what that means for measuring a cosmological redshift.
 
Scott Myers said:
There are only two kinds of redshift. GRS and DRS. Though if you wish, we could divide DRS into two categories; localized Doppler redshift due to localized (non-expansion) velocity and the other; ‘cosmological’ redshift, due to recessional velocity per expansion in the current EU model. I actually think it should be divided into two categories. Doppler redshift is what is presumed to be the Hubble expansion factor. I presume it is due to GRS at the cosmological level. That is what I wish to debate. Or do Taylor and Wheeler show the only example of GRS possible?

GRS and DRS is all there is, and ever was, let’s not make it more complicated than it is.



HST does not need 10,000 years to measure the current redshift of any cosmologically significant object (don’t be silly), but to actually witness any measurable change in the redshift (per EU predictions) or actual change in location (per EU prediction) it would take about 10,000 years. Our currently published accuracy rates of measuring distances at cosmologically significant distances (cosmologically red shifted objects) are far too inferior to measure such changes in the few decades we wish it could be done. If it could be directly observed that would be helpful, but as yet, we do not have the technology to see this in action, period. If you would like me to run through the math at some point I will, but it is not observable with any other method than the one we have been using; i.e. the spectrum. One method is not sufficient when there are other possible other explanations like GRS to explain cosmological redshift, IMHO



I don’t really have to explain “why the light coming from Andromeda wouldn't have a cosmological redshift component?”, because it doesn’t and is not far enough away to help discover anything regarding cosmologically significant objects. It is moving toward us at 121 kilometers per second, so it is blue shifted in the spectrum. This would be localized Doppler shift and shows a velocity toward the observer, us. NGC 224 has no cosmological significance whatsoever, unless the universe is about to collapse right here.



From NASA,
“Theorists still don't know what the correct explanation is, but they have given the solution a name. It is called dark energy.”
“More is unknown than is known. We know how much dark energy there is because we know how it affects the Universe's expansion. Other than that, it is a complete mystery. But it is an important mystery.”

From WIKI,
“In physical cosmology and astronomy, dark energy is a hypothetical form of energy that permeates all of space and tends to accelerate the expansion of the universe.[1] Dark energy is the most accepted hypothesis to explain observations since the 1990s that indicate that the universe is expanding at an accelerating rate. In the standard model of cosmology, dark energy currently accounts for 73% of the total mass–energy of the universe.[2]”

I did not make up Dark energy, the scientific community did. Dark Energy is a hypothetical form of energy that makes up the math that does not work within our current EU model. Not my idea, but the scientific, peer reviewed, community. It sounds as though you know better than them?

World views are of no interest to me as it involves this subject.
Click to expand...
Your assertions just show me how ignorant you are. You might pick a subject you actually have a chance of understanding. You're officially on my ignore list.
 
The limit of gravitational binding (at least of our own local supergroup) is 200 million lys.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top