Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 84 (8914 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 06-18-2019 10:14 PM
30 online now:
Coragyps, DrJones*, dwise1, Hyroglyphx, PsychMJC, ringo, Tanypteryx (7 members, 23 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: 4petdinos
Post Volume:
Total: 854,103 Year: 9,139/19,786 Month: 1,561/2,119 Week: 321/576 Day: 124/98 Hour: 2/6


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Quantized redshifts strongly suggest that our galaxy is at the centre of the universe
Mike Holland
Member
Posts: 168
From: Sydney, NSW,Auistralia
Joined: 08-30-2002


Message 126 of 170 (16292)
08-30-2002 4:58 AM
Reply to: Message 125 by Tranquility Base
08-30-2002 2:58 AM


Sure the quantization is centered around Earth - but only after some corrections are made for Earth's motion in the Galaxy. There is no accepted theory for this yet, but the best attempt to date is the work of Helmut Arp, (Seeing Red), which provides strong evidence that the redshift is age-related (or should I say 'youth-related'?). So when we look at something further away, and therefore younger because the light left it long ago, we see a higher redshift. So the redshift effect would be the same for any observer - he sees nearby objects as at neasrly the same time-frame as himself, and they are less red-shifted. No evidence for earth-centrism.

As for Humphrey's theory, he starts with two assumptions for which there is no evidence. Firstly, that the universe is bounded. The further we look into distant space, the more galaxies we see. The Hubble deep space studies just keep showing more galaxies. So there is no evidence for this assumption. Secondly, that the Earth is near the centre. Copernicus first showed that the Earth is not the centre of the solar system. Then we discovered that we are not the centre of the galaxy, then that our galaxy is an average one in the local cluster, which is on the edge of the Virgo supercluster. So all evidence to date contradicts him (but nothing is 'proved' yet).
He then claims that the universe expanded from a white hole - but Russian cosmologist Igor Novikov has shown that a white hole will quickly turn into a black hole, and nothing further will excape the event horizon.
And all this pseodo-science just to reconcile a six-day creation with light from distant galaxies. But light from our sun takes about 300,000 years on average to random-walk its way to the surface, and according to Humphreys, the sun is at most 8 minutes older than Earth (his 'event horizon' passed Earth at close to the speed of light), so his theory cannot even explain how we see our sun, let alone any distant stars.
Hope that clarifies some issues. If you want more detail or references, please yell.
Mike.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 125 by Tranquility Base, posted 08-30-2002 2:58 AM Tranquility Base has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 127 by blitz77, posted 08-30-2002 10:36 AM Mike Holland has not yet responded
 Message 133 by Tranquility Base, posted 09-02-2002 10:35 PM Mike Holland has not yet responded

    
Mike Holland
Member
Posts: 168
From: Sydney, NSW,Auistralia
Joined: 08-30-2002


Message 129 of 170 (16354)
09-01-2002 12:11 AM
Reply to: Message 128 by Rationalist
08-31-2002 1:40 AM


Yes, Blitz, you are right. I should have been more explicit. Arp produced lots of evidence that quasars and some galaxies are 'new', and hence show high redshifts which are not related to distance. He theorized that new matter forming in unusual irregular galaxies had very low mass and consequently showed a high redshift.
I don't understand the maths, and am not sure how well developed his theory is - it is probably some hypotheses to account for his observations, but current non-Arp cosmology has no alternatives to account for them. I wish the scientigic edifice would look at his observations so that some real discussion would take place.
Anyway, to get on to quantization, Arp has put foward some ideas, and so have Hoyle, Narlikar and Burbridge ('A Different Approach to Cosmology'). These ideas do not require Earth (or any other planet) to be at the centre of the universe - they do not even require the universe to have a centre - so I don't think Humphreys can claim the redshift quantization as evidence for the Earth being at the centre.

By the way, there is another flaw in Humphrey's theory that I haven't seen mentioned yet. As his universe expands, the density drops. Initially, the event horizon is beyond the bounds of the universe, then the expansion goes beyond the event horizon (several contradictions here - time stands still at this place! Nothing can excape a black hole!) and the contained mass drops, to the event hgorizon shrinks towards the centre. But there comes a point where the gravitational field at the event horizon drops too far to maintain it, and voila! - no more event horizon. One could assume a uniform density to the universe, and calculate when this would happen, but I am quite certain it would be billions of years ago, when the event horizon was still way beyond our supergalaxy.

Anyway, it is fun thinking about these things.
Mike.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 128 by Rationalist, posted 08-31-2002 1:40 AM Rationalist has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 130 by blitz77, posted 09-01-2002 8:00 AM Mike Holland has responded

    
Mike Holland
Member
Posts: 168
From: Sydney, NSW,Auistralia
Joined: 08-30-2002


Message 131 of 170 (16450)
09-02-2002 9:57 PM
Reply to: Message 130 by blitz77
09-01-2002 8:00 AM


OK Blitz77, you have forced me to justify my 'gut-feel's. Please excuse some horrible mathematical notation.

1. When does the event horizon start to shrink?
Assume the age of the universe to be 10**15 years, and that the edge of the universe is expanding at c. Then the radius of the universe is 10**15 LY, or about 10**33 cm.
The mass of the universe is then m = 4/3 pi r**3 p where p is the density. I have assumed a uniform density.
Calculations from the motion of stars in galaxies, etc, give p = 3 * 10**-31 gm/cm**2. Russian cosmologist Zeldovich has computed a maximum of 2 * 10**-28, taking into account dark matter and possible heavy neutrinos.
So I get m = 12 * 10**68 grams, or 6 * 10**35 suns. This gives a Swarzschild radius of about 10000 LY ( radius is proportional to mass; value for the sun is 1.5 kilometers).
So in 10k years the universe has reached the event horizon, and the event horizon then starts shrinking at c, and the whole process is complete in 20k years!
Note that the Klein space is within the event horizon, so the same limits apply to it.
If the Earth already existed at this time, then it has gone on evolving with the rest of the universe for the following 14999980000 years.
NB. Using Zeldovich's maximum value for the density, I get 6600000LY, which does not change the argument. We still have 14986800000 years left. I don't believe that any amount of fiddling with the figures will give Earth an age of 6000 years.

2. The shrinking event horizon.
An event horizon forms when a mass is compressed to fit within its Swarzschild radius. So the initial event horizon is no longer viable once the universe starts to expand beyond it. Assume that it does shrink, and that it has shrunk to half the original size. Then the enclosed mass must be half the original mass for the e.h. to exist. But assuming uniform density, a sphere of half the radius would contain one eighth of the mass, and as the universe has been expanding, the density would be much less, so there is no way an event horizon could exist at this position - or any other position within the original one in an expanding universe (except, of course, for local density fluctuations such as black holes formed from large stars. So the e.h. does not shrink, it simply disappears.

3. Talk of 'white holes' does not conceal the fact that this initial universe is a black hole, unless the matter is created gradually over a long time, in which case there are no event horizons or Klein metrics. An event horizon is just that. Nothing escapes it. Time within the e.h. but outside the Klein space has a time dimension which points to the centre singularity. No other path is possible. My literature states that collapse in this region takes place at the speed of light, but doesn't specify whose clock is being used.
So if there is any 'bounce' in the Klein space, it will be followed by an immediate bounce from the Swarszchild region back to the Klein region. The whole universe will sit on this boundary where a time dimension pointing inward meets a region with no time dimension.

I feel that Humphreys has used some very involved physics and mathematics in a situation where all his initial postulates and his conclusions are rubbish. It is like trying to prove that there are fairies at the bottom of the garden by using complicated optics to show that the light travels in straight lines from the fairies to your eyes.

The sources of my figures are Black Holes And The Universe by Igor Novikov, and The Feynman Lectures On Gravitation.

I am glad I found this web site. I have been working on these problems on my own for years, and it is great having someone to discuss them with. I have a B.Sc (Physics and Maths), but have worked as an IBM software specialist most of my life, and retired 20 months ago. Always stayed a scientist at heart.
Cheers, Mike.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 130 by blitz77, posted 09-01-2002 8:00 AM blitz77 has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 134 by blitz77, posted 09-03-2002 3:18 AM Mike Holland has not yet responded

    
Mike Holland
Member
Posts: 168
From: Sydney, NSW,Auistralia
Joined: 08-30-2002


Message 143 of 170 (17151)
09-11-2002 4:34 AM
Reply to: Message 142 by Tranquility Base
09-09-2002 11:47 AM


Sorry, tranquility Base, but that sort of answer will not do. You might just as well claim that a host of angels came along and dismembered the oxygen atoms. There is no known physical process to produce the result you are looking for. If Humphreys is basing his theory on that claim, there is no way any scientist would take him seriously. Humphreys started with two postulates for which there was no evidenced - a universe with a boundary, and earth being at the centre. Then he doesn't explain how his event horizon (or Klein space) hung around until 6000 years ago, when it should have disappeared billions of years ago (sorry, Blitz77, I did not reply to you earlier. A slower expansion than c only makes things worse for Humphreys). Humphreys also doesn't explain how, contrary to General Relativity, his Klein space still exists when there is no longer any concentration of mass sufficient to create black hole conditions, while the event horizon is contracting. And now this bit of fantasy about starting with a sphere of water light years big - surely it would collapse into a neutron start and then into a black hole! Or hasn't he heard of gravity? His theory needs miracles at every step. It is certainly not science, even though he includes some relativistic calculations to give it a semblance of science.

But back to the original topic - do quantized redshifts prove that our galaxy is at the centre of the observable universe? I don't think we can answer this question until we have a decent theory to explain the quantization. If you take the redshifts as strictly recession velocity effects, then it looks like a 'yes'. But the standard big bang theory is having many difficulties requiring patches and fiddles. There is too much evidence for redshifts which are not velocity-related, and at least two theories have been developed to explain these observations and the quantized redshifts, and these theories would not require our galaxy to be at the centre.

So I think we need a new cosmology which explains the quantization, before we can answer this question, much as Humphreys would like it otherwise.

Mike Holland.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 142 by Tranquility Base, posted 09-09-2002 11:47 AM Tranquility Base has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 144 by Tranquility Base, posted 09-11-2002 9:18 PM Mike Holland has responded

    
Mike Holland
Member
Posts: 168
From: Sydney, NSW,Auistralia
Joined: 08-30-2002


Message 145 of 170 (17240)
09-12-2002 7:55 AM
Reply to: Message 144 by Tranquility Base
09-11-2002 9:18 PM


I do hot need a new theory for religious reasons. I simply do not understand the quantization and cannot imagine any mechanism to cause it. Big Bang theory certainly cannot explain it, so something new is needed. But I still insist that it is premature to draw conclusions from it when we do not understand it.

I recently read two books presenting alternative cosmologies which attempt to include quantization. One is 'Seeing Red' by Halton Arp, who is the world authority on unusual galaxies, famous for his catalogue of them. The other is 'A Different Approach to Cosmology' by the late Fred Hoyle, Narlikar and Burbridge, in which they present a new take on Hoyle, Bondi and Gold's Steady State Theory. They call it QSSC - Quasi Steady State Cosmology. I do not like QSSC, but if it explains quantized redshifts, then it is ahead of Big Bang theory.

I will have to get these books out again, and reread them before I can attempt to describe the theories here, so don't expect a quick response here. Maybe someone out there knows of some other theories.

I find the quantization exciting, because suddenly the universe is full of possibilities, where we thought we nearly had it all sorted out (except for quantum gravity). But too many cosmologists still refuse to look at it, claiming that it is a statistical anomoly. They will miss the fun of developing fascinating new theories.

Mike.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 144 by Tranquility Base, posted 09-11-2002 9:18 PM Tranquility Base has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 146 by Tranquility Base, posted 09-12-2002 8:29 AM Mike Holland has responded

    
Mike Holland
Member
Posts: 168
From: Sydney, NSW,Auistralia
Joined: 08-30-2002


Message 148 of 170 (17305)
09-12-2002 9:32 PM
Reply to: Message 146 by Tranquility Base
09-12-2002 8:29 AM


I am an atheist and an evolutionist, and proud of it.
When I hold a science textbook, I know I have the TRUTH in my hand, and I have an AK47 in the other hand to prove it!

But seriously, how can you draw universe-shaking conclusions from a phenomenon that no one understands? And then accuse ME of bias?

Your idea of shock waves sounds feasible at first glance, but then becomes ridiculous the moment you think about it. There is vacuum out there between the galaxies. In what medium did the shock wave travel? How fast did it travel? One would need a series of shock waves, starting billions of years ago and continuing for billions of years, as the wave train would have to extend over the whole stretch where we see quantization.

But the universe is already expanding from an explosion. How could another explosion from the centre send out shock waves which would catch up with the first one?

Of course, you could suppose that the shock waves occurred as a series of explosions when the universe first started expanding from a dense gas, before galaxy formation. But then we need a process by which each successive explosion is smaller than the previous one by just the redshift quantization amount, and at the same time throws out just enough gas for the universe to have the relatively uniform density that we see today, 15 billion years later.

You see, your hypothesis raises too many questions. It looks good at first sight, but falls apart the moment you examine it in detail.

But keep trying.

Mike


This message is a reply to:
 Message 146 by Tranquility Base, posted 09-12-2002 8:29 AM Tranquility Base has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 149 by Tranquility Base, posted 09-12-2002 10:06 PM Mike Holland has responded

    
Mike Holland
Member
Posts: 168
From: Sydney, NSW,Auistralia
Joined: 08-30-2002


Message 150 of 170 (17419)
09-14-2002 5:18 AM
Reply to: Message 149 by Tranquility Base
09-12-2002 10:06 PM


In case you hadn't noticed, the atheistic scientists (in fact, most scientists who don't let their religion interfere with their work) are MAKING the most incredible discoveries of this age.

They do not sit in their armchairs trying to squeeze other peoples amazing discoveries (such as quantized redshifts) into the framnework of a primitive mythology.

Sorry to get aggressive, but I couldn't let that one go by.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 149 by Tranquility Base, posted 09-12-2002 10:06 PM Tranquility Base has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 152 by Tranquility Base, posted 09-15-2002 9:22 PM Mike Holland has not yet responded

    
Mike Holland
Member
Posts: 168
From: Sydney, NSW,Auistralia
Joined: 08-30-2002


Message 151 of 170 (17420)
09-14-2002 5:46 AM
Reply to: Message 149 by Tranquility Base
09-12-2002 10:06 PM


TM, another thought passed my mind while I was washing the dishes.
You seem to have a funny idea about people. You divide them into creationists and atheistic scientists. An awful lot of scientists are christians (more's the pity), and many are hindu, buddhist, muslim, etc. The division is really fundamentalist christians versus the rest of humanity (but you may find a few fundamentalist Jews on your side).

Not every failure of science is a triumph for creationism. Hindus don't like evolution either, because they believe that humanity has been around for many millions of years. Scientologists believe that the universe is 73 trillion years old. So the issue is not simply creationism versus science. Creationists are up against most christians, as well as every other religion and us atheists.

Sorry, this has nothing to do with redshifts. I am rereading Arp and Hoyle so I can expound their views.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 149 by Tranquility Base, posted 09-12-2002 10:06 PM Tranquility Base has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 153 by Tranquility Base, posted 09-15-2002 9:45 PM Mike Holland has responded

    
Mike Holland
Member
Posts: 168
From: Sydney, NSW,Auistralia
Joined: 08-30-2002


Message 154 of 170 (17514)
09-16-2002 5:52 AM
Reply to: Message 153 by Tranquility Base
09-15-2002 9:45 PM


Allright, TB, but your continual references to 'atheist scientists' gave a different impression.

Back to redshifts. If we accept the standard Big Bang recessional velocity interpretation, then it does look as if the expansion is centered on our galaxy.

But all is not well with this interpretation. Firstly, in galaxy clusters the dwarf galaxies all show higher redshifts than the dominant giant spirals of the cluster. One would expect a random distribution around them.

Secondly, Arp and others report many cases of obviously related galaxies and QSOs, with filaments connecting them, where the redshifts are vastly different. Many high redshift QSOs are related to low redshift Syfert galaxies, and look as if they have been emitted by them. But this cannot be simply because they were emitted away from us - they all show high redshifts, no blueshiftf.

Thirdly, some giant galaxies show different redshifts between the nucleus and the spiral arms, the difference being the usual quantum amount of 72km/s. One might expect a rotating galaxy to show a redshift on one side and a blueshift on the other, relative to the nucleus, but not redshift on both sides.

So Big Bang and the Hubble interpretation have some serious problems. At least some of the observed redshifts are not due to recessional velocities, maybe all!

Arp has a Little Bang theory. His observations seem to indicate that active galaxies (Syferts, radio galaxies) emit matter which evolves into quasara and then into galaxies. He reports many cases of quasars and small galaxies paired across large galaxies, with connecting filaments. He suggests that the newly created matter initially has zero mass, but acquires mass as it interacts with the rest of the universe (Mach's perinciple to explain inertia). Initial emission is at nerarly the speed of light, but it slows down as mass increases to conserve momentum, ending upn as a slower moving galaxy.

All sounds way out, but one needs to look at all his pictures before criticising. Other explanations are welcome.

He suggests that the electron orbits are affected by the low mass, resulting in high redshift of the normal absorbtion/emission lines, so that the redshift is a measure of the age (or youthfulness) of the matter, rather than its velocity. When we look at distant galaxies, we are looking far back into the past, and so we see younger matter than our own galaxy, and it is redshifted. No expansion required.

The next step, of course, is that the change of electron mass is quantized, and so we see quantized redshifts. QED.

My biggest problem with this is that there should be some galaxies much older than our own, old enough to compensate for the distance/time effect, so that they should appear blueshifted. But the observations are out there. I wish some bright theorist would come up with a good theory with a sound mathematical backing and some testable predictions.

I have some more problems for your proposed standing waves, or series of explosions. Firstly, a standing wave can be created when a wave bounces back from a boundary. But when the boundary is a gas expanding at (or close to) the speed of light? I don't think so.
If you propose a series of explosions or disturbances, these are happening in the middle of a Klein space, which has no time dimension, so nothing can happen!


This message is a reply to:
 Message 153 by Tranquility Base, posted 09-15-2002 9:45 PM Tranquility Base has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 158 by Tranquility Base, posted 09-16-2002 9:06 PM Mike Holland has not yet responded

    
Mike Holland
Member
Posts: 168
From: Sydney, NSW,Auistralia
Joined: 08-30-2002


Message 155 of 170 (17515)
09-16-2002 5:55 AM
Reply to: Message 153 by Tranquility Base
09-15-2002 9:45 PM


Allright, TB, but your continual references to 'atheist scientists' gave a different impression.

Back to redshifts. If we accept the standard Big Bang recessional velocity interpretation, then it does look as if the expansion is centered on our galaxy.

But all is not well with this interpretation. Firstly, in galaxy clusters the dwarf galaxies all show higher redshifts than the dominant giant spirals of the cluster. One would expect a random distribution around them.

Secondly, Arp and others report many cases of obviously related galaxies and QSOs, with filaments connecting them, where the redshifts are vastly different. Many high redshift QSOs are related to low redshift Syfert galaxies, and look as if they have been emitted by them. But this cannot be simply because they were emitted away from us - they all show high redshifts, no blueshiftf.

Thirdly, some giant galaxies show different redshifts between the nucleus and the spiral arms, the difference being the usual quantum amount of 72km/s. One might expect a rotating galaxy to show a redshift on one side and a blueshift on the other, relative to the nucleus, but not redshift on both sides.

So Big Bang and the Hubble interpretation have some serious problems. At least some of the observed redshifts are not due to recessional velocities, maybe all!

Arp has a Little Bang theory. His observations seem to indicate that active galaxies (Syferts, radio galaxies) emit matter which evolves into quasara and then into galaxies. He reports many cases of quasars and small galaxies paired across large galaxies, with connecting filaments. He suggests that the newly created matter initially has zero mass, but acquires mass as it interacts with the rest of the universe (Mach's perinciple to explain inertia). Initial emission is at nerarly the speed of light, but it slows down as mass increases to conserve momentum, ending upn as a slower moving galaxy.

All sounds way out, but one needs to look at all his pictures before criticising. Other explanations are welcome.

He suggests that the electron orbits are affected by the low mass, resulting in high redshift of the normal absorbtion/emission lines, so that the redshift is a measure of the age (or youthfulness) of the matter, rather than its velocity. When we look at distant galaxies, we are looking far back into the past, and so we see younger matter than our own galaxy, and it is redshifted. No expansion required.

The next step, of course, is that the change of electron mass is quantized, and so we see quantized redshifts. QED.

My biggest problem with this is that there should be some galaxies much older than our own, old enough to compensate for the distance/time effect, so that they should appear blueshifted. But the observations are out there. I wish some bright theorist would come up with a good theory with a sound mathematical backing and some testable predictions.

I have some more problems for your proposed standing waves, or series of explosions. Firstly, a standing wave can be created when a wave bounces back from a boundary. But when the boundary is a gas expanding at (or close to) the speed of light? I don't think so.
If you propose a series of explosions or disturbances, these are happening in the middle of a Klein space, which has no time dimension, so nothing can happen!


This message is a reply to:
 Message 153 by Tranquility Base, posted 09-15-2002 9:45 PM Tranquility Base has not yet responded

    
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2019