Origins of the UNIVERSE

[BMAONE23]

1) Olbers' paradox
2) the primordial abundance of the light nuclides, H, D, 3He and 4He
3) the CMB - blackbody SED, dipole, angular power spectrum
4) large-scale structure
5) the Hubble distance-redshift relationship.

On the subject of #5 I have a question.

All of the nebula that we see that contain energized hydrogen tend to appear in red. I do realize that there is a special lense used to detect this band of light. But is the light red because of the lens, or because it is naturally that color?

Then,

If it is naturally that color, could the cosmic red shift (# 5 above) be caused by the fact that objects farther away are being viewed through more free hydrogen than those that are closer to us?

Are there any extremely distant objects that are displaying a blue shift (or a lesser red shift) indicating they are moving toward us?

[Nereid]

1) Olbers' paradox
2) the primordial abundance of the light nuclides, H, D, 3He and 4He
3) the CMB - blackbody SED, dipole, angular power spectrum
4) large-scale structure
5) the Hubble distance-redshift relationship.

On the subject of #5 I have a question.

All of the nebula that we see that contain energized hydrogen tend to appear in red. I do realize that there is a special lense used to detect this band of light. But is the light red because of the lens, or because it is naturally that color?

Then,

If it is naturally that color, could the cosmic red shift (# 5 above) be caused by the fact that objects farther away are being viewed through more free hydrogen than those that are closer to us?

Are there any extremely distant objects that are displaying a blue shift (or a lesser red shift) indicating they are moving toward us?

Let's start with the term 'redshift'. It's a shorthand, for a quite specific and precise effect.

Let's use the Balmer H alpha line to illustrate. In the lab, this line has a wavelength of 656.3 nm; clouds of hydrogen, in interstellar space, emit light with this wavelength - that's what the red is that you see in so many APODs (example).

There's also a Balmer H beta line (at 486.1 nm), and a Balmer H gamma, and ... and a Lyman H alpha, beta, ... and a Paschen H alpha, beta, ... etc.

Suppose we arranged for the hydrogen in our lab to move away from us, while we detect its spectrum. Will we observe the Balmer H alpha at 656.3 nm? and the Balmer H beta at 486.1 nm? (etc).

No. The wavelengths will be longer.

How much longer? That depends on how fast the hydrogen source is moving away from us.

Now here's the wonderful and amazing thing: there is a formula which relates the change in the wavelengths of the lines (between those produced when the hydrogen is not moving and those produced when it is) to the speed at which the hydrogen is moving away from us.

And this formula works for the Balmer series, for the Lyman series, for the Paschen series, ... and for helium, and lithium, and ... and even for a blackbody spectrum (which has no lines)!

The amount by which the wavelength of the light (or gamma rays, or x-rays, or UV, or ...) is different is called the 'redshift'. Note that 'blueshifts' are also possible, but that the standard term is 'redshift', even when it's negative (i.e. a 'blueshift'). It is just one number, for the entire electromagnetic spectrum. And it is specific, and particular, for all the atoms (etc) that are moving away from us at exactly that one speed.

So what happens if (Balmer H alpha) light from an object moving away from us passes through some hydrogen clouds on its way to us? The spectrum of such an object will have an emission line, due to the Balmer H alpha, at some wavelength > 656.3 nm, and at least one absorption line, due to absorption by hydrogen in the intervening clouds. The wavelength of the absorption will depend upon the relative speed of the intervening clouds, towards or away from us; if the speeds are many, there will be many absorption lines.

In fact, just this effect is seen in the spectra of many quasars, though it is more usually observed (and researched) using the Lyman H alpha line than the Balmer H alpha one. It is called the Lyman forest; an example.

[Nereid]

Let's start with the term 'redshift'. It's a shorthand, for a quite specific and precise effect.

Well, that's your interpretation of redshift. There are other interpretations as well.

Well, if you had read my post carefully, I think you would have seen that all I am describing is what the term 'redshift' means, in terms of the relationship between laboratory (rest frame) spectra and those observed from moving sources.

And no, it's not "my" interpretation of the standard, technical term, as used in astronomy and physics; it's simply a description of that term*.

Michael, if you cannot grasp the difference between the standard definition of a standard term and how that term is used in descriptions of astronomical observations, then this forum is clearly the wrong place for you to post ... I would suggest that you really need to spend the necessary time and effort to become familiar with the language.

After all, unless there is a certain minimum of common understanding, of essential, basic terms, any satisfactory communication can surely be only coincidental.

*Of course, it's certainly possible that my description is in error, in one or more respects; if so, by all means please present a more accurate, standard, description.

[kovil]

I do appreciate your taking time to set tasks for me to do Neried.

On the electrical charge vs gravity, I have read that electric charge is about 10^35 times stronger than gravity. Now I think they are referring to charge repulsion vs gravity between atomic size particles, not planetary size objects. These things are not scaleable, and perhaps that is the mistake they are making and I have been going along with it cause I don't think so well. (the Electric folks that is, or some of them)

I found Michael Fowler's physics class website today and printed out all the lectures for reference when needed. That took most of the morning, 300 pages 5-6 at a time on average. Good basic stuff.

I'm not academic enough to cross slide rules with you in dueling references and published papers, but it is very unlikely that any papers would have been peer reviewed and published which support the position I am taking, so that task of Hercules is beyond my provenance to succeed. But I did write my own response on the Olbers Paradox a few weeks ago on APOD and I'll repost it after I review it to see if it can be improved and supply a few references. This would be good for me to do, as I do intend to sharpen my abilities to think, and to write in a more acceptable manner for others to read. APOD has been more recreational posting and not a professionally serious forum so far, in my endeavours anyway.

Thanks for your interest and response, Neried, I'll do my best. Kovil

[makc]

Sometimes I think she gets confused between her role here as moderator at this quiet little cyber astronomy cafe, and her role as grand inquisitor over at the BA forum.

I think you misunderstand her role here. She's not a moderator, she's forum admin. Together with the fact that board owners (RJN, etc) are, shall we say, reluctant to actually manage the board, it makes her one and only rule maker of this place.

I do believe, however, that her BA-style of discussion is not positive thing in this case, as I said earlier on this thread. Yet there is no progress on her side

[Nereid]

*Of course, it's certainly possible that my description is in error, in one or more respects; if so, by all means please present a more accurate, standard, description.

The links I provided do exactly that IMO.

In the politest possible way to say this: nonsense.

Ari Brynjolfsson's unpublished papers use exactly the same definition of 'redshift' as everyone else's.

Numerically, the redshift - nearly always written as z - is defined as:

1 + z = λ(observed)/λ(emitted) = f(emitted)/f(observed)

Where λ is the wavelength, and f the frequency (of the EM).

[Nereid]

http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/0 ... cloud.html

FYI kovil, here is just one more reason I'm not a big fan of black holes. Evidently now they "exhale" too and somehow effect huge areas of space. Current flow could also do something like that, but of course that can't be it, because that involves electricity, and current flow through the universe is the only taboo subject in astronomy.

It's an interesting result ... but let's wait until they have published their paper (or papers), so we can see what those results actually are.

'Science by press release' is, IMHO, particularly bad form unless the accompanying paper(s) are available in at least pre-print form along with the PR. In this case, there is not even a pre-print.

One thing I'd like to ask you to change, Michael: comments such as "but of course that can't be it, because that involves electricity, and current flow through the universe is the only taboo subject in astronomy".

We have been over the role of plasma physics in modern astronomy, many times - it is physics that has a long history, is reasonably well-understood, widely taught, and forms the basis of (tens of) thousands of published papers in astronomy, astrophysics, etc.

We have also been over, and over, and over, and over, and over, and over, ... all the key EU/ES/PU/PC claims of Thornhill, Scott, et al. There are close to zero published papers to even read, let alone to work with to do even the most basic of quantitative tests of these ideas to account for relevant, good astronomical observations.

We have started to discuss some of Alfvén's ideas on cosmology, and there may be something of interest that we haven't yet covered (but I personally think it's quite unlikely, if only because a whole generation has already had a chance to turn up any gold there might be in them).

Once again, this is a scientific forum.

[Nereid]

[snip]
- - -

For Neried: The 1945 paper by Wheeler and Feynman 'The Absorber as the Mechanism for Radiation' , explains the 'pure wave-function aspect' of matter. They talk about electrons mainly, but I see it as expressing all matter.

"Matter is a special state that energy has the ability to assume." Moi.

http://www.npl.washington.edu/npl/int_r ... I_toc.html

http://www.npl.washington.edu/npl/int_r ... 0.html#3.1

Perhaps you could say more on what relevance this has to the ideas you outlined in an earlier post, kovil?

As far as I can see, it is simply a presentation of a different interpretation of quantum mechanics; different from the (widely used) Copenhagen Interpretation, from the Bohm (pilot wave) interpretation, Everett's Many Worlds Interpretation, etc. If so, then it is of no use to your idea - all interpretations produce exactly the same phenomenology (or, if you prefer, observables).

But perhaps I missed something?

[Nereid]

I do appreciate your taking time to set tasks for me to do Neried.

On the electrical charge vs gravity, I have read that electric charge is about 10^35 times stronger than gravity. Now I think they are referring to charge repulsion vs gravity between atomic size particles, not planetary size objects. These things are not scaleable, and perhaps that is the mistake they are making and I have been going along with it cause I don't think so well. (the Electric folks that is, or some of them)

I found Michael Fowler's physics class website today and printed out all the lectures for reference when needed. That took most of the morning, 300 pages 5-6 at a time on average. Good basic stuff.

I'm not academic enough to cross slide rules with you in dueling references and published papers, but it is very unlikely that any papers would have been peer reviewed and published which support the position I am taking, so that task of Hercules is beyond my provenance to succeed. But I did write my own response on the Olbers Paradox a few weeks ago on APOD and I'll repost it after I review it to see if it can be improved and supply a few references. This would be good for me to do, as I do intend to sharpen my abilities to think, and to write in a more acceptable manner for others to read. APOD has been more recreational posting and not a professionally serious forum so far, in my endeavours anyway.

Thanks for your interest and response, Neried, I'll do my best. Kovil

Earlier, you wrote:

At the base of this Electric Concept , is the premise that gravity generates an electrical activity in matter. Gravitational force manifests an electrical reaction from matter. If this is true, then all else follows naturally; the resultant magnetic activity and the generation of electron and ion flows along the field paths, seeking to equalize the charge potentials.

The true investigation needs to be in the gravity producing an electrical reaction from the matter being accumulated in one location and being subjected to internal pressure from that propinquity, and exhibiting an electrical reaction. Whether the atom itself becomes an electrical dipole from the nucleus' protons being offset from the electron cloud because the proton has an inertia component, and the electron does not. And so a large gravity will pull the protons and neutrons closer to the aggregation center of attraction and by results offset the electrons towards the outside. And in this way begin the move towards creating the electric charge differential setup that this large gravitational object will ultimately produce.

So here's a very simple test that you can do, using no more than high school calculus:

The positions, and motions, of large, massive solar system bodies* have been observed for millenia.

These positions, and motions, of the then known bodies, were succinctly described in Kepler's three laws (or planetary motion)(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kepler's_l ... ary_motion).

Newton showed how these are just one manifestation of what we now call Newton's law of universal gravitation (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Newton's_l ... ravitation).

Later observations, including those of other bodies, showed a number of inconsistencies with predictions based on this Newtonian law.

One such set lead to the discovery of the planet Neptune.

Another, the advance of the perihelion of Mercury, was accounted for by a new theory of gravity, Einstein's theory of General Relativity (GR).

It would seem, from your brief description so far, that the extraordinary achievements of celestial mechanics (esp the ability of GR to account for all relevant observations of large, massive solar system bodies) are purely coincidental, if viewed through the lens of the 'kovil idea'.

Specifically, the positions and motions of these bodies are not due solely to gravity (whether described by Newton or Einstein), but also due to some new, as-yet-undefined 'electric charge differential'.

Fortunately, the expected motion of charged objects, or even ones with electrical or magnetic dipoles, in an external electrical (or magnetic) field, is easy to describe, mathematically. And even if it may not be possible to solve, analytically, for the expected motions, using the relevant (simple) equations, the availability of extraordinary computing power - in your own PC, for example - means that modelling these motions with the required precision to test the idea is quite straight-forward (an example).

So, one of the easiest tests you could do, of your idea, is to produce ephemeredes of one or two major solar system bodies, and show that they are the same as those produced by standard celestial mechanics treatments (to within the limits of the best observations**).

Good luck!

*Say, greater than a couple of hundred km in radius.
**Note that for the position and motion of the Moon, this is down to the metre, and maybe centimetre, level!

[Nereid]

Oh and there she is back. Look, Nereid, I take it you are actually enjoy running threads like this in circles, but don't you think 40+ pages are more than enough? Isn't it time to use the magic button?

I'm keen to ensure that everyone has had an opportunity to put their 'origin of the universe' ideas on the table, and for us to see the extent to which they can be considered scientific (in the standard meaning of that term, wrt astronomy).

The status is, in my mind, something like this:

* all of harry's "BBT is wrong!!!!!!!!!" ideas have been discussed; CLOSED

* all Electric Universe (Thornhill et al) ideas have been covered; CLOSED

* at least some of Alfvén's Plasma Cosmology ideas have been put on the table, and discussed; perhaps not quite closed yet (let's wait a week or so)

* lots of questions have been asked, and answered; CLOSED

* kovil has some homework: I don't think we need to keep this thread open for that (unless he makes a huge amount of progress in the next week or so); CLOSED

* Michael Mozina has put some unpublished papers by Ari Brynjolfsson on the table; OPEN

Of course, if harry (or anyone else) comes up with *scientific* answers to the many questions (or any!) about the CLOSED items, then we can discuss those.

Did I miss anything significant?

[Nereid]

[snip]

On the electrical charge vs gravity, I have read that electric charge is about 10^35 times stronger than gravity. Now I think they are referring to charge repulsion vs gravity between atomic size particles, not planetary size objects. These things are not scaleable, and perhaps that is the mistake they are making and I have been going along with it cause I don't think so well. (the Electric folks that is, or some of them)

They seem to scale pretty well according to Alfven's work in MHD theory, and the computer modeling done at Los Alamos. They also seem to scale pretty well in Birkeland's lab work with terellas. His lab work would suggest that electrical currents scale exceptionally well through the solar system level at least. FYI, according to the Voyager data the sun's magnetic sheath is also teardrop shaped, just like the earth's magnetosphere. This would suggest that the sun's magnetic field is being buffeted by larger currents that flow through the galaxy and the larger universe. The threads of space also contain persistent magnetic fields, suggesting that currents are flowing through the plasmas of the universe.

Plasma cosmology isn't as well understood, or as well "postdicted" when it comes to mathematical models, but it requires no faith in metaphysics and no faith in "dark" stuff of any sort. That alone puts it head and shoulders ahead of standard theory IMO. Just my two cents worth....

OK, so the same question I asked kovil, only this time you have made a much more testable, and specific, claim.

Please show that the centuries (and more) of detailed observations of the positions of the major solar system bodies are consistent with any of them being electrically charged/magnetic dipoles, moving in an electrical or magnetic field.

Alternatively, using the fact that GR-based ephemederes of such bodies show no systematic deviations with such observations, derive limits on the appropriate charges/dipoles/electric fields/etc.

Alternatively2, provide at least one reference to an Alfvén (or follower) paper which presents a 'plasma cosmology' account of major body solar system celestial mechanics.

[kovil]

My Goodness, Well whittle me down to size there Matey.
- - -


Why is the Night Sky Dark ?


In an infinite eternal Universe we should be able to see everything.

For an eternal Universe there would have been an infinite amount of time for the light to have traveled so it could reach us from everywhere. In the BBT (big bang theory) there has only been a finite amount of time (about 14Gyr- 14 billion years) for the light to travel, so we can only see the Universe within a sphere of radius 14Gyr x speed of light (in fact its bigger than this because of the expansion, but this is good enough for this discussion).

Of course things further away look fainter, but the further away you go the more of them there are. In other words the surface density increases with the square of the distance, exactly balancing the fact that the individual sources are decreasing in brightness with the inverse of the square of the distance.

Olber's point was that in an infinite eternal Universe that is relatively homogeneous (like what we see) every where you look your line of sight will end up on a star. So that overall the night sky should be as bright as the sun. The fact that the night sky is dark is fundamentally one of the best pieces of evidence that the Universe is finite in age (or more correctly non-static).

You can't use scattering to get rid of any of the light either, because equal amounts will scatter towards you as away. astro-uk


= = =


That is the classic argument, and very clearly said, may I add !

As I see it, there is an inefficiency between infinity and here [1] [2] [3], and the light falls off faster than the distance adds sources. The universe is not a perfect medium, even the level of entropy will soak up something or interfere [4], and reduce the perfect mathematical equivalence between distance surface area and the reverse percentage of surface area from the emitter.

And that is the main reason the sky is dark, in the Olbers point of view.

Additional reasons are, our eyes are not as sensitive as a CCD and photo film. We cannot take a long exposure with our eyes, and so are limited in our light gathering abilities. The faintness of the more distant sources is beyond our eyes ability to discern. I am not aware of studies focusing on the longest time our eyes can gather light before ‘resetting’ for the next image. In movie film the images refresh at 24 and 25 frames per second, so that we see a continuous image stream. By back reasoning, our eyes cannot gather light less than 1/24 or 1/25 of a second before ‘resetting’ for a new picture. Proof is that movies do not flicker or are seen as a series of ‘stills’ by our visual perception. Our seeing is limited by that short light gathering time frame, which then ‘resets’ for the next time frame. The proof of our long term light gathering ability is that magnitude 6 or so is the faintest able to be seen with eyes alone.

Also the theoretical premise of: There is a distance limit, beyond which we can get no more information of a ‘speed of light’ nature [5]. This effectively cuts us off from the Infinite. In a practical sense, an infinite time to reach us and an infinite size of the background for stars to cover is not possible to achieve. We are left with, only as far as our awareable universe extends to receive information.

Yes the universe is infinite, it must be; but just as must be, we can only see a finite part of it.
So either way, either way; the most we can ever see or get information from, is finite. Kovil


References:

[1] The Imprint of Lithium Recombination on the Microwave Background Anisotropies
by: Matias Zaldarriaga and Abraham Loeb
The Astrophysical Journal, 564:52-59, 2002 January 1

[2] Constraints on Cardassian Expansion from Distant Type Ia Supernovae
by: Zong-Hong Zhu and Masa-Katsu Fujimoto
The Astrophysical Journal, 585:52-56, 2003 March 1

[3] Inhomogeneities in the Microwave Background Radiation Interpreted within the Framework of the Quasi–Steady State Cosmology
by: J. V. Narlikar , R. G. Vishwakarma , Amir Hajian , Tarun Souradeep , G. Burbidge , and F. Hoyle
The Astrophysical Journal, 585:1-11, 2003 March 1

[4] Intracluster Entropy from Joint X-Ray and Sunyaev-Zel'dovich Observations
by: A. Cavaliere , A. Lapi , and Y. Rephaeli
The Astrophysical Journal, 634:784-792, 2005 December 1

[5] I am still looking for papers which support the concept of a ‘border to our observable universe’. I did not want to wait until that time to make this posting

[makc]

[1] [2] [3], and the light falls off faster than the distance adds sources

This is, perhaps, the first time I regret that they don't post links.

[Nereid]

[1] [2] [3], and the light falls off faster than the distance adds sources

This is, perhaps, the first time I regret that they don't post links.

[1]
[2]
[3]

All links take you to the respective arXiv preprints.

[Nereid]

My Goodness, Well whittle me down to size there Matey.
- - -


Why is the Night Sky Dark ?


In an infinite eternal Universe we should be able to see everything.

For an eternal Universe there would have been an infinite amount of time for the light to have traveled so it could reach us from everywhere. In the BBT (big bang theory) there has only been a finite amount of time (about 14Gyr- 14 billion years) for the light to travel, so we can only see the Universe within a sphere of radius 14Gyr x speed of light (in fact its bigger than this because of the expansion, but this is good enough for this discussion).

Of course things further away look fainter, but the further away you go the more of them there are. In other words the surface density increases with the square of the distance, exactly balancing the fact that the individual sources are decreasing in brightness with the inverse of the square of the distance.

Olber's point was that in an infinite eternal Universe that is relatively homogeneous (like what we see) every where you look your line of sight will end up on a star. So that overall the night sky should be as bright as the sun. The fact that the night sky is dark is fundamentally one of the best pieces of evidence that the Universe is finite in age (or more correctly non-static).

You can't use scattering to get rid of any of the light either, because equal amounts will scatter towards you as away. astro-uk


= = =


That is the classic argument, and very clearly said, may I add !

As I see it, there is an inefficiency between infinity and here [1] [2] [3], and the light falls off faster than the distance adds sources. The universe is not a perfect medium, even the level of entropy will soak up something or interfere [4], and reduce the perfect mathematical equivalence between distance surface area and the reverse percentage of surface area from the emitter.

And that is the main reason the sky is dark, in the Olbers point of view.

Additional reasons are, our eyes are not as sensitive as a CCD and photo film. We cannot take a long exposure with our eyes, and so are limited in our light gathering abilities. The faintness of the more distant sources is beyond our eyes ability to discern. I am not aware of studies focusing on the longest time our eyes can gather light before ‘resetting’ for the next image. In movie film the images refresh at 24 and 25 frames per second, so that we see a continuous image stream. By back reasoning, our eyes cannot gather light less than 1/24 or 1/25 of a second before ‘resetting’ for a new picture. Proof is that movies do not flicker or are seen as a series of ‘stills’ by our visual perception. Our seeing is limited by that short light gathering time frame, which then ‘resets’ for the next time frame. The proof of our long term light gathering ability is that magnitude 6 or so is the faintest able to be seen with eyes alone.

Also the theoretical premise of: There is a distance limit, beyond which we can get no more information of a ‘speed of light’ nature [5]. This effectively cuts us off from the Infinite. In a practical sense, an infinite time to reach us and an infinite size of the background for stars to cover is not possible to achieve. We are left with, only as far as our awareable universe extends to receive information.

Yes the universe is infinite, it must be; but just as must be, we can only see a finite part of it.
So either way, either way; the most we can ever see or get information from, is finite. Kovil


References:

[1] The Imprint of Lithium Recombination on the Microwave Background Anisotropies
by: Matias Zaldarriaga and Abraham Loeb
The Astrophysical Journal, 564:52-59, 2002 January 1

[2] Constraints on Cardassian Expansion from Distant Type Ia Supernovae
by: Zong-Hong Zhu and Masa-Katsu Fujimoto
The Astrophysical Journal, 585:52-56, 2003 March 1

[3] Inhomogeneities in the Microwave Background Radiation Interpreted within the Framework of the Quasi–Steady State Cosmology
by: J. V. Narlikar , R. G. Vishwakarma , Amir Hajian , Tarun Souradeep , G. Burbidge , and F. Hoyle
The Astrophysical Journal, 585:1-11, 2003 March 1

[4] Intracluster Entropy from Joint X-Ray and Sunyaev-Zel'dovich Observations
by: A. Cavaliere , A. Lapi , and Y. Rephaeli
The Astrophysical Journal, 634:784-792, 2005 December 1

[5] I am still looking for papers which support the concept of a ‘border to our observable universe’. I did not want to wait until that time to make this posting

In what cosmology (for what cosmological model) are you addressing Olbers' paradox, kovil?

Also, I think I asked for an answer across the entire EM spectrum, not just the visible waveband ... and I think I asked for a quantitative answer.

[Nereid]

[snip]

On the other hand, I doubt she will sit down and actually seriously critique any of those last few papers on redshift that I provided.

[snip]

To refresh everyone's memory: "those last few papers" are seven preprints on the arXiv server; all have Ari Brynjolfsson as the sole author, none have been published in any peer-reviewed journal, even though v1 of the oldest is now over three years' old.

The key paper is the first (#7 in the list); it describes a new physical effect ("plasma redshift") that Brynjolfsson proposes.

Before delving into this idea, students of irony will find many rich pickings here; for example:

* this so-called plasma redshift has never been demonstrated in any lab experiment anywhere on Earth - how ironic then that one who expresses such vehement opinions about black holes and neutron stars (let alone dark matter or dark energy) and praise for Birkeland and Alfvén should consider it worthy of mention

* a universe filled with 'Brynjolfsson plasma' is quite inconsistent with any plasma universe Alfvén or Perratt ever published - how ironic that an unpublished paper or three which so contradicts these heros should be promoted in the same post as one promoting Alfvénic cosmology.

Needless to say, it's not hard to understand why none of the Brynjolfsson papers has been published yet; a relatively cursory read will turn up quite a few howlers.

Fortunately (or not), the whole series of claims and conclusions follow from the so-called "plasma redshift", so, unlike almost all of modern astrophysics*, it resembles a house of cards.

Let me remove one card, and allow the whole lot to collapse.

In the first paper, on p26, Figure 4 (entitled "SOLAR REDSHIFT Comparing plasma redshift theory with experiments") allegedly presents data from observations (not "experiments") by Adam and Higgs (as well as two sets of predictions). If you track down the sources - papers written in 1959 and 1960 respectively - you'll find that Brynjolfsson's omission of the error bars on the original observations creates a very different impression concerning the match. Further, reading the literature on 'the limb effect', you quickly find that Brynjolfsson has been highly selective in his choice of "experimental" results to present. He has also rather too quickly dealt with the dozens (hundreds?) of papers which examine other physical mechanisms as possible contributors to this effect. Finally, after v1 of the first paper appeared on the preprint server, but before v3, a paper giving a detailed calculation of the expected gravitational redshift for the relevant solar lines came out. This paper seems pretty clear: the purported "redshift predicted by Einstein's classical gravitational theory" of Brynjolfsson's Figure 4 isn't.

(to be continued)

*Pace Michael, harry, kovil, ...

[kovil]

Neried wrote:
Fortunately (or not), the whole series of claims and conclusions follow from the so-called "plasma redshift", so, unlike almost all of modern astrophysics*, it resembles a house of cards.

Let me remove one card, and allow the whole lot to collapse.

- - -

Unfortunately for BBT , remove one card, Dark Matter or Dark Energy and the whole house of cards collapses.

- - -

"v3, a paper giving a detailed calculation of" - reading this paper my impression is that like " the observer who sees more space sees more time, and the observer who sees less space sees less time" in regards to relativity and the slowing of clocks etc. 'The photon who sees more gravitational/magnetic field sees more redshift, and the photon who sees less gravitational/magnetic field sees less redshift.' Thusly the photon from the solar limb sees more g/m field, as it must traverse a solar diameter more to reach the observer on earth than the photon on the centerline of the solar center to the earth. Simple

- - -

One reason that it is hard to support EU theory is that there are so few papers that are deemed fit by the mainstream community to publish in their mainstream peer reviewed publications. It's a Catch-22 setup, and how mainstream maintains its position and keeps fringe on the fringe.

This is one reason the ACG is going to start its own peer review group and its own publication in the very near future. We will see if it attracts a worthy caliber of submitted papers. The CCCI papers have some interesting ideas.

- - -

On the matter of AGN and Quasars and the 'new matter' being ejected from them; Well, how do you suggest we create some of that 'new matter' in the laboratory so it can have its redshift measured? Another Catch-22.

- - -

I fully agree, " 'Science by press release' is, IMHO, particularly bad form unless the accompanying paper(s) are available in at least pre-print form along with the PR"
So let's get the media to stop their constant 'implications from BBT conjecture' which are included in almost every press release about new data from space-based observational platforms.
And that goes for todays APOD, it is not a "dying star's nebula", it is a very 'pregnant star' about to give birth.

It is a very beautiful photo btw, it reminds me of a Michaelangelo chapel ceiling fresco. If in semi abstract.
- - -

In spite of my often recalcitrant attitude, I sport a bow tie when attending my ACRS meetings. (Adult Children of Rocket Scientists)

On other subjects, I might be described as one of the illegitimate children of The Living Theater.

[makc]

the light falls off faster than the distance adds sources

I think I asked for a quantitative answer.

I have to admit I only skimmed through one of links but, having found nothing related to kovil statement, I actually opened mathcad, and calculated that myself.

Suppose, for simplicity, that every star is eternal, and produces equal amount of light every bit of time (this is expected to yield same results as if stars were constantly re-generated with the same rate as they burn out). This gives us a nice approximate formula for amount of star light passing through some fixed area at the distance r from star, every bit of time: const * r^-2. Since we do not care about units here, we can easily omit const, and keep only r^-2. Then, if the universe is infinite, we should expect the distance to add stars in linear proportion to r. If we choose our distance units the way that we have 1 star per 1 unit on average, we can expect total amount of light received from any direction to be roughly proportional to sum of r^-2 from r=1 (the first star) to infinity, which is, according to mathcad, quite finite number, (pi^2)/6 (or Z(2)).

What did I missed?

[Nereid]

[snip]

- - -

"v3, a paper giving a detailed calculation of" - reading this paper my impression is that like " the observer who sees more space sees more time, and the observer who sees less space sees less time" in regards to relativity and the slowing of clocks etc. 'The photon who sees more gravitational/magnetic field sees more redshift, and the photon who sees less gravitational/magnetic field sees less redshift.' Thusly the photon from the solar limb sees more g/m field, as it must traverse a solar diameter more to reach the observer on earth than the photon on the centerline of the solar center to the earth. Simple

- - -

OK, I'm glad you found it so simple.

When I continue with the next installment, may I rely upon you to answer the relevant, quantitative, questions that I shall now make a point of asking?

For now, please explain - even in word salad - how this works for the gravitational redshift observed in signals from the Galileo probe, from Voyager 2, from ... etc as they were occulted by the Sun.

Please also explain - quantitatively - how your explanation addresses both gravitational redshift and the Shapiro time delay.

And, just so that I don't miss anything fundamental, please state as clearly as you can what experimental test GR has failed.

One reason that it is hard to support EU theory is that there are so few papers that are deemed fit by the mainstream community to publish in their mainstream peer reviewed publications. It's a Catch-22 setup, and how mainstream maintains its position and keeps fringe on the fringe.

I guess if you approach science from the perspective of 'my ideas must be right!!!!!!!!! Therefore, the fact that my papers don't get published can only be due to suppression!!!!' then your logic, and your perspective, are unassailable ... by anyone, for any reason.

However, if you are asked to write scientific papers presenting ideas that are:
a) internally consistent
b) consistent with well-established theories where the domains of applicability overlap, and, above all
c) consistent with relevant, good observational and experimental results

then things look a little different.

Never mind ... we can always take a look at the detailed, quantitative papers that proponents of EU ideas post on their own websites, can't we?

After all, on such websites, there are no mainstream reviewers, and the EU proponents can present their strongest cases untrammelled by any reviewers whatsoever.

Curiously, whenever any proponent seeks to defend any such material, in a forum that has even weak versions of a), b), and c), the results are uniformly embarrassing (i.e. the internal inconsistencies are painful, the inconsistencies with standard plasma physics are awful, and the match with good experimental and observational results is appalling).

This is one reason the ACG is going to start its own peer review group and its own publication in the very near future. We will see if it attracts a worthy caliber of submitted papers. The CCCI papers have some interesting ideas.

- - -

"ACG"? "CCCI"??

Please be sure to keep us abreast of this as it unfolds.

On the matter of AGN and Quasars and the 'new matter' being ejected from them; Well, how do you suggest we create some of that 'new matter' in the laboratory so it can have its redshift measured? Another Catch-22.

- - -

I have no idea what this is referring to - can you clarify please?

I fully agree, " 'Science by press release' is, IMHO, particularly bad form unless the accompanying paper(s) are available in at least pre-print form along with the PR"
So let's get the media to stop their constant 'implications from BBT conjecture' which are included in almost every press release about new data from space-based observational platforms.

First, I expect that none of the people who post to the Asterisk Café have any say in the content of any PRs.

Second, unless and until an alternative to the standard model in cosmology comes along, surely it is sensible for anyone writing in any medium to use the ΛCDM model as a reference?

Third, unless and until proponents of EU ideas begin to get rid of their apparent wilful ignorance of modern astronomy (and physics) - not to mention their vitriol, bombast, and bluff - what rational basis for expecting their ideas have legs is there?

[snip]

In spite of my often recalcitrant attitude, I sport a bow tie when attending my ACRS meetings. (Adult Children of Rocket Scientists)

On other subjects, I might be described as one of the illegitimate children of The Living Theater.

Would you be so kind as to clarify what you mean?

(more later)

[Nereid]

the light falls off faster than the distance adds sources

I think I asked for a quantitative answer.

I have to admit I only skimmed through one of links but, having found nothing related to kovil statement, I actually opened mathcad, and calculated that myself.

Suppose, for simplicity, that every star is eternal, and produces equal amount of light every bit of time (this is expected to yield same results as if stars were constantly re-generated with the same rate as they burn out). This gives us a nice approximate formula for amount of star light passing through some fixed area at the distance r from star, every bit of time: const * r^-2. Since we do not care about units here, we can easily omit const, and keep only r^-2. Then, if the universe is infinite, we should expect the distance to add stars in linear proportion to r. If we choose our distance units the way that we have 1 star per 1 unit on average, we can expect total amount of light received from any direction to be roughly proportional to sum of r^-2 from r=1 (the first star) to infinity, which is, according to mathcad, quite finite number, (pi^2)/6 (or Z(2)).

What did I missed?

I don't think you missed anything ... but as it was kovil who posted it, let's see how he answers your post, shall we?

Also, FWIW, I found it quite ironic that kovil posted [2], given that kovil has been quite consistent in his vehement rejection of any 'BBT'!

(for those who haven't read [2]: it is a BBT).

[Nereid]

[snip]
- - -

Unfortunately for BBT , remove one card, Dark Matter or Dark Energy and the whole house of cards collapses.

- - -
[snip]

I thought we'd been over the BBT, DM, and DE, setting the record straight, and disentangling the nonsense, strawmen, etc from the actual content of modern cosmological theories, but I guess it's important to do this, one more time.

"BBT", a.k.a. "big bang theory" isn't.

It is a meta-theory, or, if you prefer, a class of theories.

Perhaps an oversimplified summary might be something like: "the present, observable, universe evolved to its present state from an earlier very hot, very dense one", where each of the qualitative descriptors can be replaced by a fairly well-bounded quantitative range (e.g. how long ago was the universe in this very hot, very dense state? between 10 and 20 billion years' ago).

Underlying this class of theories is a cosmological principle, taken as axiomatic: wrt 'the laws of physics', there is no special place in the universe (or, if you prefer, the 'laws of physics' are the same, everywhere and everywhen, throughout the observable universe).

Note that this whole class of BBTs leaves the question of the origin of the universe open.

Note also that there is nothing in this about dark matter or dark energy; at this level at least, kovil's assertion is without foundation.

There is a class of cosmological models, all of them 'BBTs', called ΛCDM. 'Λ' (lambda) stands for the cosmological constant in Einstein's exposition, but is actually shorthand for a class of models (or, if you prefer, a particular kind of 'dark energy'). 'CDM' is shorthand for 'cold dark matter'. In their most general form, CDM models do not necessarily require the DM to be non-baryonic. In this sense, kovil's assertion is without foundation.

All of such models are based on General Relativity (GR), or some extension or modification of GR (such as [2] is kovil's earlier post).

In some more detail: 'Dark Energy' is, generally, a shorthand for the observed accelerated expansion of the universe. As a shorthand, it signifies nothing more than a succinct summary of the huge amount of relevant observational data. In this sense, kovil's assertion ("Unfortunately for BBT , remove one card, [...] Dark Energy and the whole house of cards collapses.") has the same cosmological content as "iohsaerdfvjni o;ihn oijaewron o0ppp-032-4 nddd". Or, if you prefer, a great many BBTs can be constructed using Λ = 0.

Sadly, for kovil et al., such BBTs are rather too inconsistent with the relevant observational data (but I guess the good news is that they are far less inconsistent than any quantitative EU idea that has so far seen the light of day).

As astro_uk has pointed out, in another thread, (non-baryonic) Dark Matter (DM) is of relevance to a great deal more of astronomy than merely cosmology ... and there is good consistency between the local estimates of DM and the cosmological ones.

A final note (for now): the extent to which DM is non-baryonic - for rich clusters of galaxies, the universe as a whole, or anything in between - in order to be consistent with the relevant good observational results, depends upon detailed quantitative analyses.

Sadly, anything even remotely quantitative* seems to be lacking in what kovil has posted (so far).

OK, that was a penultimate note; the ultimate note (for now): Thousands of scientists would give their all for the honour of being recognised as the author of a physics theory which overthrows GR; the pages of the relevant peer-reviewed technical journals are filled with papers presenting such alternative theories.

Several of these alternative theories to GR have been used to develop cosmological models; hundreds of papers have been written based on these alternatives. AFAIK, without exception, the only serious alternatives would also be called "BBT" by kovil.

*Caveat: and also consistent with a non-BBT cosmology.

[makc]

...What did I missed?

I don't think you missed anything ... but as it was kovil who posted it, let's see how he answers your post, shall we?

But my question was directed to you, not kovil. Let me continue this, so you could see what my problem is. Suppose all the stars in above imaginary universe are located at the nodes of cubic lattice with an edge = 1. This way, we can find the direction (actually, any number of them) such that 1st star will be encountered at arbitrary distance x in that direction, x >> 1. This star will itself look pretty faint. And above calculation shows that even if stars were "transparent" (or re-emitting light, whatever) and we add all the light from infinite number of stars in that direction, we will have only (pi^2)/6 ~ 1.645 times more light than if we would had only 1st star in that direction. Which is still pretty faint.

Hence was the question, what did I missed.