Starship Asterisk*

Dr. Skeptic wrote:How can you scientifically explain away

-Everything - as in everything - is measured in quantum units ⇒ summations of quantum units cannot = f∞. Period!

If you can't, you are speaking of a philosophical concept not a scientific one.

Here is one example of an infinite number of conflicts if infinity is allowed to exist in our universe:

What are to odds of an exact duplicate of Earth entering the Earths orbital plane where we can all meet ourselves?

Answer: 1/infinity

With the universe being infinite in size, the equation infinity/infinity = 1 or 100% chance.

That is the size of infinity!

If you are not shaking hands with your other self right now, infinity does not exist.

astro_uk wrote:While I disagree with Dr. Skeptics logic the essential point is true, an infinite Universe is not plausible given current understanding. It really doesnt matter anyway, as we are always limited to observing regions of the Universe within the sphere that light has had time to travel across to reach us. I.e assuming a constant non expanding Universe it would simply have a radius equal to the age of the Universe x speed of light. Now as has already been discussed in the real Universe due to expansion and various other effects the sphere actually has a radius greater than this, but still the principle holds. So whatever Universe we live in (infinite or BB model), we are limited to seeing only a region of it.

Note that this assumes that the Universe is infinite only in size, if it is also infinite in age we run into the problem that demonstrably rules out Harrys ideas about an infinite recycled Universe. Namely the Olbers paradox, that if the Universe is infinitely old and constantly recycled then the sky would be as bright as the surface of the Sun. This is simply due to the fact that no matter what direction you looked in, your line of sight would hit a star. There is simply no way to get round this without invoking strange theories that light emitted from these stars somehow decays before it reaches us. This is a non-starter because laboratory experiments of quantum physics demonstrate that this is ruled out, especially on the short timescales (cosmologically speaking) that would be required.

BMAONE23 wrote:Doesn't quantum theory indicate that there is an infinite number of possible universes with infinite outcomes for all possible events.

There may be one universe where you turned left instead of right at a certain intersection in your life and had a minor accident with Stephen Hawking as he was walking down the street. The resulting bump on His head causing him to have a certain idea about traveling between quantum universes to meet your other selves.

WOW talk about a headache.

Dr. Skeptic wrote:That is my point exactly!!!!!!!

Any equation using a function of infinity is a mathematical violation, including the age, size and mass of the universe.

Dr. Skeptic wrote:That is my point exactly!!!!!!!

Any equation using a function of infinity is a mathematical violation, including the age, size and mass of the universe.

BMAONE23 wrote:Doesn't quantum theory indicate that there is an infinite number of possible universes with infinite outcomes for all possible events.

There may be one universe where you turned left instead of right at a certain intersection in your life and had a minor accident with Stephen Hawking as he was walking down the street. The resulting bump on His head causing him to have a certain idea about traveling between quantum universes to meet your other selves.

WOW talk about a headache.

I'm curious about the concept of discrete quanta of spacetime ruling out an infinite universe. Anyplace you can point me to read up on that? My brain seems to be incapable of making that logical connection.

To answer you question toejam the cyclic universe has definitely fallen out of favour recently. The reason for this is the observed acceleration of the expansion of the Universe, due to the so called Dark Energy, this means that the rate of expansion of the Universe is increasing with time and there simply is not enough mass in the Universe to counteract the expansion. The rather depressing conclusion being that the Universe will simply continue to expand until everything (including eventually space/time itself) is torn apart, the so called Big Rip. Don't go and sell the house though we still have trillions of years to go.

That may be your opinion Harry, but it is only that, and speaking as an astronomer no one in the field seriously believes that the cyclic Universe is a reasonable proposition, so in that sense it most definitely has fallen. The reason for this is the sheer weight of evidence

Halton C. Arp is a professional astronomer who, earlier in his career, was Edwin Hubble's assistant. He has earned the Helen B.Warner prize, the Newcomb Cleveland award and the Alexander von Humboldt Senior Scientist Award. For years he worked at the Mt. Palomar and Mt. Wilson observatories. While there, he developed his well known catalog of "Peculiar Galaxies" that are misshapen or irregular in appearance.

Arp discovered, by taking photographs through the big telescopes, that many pairs of quasars ("quasi-stellar objects") which have extremely high redshift z values (and are therefore thought to be receding from us very rapidly - and thus must be located at a great distance from us) are physically associated with galaxies that have low redshift and are known to be relatively close by. Arp has photographs of many pairs of high redshift quasars that are symmetrically located on either side of what he suggests are their parent, low redshift galaxies. These pairings occur much more often than the probabilities of random placement would allow. Mainstream astrophysicists try to explain away Arp's observations of connected galaxies and quasars as being "illusions" or "coincidences of apparent location". But, the large number of physically associated quasars and low red shift galaxies that he has photographed and cataloged defies that evasion. It simply happens too often

Because of Arp's photos, the assumption that high red shift objects have to be very far away - on which the "Big Bang" theory and all of "accepted cosmology" is based - is proven to be wrong! The Big Bang theory is therefore falsified.

NGC 4319 and Markarian 205
A prime example of Arp's challenge is the connected pair of objects NGC 4319 and Markarian 205.

Dr. Arp has shown in his book "Quasars, Redshifts and Controversies" that there is a physical connection between the barred spiral galaxy NGC 4319 and the quasar like object Markarian 205. This connection is between two objects that have vastly different redshift values. Mainstream astronomers deny
the existence of this physical link. They claim these two objects are not close together - they are "coincidentally aligned".

Inherent Redshift
Arp believes that the observed redshift value of any object is made up of two components: the inherent component and the velocity component. The velocity component is the only one recognized by mainstream astronomers. The inherent redshift is a property of the matter in the object. It apparently changes over time in discrete steps. He suggests that quasars are typically emitted from their parent galaxies with inherentiredshift values of up to z = 2. They continue to move away, with stepwise decreasing inherent redshift. Often, when the inherent redshift value gets down to around z = 0.3, the quasar starts to look like a small galaxy or BL Lac object and begins to fall back, with still decreasing redshift values, toward its parent. He has photos and diagrams of many such family groupings. Any additional redshift (over and above its inherent value) is indeed indicative of the object's velocity. But the inherent part is an indication of the object's youth and usually makes up the larger fraction of a quasar's total redshift.

Mathematically, an object's total redshift value is the product of the inherent factor times the velocity factor. (e.g., If an object's inherent redshift value is, say, 0.3, and its velocity redshift is 0.06, then the total redshift that will be measured in light coming from this object is given by (1+0.3)(1+0.06) = 1.378. Which is 1+z; making its total redshift value, z = 0.378. In other words, for this example, the object's light is redshifted 30% due to its youth and then that light is shifted another 6% due to its velocity. The total is not the sum (36%) but rather 37.8%.

The total multiplying factor (1+ zt) is, therefore, made up of two multiplicative factors. Mathematically:
(1+ zt) = (1+ zi) (1+ zv) (1)
where zi is called the "intrinsic red shift of the object" and zv is the "red shift due to velocity of the object".

Consider, as an example, a pair of quasars symmetrically placed on either side of their parent galaxy. Both have the same intrinsic redshift value and their velocity redshift values are equal in magnitude but opposite in sign (one is approaching us and one is receding). Let their measured values of total redshift be z1 and z2 respectively. From the above equation we have

(1+ zi) (1+ zv) = (1+ z1)
and (1+ zi) (1- zv) = (1+ z2)
Expanding each yields 1 + zi + zv + zi zv = (1+ z1)
and 1 + zi - zv - zi zv = (1+ z2)
Adding the last two gives 2 + 2 zi = 2+ z1 + z2
Or zi = (z1 + z2)/2 (2)
So the intrinsic redshift value of a pair of symmetrically placed quasars is simply the arithmetic mean of the individual raw measured values.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Example
On pages 15-17 in his book "Seeing Red...", Arp describes a pair of quasars surrounding galaxy NGC 4258. Their observed total red shifts are zt1 = 0.40 and zt2 = 0.65. Assuming they both have identical intrinsic red shift components, Arp calculates the arithmetical average
zi = (0.40+0.65)/2 = 0.525.
He then calculates the velocity red shift component for each via equation (1), above, as follows:
(1+zv1) = (1+zt1) / (1+zi1) = 1.40 / 1.525 = 0.918
or
zv1 = 0.918 – 1 = –0.082
and
(1+zv2) = (1+zt2) / (1+zi2) = 1.65 / 1.525 = 1.082
or
zv2 = 1.082 – 1 = +0.082
The quasar with the negative velocity red shift value is approaching us and the one with positive velocity red shift is receding.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

In addition, the inherent redshift z values of quasars seem to be quantized! Unusually tight groupings of those calculated values occur centered around values of
z = 0.061, 0.3, 0.6, 0.96, 1.41, 1.96, etc... such that (1+z2) = 1.23(1+z1). [For example, 1.23(1+0.3) = 1.60].
The very existence of this quantization alone, is sufficient proof of the failure of the idea that redshift is only an indicator of recessional speed (and therefore distance). This quantization means (under the redshift equals distance interpretation) that quasars all must lie in a series of concentric shells with Earth at the center of the entire arrangement. Copernicus found out a long time ago that Earth isn't at the center of anything!

Recently mainstream astronomers have joyfully announced that they can find no quantization effects in the observed redshift values of quasars. Of course not! The raw measured total redshift values of the universal set of all known quasars are not quantized. It is the inherent redshift z values that are!

Instead of nominating him for a prize (and simultaneously reexamining their assumption that "redshift equals distance"), Arp was (and continues to be) systematically denied publication of his results and refused telescope time. One would at least expect the "powers that be" to immediately turn the Chandra X-ray orbiting telescope, the Hubble space telescope, and all the big land based telescopes toward Arp's exciting discoveries in order to either confirm or disprove them once and for all. Instead, these objects have been completely excluded from examination. Official photographs are routinely cropped to exclude them. Those familiar with the Galileo story will remember the priests who refused to look through his telescope

And if Halton Arp is correct, the quasars are not that far away in the first place.

These sets of objects are not illusions or mirages - rather, they are visual proof that Arp is indeed correct in what he says: Young, high redshift objects are ejected from the centers of active galactic nuclei (AGNs) and Seyfert galaxies. The images show exactly that happening.

The most (in)famous of these supposed "mirages" is the so-called "Einstein Cross" which is simply another example of objects in the process of being formed and ejected from the nucleus of an active galaxy. Arp has observed plasma clouds (whose light is strongly redshifted) connecting the ejected objects in the Einstein Cross.

So, modern mainstream astronomy is full of "illusions" and "mirages" (their explanation of why we should not believe our eyes) and "strange and dark" energy, matter, "neutron stars" and "black holes", none of which have ever been seen or photographed but whose existence they continually invoke in order to save their otherwise failed theories. Their attitude is, "Don't believe what you see; believe what we tell you!"

Arp says we should believe our own eyes rather than the tall tales of black-holes, and gravitational lensing told by the defenders of mainstream astronomy and cosmology whose continued research funding depends on their not rocking the boat of established theory

Do you say that stars do not recycle
Do you say that black holes do not recycle

I do not care what people think or say.

astro_uk wrote:Thats indeed a good point BMAONE23, in a recycling Universe there has to be some method to destroy galaxies and then let them reassemble, this is not what we observe.

You do see different galaxies at different stages of "life" but the numbers of galaxies in each phase varies according to where the galaxies are located (their enviroment) and according to at what redshift you observe them.

You do see some smaller objects that could be interpreted as new galaxies, but these are really puny objects with little DM, so it becomes very difficult for them to grow. .

harry wrote:Hello All

As per the discussiion with aichip.

If we can discuss the origins of the universe putting forth all models and ideas to the table.

I know there are a number of models.

The standard model is the Big Bang Theory

Which model is correct ?


All for one and one for all.