Starship Asterisk*

So you're saying that huge superclusters of normal elliptical galaxies at high redshift are actually nearby and small Are they just a collection of globular clusters compared to local clusters which are a collection of ellipticals?

If you've ever seen the perspective episode of Father Ted with the toy cow and the cow in the field (small far away) now would be time to laugh.

So how come the angular size of known object classes decreases exactly as you would expect with redshift?

I think its time to stop with the Arpian way (the equivalent of epicycles) and look at the vast amount of evidence supporting the Big Bang.

Nereid wrote: While this may be interesting, I'm sorry to say that it seems to have almost nothing to do with the specific question I asked you ("Perhaps you would care to explain how you consider that paper to be relevant to this thread, whose focus is the origins of the universe and observational cosmology?" - added bold). Would you like me to clarify my question?
I also note that you seem to have repeated a common misunderstanding of modern cosmological theories ("Big Bang"), one which we have addressed, at considerable length already, in this thread.

Sure, I did already clarify your question about what redshift has to do with this topic 'The origin of the Universe'. Let me rephrase:
a) The BB theory assumes there *is* an origin (in time)
b) based on the assumption that the universe expands (and by time reversal the BB 'follows'- Gamow in the 1940's, and Le Mètre),
c) based on the assumption (Hubble, 1931) that the redshift of star spectra is a Doppler effect,
d) based on the assumption of 'empty space' (vacuüm), which cannot dissipate radiation, although an entropy-like dissipation of radiation had his preference (witness the footnote in his 1931 paper with Humason on measured redshifts)
e) based on Einstein's axiom that EM-fields (light) propagate at constant speed c (about 300.000 km/s) independent of source & observers motion, and lossless (a kind of perpetuüm mobile;-)
f) based on the assumption 'there is no ether medium' for EM radiation or the Earth or any object to move in (Michelson/Morley 1887).
g) This null-result was based on their assumption that if ether would exist it would not adhere to a heavy body like the Earth, hence not rotate with it, thus making any conclusion impossible about universal ether as a result of measurements along the Earth's surface. So they discarded this adhesion possibily (explicitely or not).

Note that of the 6 items you mention, the first four are readily solved resp. explained by correcting the last assumption above, namely: space is NOT empty, but is filled with a dissipative medium (ether and/or plasma) which adheres to a heavy body, thus moves (and rotates) with it due to some form of viscosity. If the ether density decreases with 1/r of the distance r to such body, then 'gravity' could be its gradient, porportional to -1/r^2. The first four items readily follow from such model:

1) Olber's paradox (why is the night sky dark while it is illuminated by an infinity of stars ?) is solved by realizing that a dissipative medium damps-out all radiation eventually. In fact the redshift is due to a loss of energy in each photon, yielding a half-life of about 6 billion years (by parameter fitting a first order DE dissipative term in Maxwells eqns against measured redshifts, see Mike Lewis' paper, item #2 on my homepage http://members.chello.nl/~n.benschop ). BTW: you find there also a published paper of a colleague of mine (at Philips Research Labs) on the electron as a closed photon: "Is the electron a photon with toroïdal topology?" - item #3, showing that the basic particle we know is 'folded' radiation (ether).
2) the cosmic background radiation of some 3 Kelvin (CMB) is simply the energy loss of all radiation criss-crossing space and thus 'warming up' the environment (viz. the propagation medium) with low energy long-wave microwave energy.
3) the Large Scale structure, meaning the filamentary nature of all known matter, is a direct consequence of the plasma physics of Birkeland currents (see Scott's book pg 105: "Filamentary structures are often observed in the cosmos - . . . . This inherent tendency to produce filaments - strings - is a wellknown and easily explained fundamental property of plasmas. Moreover, these characteristics have been measured in laboratories for decades."
4) The Hubble relationship: the dissipative plasma/ether medium opens up another than Doppler interpretation of the redshift phenomenon, namely lossy light transmission, with a redshift proportional to distance (not to velocity). Including Arp's Quasars with anomalous redshift, which is inherent at generation (due to the extreme EM conditions in such Quasars), one must consider three types of components in Hubbles' redshift: Dissipative (prop. to distance), Doppler (prop. to velocity) and Intrinsic (due to extreme Quasar EM fields, or possibly the Wolf-effect described earlier). Calling these three components d, v, i respectively, and the measured shift z, then 1+z = (1+d)(1+v)(1+i).

About your 5) and 6) I have no opinion yet.

Q: a question of cosmo_uk (or was it astro_uk ?) what for example does the plasma do in galaxies beyond what we know already with purely gravity modelling?
A: Check out galaxy M82 in Chandra X-ray image (Scott pg212, fig 71) which is an extremely powerfull X-ray source 11 million lightyears away, with in its center several supernovae and X-ray binaries. The Nasa text says "that the luminosity suggests that most contain a black hole. The diffuse X-ray light extends over several thousand lightyears, and is caused by multi-million degree gas flowing out of M82".
However, at such temperatures we have a plasma, and in fact plasma physics allows X-ray generation at much lower temperatures, obviating any black hole (which moreover would not spew out gasses, but suck them IN)

I think I have shown my good will in this discussion, I thank you all for your patience. And do yourselves a favor: buy a copy of Donald Scott's book ( review at http://www.thunderbolts.info/electricsky.htm ) and read it. It is clearly written - useful for both amateurs and professionals - and it collects all that is relevant regarding plasma cosmology, in a qualitative as well as quantitative way, including plenty of scientific references. Much still needs to be researched, but it deserves serious considerationl. -- NB

...and back to my previous question - what about galaxies with no/negligible gas/plasma? How come they can be at high redshift?

cosmo_uk wrote:...and back to my previous question - what about galaxies with no/negligible gas/plasma? How come they can be at high redshift?

I was not aware of such case(s), and I would appreciate a reference describing them. By plasma cosmology concepts there just is no place without plasma (that is: outside solid matter;-) However, the plasma density varies between 10^[-3] to 10^3 charged ions / electrons per cm^3.
Apparently you do know & acknowledge cosmological plasma concepts, otherwise you would not know about such high-redshift sources. Maybe there is still another cause for redshift beyond the three d,v,i that I mention (dissipative, velocity, intrinsic). Redshift seems to be a fruitfull area for research! After all, apart from periodic Cepheïds & brightness, it is the only measure for distance and motion of galactic objects, if I'm not mistaken. -- NB

BTW: in my previous posting there is a typo: Nereid's items 5) and 6) I have no opinion about [correct the mentioned 4) and 5)].

I was not aware of such case(s), and I would appreciate a reference describing them.

I'm talking about normal common elliptical galaxies - they do not contain a great deal of gas/plasma or dust and have negligible new stars to make any more.

Put simply they are thought to be formed by the merging of spirals. As the galaxies pass through each other the gas/plasma from the two spirals merges whereas the stars pass through each other quite easily (look up mean free path of gas/stars). Therefore you are left with a lump of gas/plasma and 2 collections of stars devoid of gas/plasma - elliptical galaxies. You can see a larger scale analogy of this in the merging clusters - eg the bullet cluster which proves the presence of dark matter.

Nico Benschop wrote:

Nereid wrote: While this may be interesting, I'm sorry to say that it seems to have almost nothing to do with the specific question I asked you ("Perhaps you would care to explain how you consider that paper to be relevant to this thread, whose focus is the origins of the universe and observational cosmology?" - added bold). Would you like me to clarify my question?
I also note that you seem to have repeated a common misunderstanding of modern cosmological theories ("Big Bang"), one which we have addressed, at considerable length already, in this thread.

Sure, I did already clarify your question about what redshift has to do with this topic 'The origin of the Universe'.

Let me try again; I have clearly failed to express my question in a sufficiently straight-forward way, as you have, it seems, merely repeated the answer you already gave (which is not, and I must stress this, NOT an answer to my question).

You put a paper on the table. That paper reports some observations. The observations are of an object (spiral galaxy) called NGC7319 and a QSO ~8" from the nucleus of that galaxy.

This thread is about observational cosmology (and origins of the universe).

What - specifically - do the reported observations have to do with observational cosmology?

If I may read something into your replies: it seems that you consider a report of a QSO within 8" of the nucleus of a nearby spiral galaxy to have something to do with the Hubble relationship. However, none of your replies to my question spells out, in a logical fashion, what one paper reporting one set of observations about one (pair) of objects has to do with the Hubble relationship.

Of course, I may have completely mis-represented the way you feel that one paper relates to observational cosmology! In any case, please answer my question.

Let me rephrase:
a) The BB theory assumes there *is* an origin (in time)

It seems that you did not do as you said you would (read through this thread).

This is one of the most common misunderstandings of the BBT, and one which was addressed, numerous times, in this thread.

If, when you do take the time to read through this thread, you still have questions about this particular misunderstanding, please ask questions.

Otherwise, please do not repeat this here, in the Asterisk Cafe.

b) based on the assumption that the universe expands (and by time reversal the BB 'follows'- Gamow in the 1940's, and Le Mètre),

This too is a mis-statement of the BBT, though not one we've dealt with in any particularly detailed way. I'll address it later, but for now it suffices to note that the underlying assumption is that, to put it crudely, 'GR rules'.

c) based on the assumption (Hubble, 1931) that the redshift of star spectra is a Doppler effect,

Another mis-statement.

d) based on the assumption of 'empty space' (vacuüm), which cannot dissipate radiation, although an entropy-like dissipation of radiation had his preference (witness the footnote in his 1931 paper with Humason on measured redshifts)

Another mis-statement (esp as it relates to GR) ... again, let's examine this in more detail later.

e) based on Einstein's axiom that EM-fields (light) propagate at constant speed c (about 300.000 km/s) independent of source & observers motion, and lossless (a kind of perpetuüm mobile;-)
f) based on the assumption 'there is no ether medium' for EM radiation or the Earth or any object to move in (Michelson/Morley 1887).
g) This null-result was based on their assumption that if ether would exist it would not adhere to a heavy body like the Earth, hence not rotate with it, thus making any conclusion impossible about universal ether as a result of measurements along the Earth's surface. So they discarded this adhesion possibily (explicitely or not).

If this is, in any way, indicative of the use you intend to make of physics, wrt observational cosmology, I think we should get to the heart of the matter quickly ... (I'll return to this later).

Note that of the 6 items you mention, the first four are readily solved resp. explained by correcting the first assumption above, namely: space is NOT empty, but is filled with a dissipative medium (ether and/or plasma).

[snip]

I did ask that you provide references to papers published in relevant, peer-reviewed journals.

Please provide such references. Please state clearly whether the references you cite in this regard provide quantitative characterisation of the dissipation, and whether there are published observational and/or experimental results confirming these quantitative characterisations.

(to be continued)

I think the point cosmo is trying to make is this:

We see ellipical galaxies in the nearby Universe, close enough for some that we know a great deal about them.

It doesn't matter how far into space you look you still see Elliptical galaxies, there are elliptical galaxies observed at redshifts comparable to Quasars, see the 2DF GRS for examples.
The average size of elliptical galaxies can be worked out in the nearby universe.

Why is it that when you look at the angular size of galaxies related to their measured redshift you find a nice relation, in fact exactly the relation you expect for the BBT picture with galaxies that have twice the redshift appearing to be half the size, (because they are twice as far away.)

Now an Arpian/PC/EU type would claim that this is because light gets tired/reacts with an average amount of material per unit distance along the line of sight, which produces an apparent redshift.

This however totally ignores what we know about the ages of these objects, why is is that they don't all just have random ages? Why is that the further back you look, the younger the objects appear to be, always having the result that objects are consistent with forming less than 13.7 Gyr ago, as we see it? In an Arpian/PC/EU picture this makes no sense. Why should every object appear to have an upper limit for its age in an eternal universe? Why can't some things be 100Gyr old and some 1Gy? Why is absolutely everything younger than a fixed limit of around 14Gyr?

(continued)

Nico Benschop wrote:[snip]

1) Olber's paradox (why is the night sky dark while it is illuminated by an infinity of stars ?) is solved by realizing that a dissipative medium damps-out all radiation eventually. In fact the redshift is due to a loss of energy in each photon, yielding a half-life of about 6 billion years (by parameter fitting a first order DE dissipative term in Maxwells eqns against measured redshifts, see Mike Lewis' paper, item #2 on my homepage http://members.chello.nl/~n.benschop ). BTW: you find there also a published paper of a colleague of mine (at Philips Research Labs) on the electron as a closed photon: "Is the electron a photon with toroïdal topology?" - item #3, showing that the basic partical we know is 'folded' radiation (ether).

Here is what I wrote, earlier, that you are (apparently) answering:

Again, the specific question is: what paper(s), published in relevant, peer-reviewed journals, present a quantitative account of how a plasma cosmology model (or models) match the quantitative data, for each of the six sets of (independent) astronomical observations?

And here is my first item: "1) Olbers' paradox, in all wavebands of the EM spectrum, with a plasma cosmology model to provide a quantitative estimate of the diffuse background"

In which relevant, peer-reviewed journal is "Mike Lewis' paper" published? What date/volume/issue/pages?

In the material you did post, it seems there is not a quantitative account of the observed diffuse background cosmic radiation, in all wavebands.

In which paper, published in a relevant, peer-reviewed journal, is there a quantitative account of the expected diffuse background cosmic radiation, based on a plasma cosmological model?

2) the cosmic background radiation of some 3 Kelvin (CMB) is simply the energy loss of all radiation criss-crossing space and thus 'warming up' the environment (viz. the propagation medium) with low energy long-wave microwave energy.

In the part of your post I am quoting here, it seems there is not a quantitative account of the CMB's blackbody spectrum, its dipole, nor the angular power spectrum.

In which paper (or papers), published in a relevant, peer-reviewed journal, is there a quantitative account of these three features of the CMB (its blackbody SED, and intensity; the dipole; and the angular power spectrum), based on a plasma cosmological model?

3) the Large Scale structure, meaning the filamentary nature of all known matter - which is a direct consequence of the plasma physics of Birkeland currents (see Scott's book pg 105: "Filamentary structures are often observed in the cosmos - . . . . This inherent tendency to produce filaments - strings - is a wellknown and easily explained fundamental property of plasmas. Moreover, these characteristics have been measured in laboratories for decades."

In the part of your post I am quoting here, it seems there is not a quantitative account of the observed large-scale structure, as published in papers by the 2dF and SDSS teams (see posts earlier in this thread for references).

In which paper, published in a relevant, peer-reviewed journal, is there a quantitative account of the observed large scale structure, such as the galaxy power spectrum, based on a plasma cosmological model?

4) The Hubble relationship: the dissipative plasma/ether medium opens up another than Doppler interpretation of the redshift phenomenon, namely lossy light transmission, with a redshift proportional to distance (not to velocity). Including Arp's Quasars with anomalous redshift, which is inherent at generation (due to the extreme EM conditions in such Quasars), one must consider three types of components in Hubbles' redshift: Dissipative (prop. to distance), Doppler (prop. to velocity) and Intrinsic (due to extreme Quasar EM fields, or possibly the Wolf-effect described earlier). Calling these three components d, v, i respectively, and the measured shift z, then 1+z = (1+d)(1+v)(1+i).

This is the closest your post comes, it seems, to actually answering my question ... although I do not know if there is any published paper on it.

A quick summary may be: "there is no plasma cosmological model, but a physical mechanism has been proposed (by Lewis) in which the observed Hubble relationship, between redshift and distance, is due to one particular 'tired light' hypothesis".

Leaving aside the (apparent) lack of any published papers (for now), it seems (if my summary is sufficiently accurate) that:

a) you propose only a new physical effect, but do not tie it to any cosmology

b) you propose General Relativity is not a theory with cosmological relevance.

Please clarify.

About your 4) and 5) I have no opinion yet.

Q: a question of cosmo_uk (or was it astro_uk ?) what for example does the plasma do in galaxies beyond what we know already with purely gravity modelling?
A: Check out galaxy M82 in Chandra X-ray image (Scott pg212, fig 71) which is an extremely powerfull X-ray source 11 million lightyears away, with in its center several supernovae and X-ray binaries. The Nasa text says "that the luminosity suggests that most contain a black hole. The diffuse X-ray light extends over several thousand lightyears, and is caused by multi-million degree gas flowing out of M82".
However, by such temperatures we have a plasma, and in fact plasma physics allows X-ray generation at much lower temperatures, obviating any black hole (which moreover would not spew out gasses, but suck them IN)

Ah, the misunderstandings caused by assuming press releases are science!

That the observed M82 x-rays are generated by a hot plasma seems uncontroversial, right?

astro_uk's question was this (my bold): "we know that clusters of galaxies are filled with plasmas, are you suggesting that there is some special attractive force at work within a plasma that cosmologists ignore?"

Of course, I'm not astro_uk (so he may be satisfied with your answer), but I can't see how the part of your post I quote here addresses the question at all. Could you please clarify?

I think I have shown my good will in this discussion, I thank you all for your patience. And do yourselves a favor: by a copy of Donald Scott's book ( review at http://www.thunderbolts.info/electricsky.htm ) and read it. It is clearly written - useful for both amateurs and professionals - and it collects all that is relevant regarding plasma cosmology, in a qualitative as well as quantitative way, including plenty of scientific references. Much still needs to be reseached, but it deserves a serious perusal. -- NB

If you had read this thread, as you said you would, you would have learned that promotion like this is unwelcome here.

If you have references to pertinent published papers, by all means provide them. However, please do not use the Asterisk Cafe to promote non-scientific material.

If you had read this thread, as you said you would, you would have learned that promotion like this is unwelcome here.
If you have references to pertinent published papers, by all means provide them. However, please do not use the Asterisk Cafe to promote non-scientific material.

I'm sorry to have bothered you. In this forum you are apparently only interested to answer questions about published material, not to discuss new idea's that question old models. My main aim was to see what thoughts people in this forum might have on the suggestion of a universal dissipative medium versus the established model of a lossfree vacuüm in intergalactic space, which btw I think is a non-scientific model: starting with point (g) in 1887 (Michelson/Morley's assumption of no adherence of ether, if it exists, to a heavy body - convenient for them they found no evidence of ether so adherence was a moot issue - which was a built-in conclusion due to their assumption). This has relevance, as I tried to explain, on many aspects regarding the supposed 'origin of the universe' (re: BBT, redshift causes, etc.) What I've learned is that no interesting responses came forward, other then your repeated deadpan replies "is it published?".
So again, this was wasting your and my time, so our ways better part. NB

Nico Benschop wrote:

If you had read this thread, as you said you would, you would have learned that promotion like this is unwelcome here.
If you have references to pertinent published papers, by all means provide them. However, please do not use the Asterisk Cafe to promote non-scientific material.

I'm sorry to have bothered you. In this forum you are apparently only interested to answer questions about published material, not to discuss new idea's that question old models. My main aim was to see what thoughts people in this forum might have on the suggestion of a universal dissipative medium versus the established model of a lossfree vacuüm in intergalactic space, which btw I think is a non-scientific model: starting with point (g) in 1887 (Michelson/Morley's assumption of no adherence of ether, if it exists, to a heavy body - convenient for them they found no evidence of ether so adherence was a moot issue - which was a built-in conclusion due to their assumption). This has relevance, as I tried to explain, on many aspects regarding the supposed 'origin of the universe' (re: BBT, redshift causes, etc.) What I've learned is that no interesting responses came forward, other then your repeated deadpan replies "is it published?".
So again, this was wasting your and my time, so our ways better part. NB

Dear Nico Benschop,

Your first post in the Asterisk Cafe was on 10 June, 2007.

astro_uk was courteous enough to give you a concise, accurate 3 paragraph response to your initial posts, in terms of the standing of the ideas you presented within the astronomy community.

I replied to your first post, and welcomed you here, the next day.

Here is what I wrote, minus footnotes and a bit about Arp (I added some bold):

Welcome to the Asterisk Cafe, Nico Benschop! Smile

As you are new here, allow me please to give you a quick summary of how it works here.

First and foremost, this is a scientific forum, devoted to astronomy (and astrophysics and cosmology).

What does this mean? Among other things, it means we most certainly will entertain questions on astronomy (and astrophysics and cosmology), but we will not entertain promotion of non-scientific ideas in these fields.

What does it mean, 'non-scientific'? Ultimately, the answer is*: are the ideas published in relevant, peer-reviewed journals? If not, then they're non-scientific.

In respect of the two sets of ideas which you present, in the post I'm quoting^, we have examined the first at very great length. Suffice it to say that no one has been able to present any papers, by Alfven, Scott, or anyone else, showing how these so-called plasma universe or electric universe ideas can account for the six sets of high quality, cosmologically relevant astronomical observations (they are covered, in considerable detail, earlier in this thread). If you would like to provide references to any such papers, many readers here would be very interested to check them out.

Later that same day, 11 June, 2007, I wrote (excerpts; again, I added some bold):

If you read this thread, carefully, you will see that:

a) most of this so-called "mountain of evidence" turns out to be quite different, on closer examination

b) there are no published papers which address the six sets of cosmologically relevant observations I referred to earlier, from a 'plasma cosmology' perspective; if fact, it's hard to find even one paper which addresses even one of these sets of observations.

[...]

If you cannot provide references to any such papers, please do not continue to promote Scott's ideas here.

If, after reading this thread, you have some specific questions about cosmologically relevant astronomical observations, please ask them. I do ask, however, that you take the time to check carefully that any such questions have already been answered*.

[...]

If you write your conjecture up, and get it published in a relevant, peer-reviewed journal, please let us know. In the meantime, this Cafe is not an appropriate place to promote personal conjectures.

The following day, 12 June, 2007, I wrote (excerpts, bold added):

Each internet discussion forum no doubt has its own policies and scope statements. It happens that this Asterisk Cafe is focussed on astronomy (astrophysics, cosmology, space science) and does not permit use of the forum for promotion of ideas not published in relevant, peer-reviewed journals.

[...]

It is not difficult to get papers published in ApJ, MNRAS, A&A, etc ... the requirements are clearly laid out in the journals. Further, it is even easier to get a preprint up on arXiv, in advance of getting it published.

I also extended to you an invitation to answer a set of questions on Arp's ideas, without requiring you to provide references to published papers (by Arp, or anyone else) to support them*.

Was there anything in my posts, regarding the policy here in the Asterisk Cafe, that was unclear? Did you avail yourself of the opportunity to clarify anything I said?

Given this, why is it surprising that this internet discussion forum cannot accommodate your personal aims?

As you leave, I will extend to you, once again, the following invitations:

1) If you would like to provide references to any papers, by Arp, Scott, Benschop, or anyone else, showing how the so-called plasma universe or electric universe ideas can account - quantitatively - for the six sets of high quality, cosmologically relevant astronomical observations I summarised earlier, you will always be welcome to do so.

2) If your ideas on "a universal dissipative medium" are published, in a relevant, peer-reviewed journal, you are welcome to let us know. Indeed, we will start a new thread specifically and exclusively for that paper, limiting discussion only to the scope of this Cafe (astronomy, astrophysics, cosmology, and space science).

*It is, of course, very easy to access all of Arp's published papers - and there are hundreds of them.

2) If your ideas on "a universal dissipative medium" are published, in a relevant, peer-reviewed journal, you are welcome to let us know. Indeed, we will start a new thread specifically and exclusively for that paper, limiting discussion only to the scope of this Cafe (astronomy, astrophysics, cosmology, and space science).

Dear Nereid,

I must say, in retrospect, that you made it abundantly clear from the start that you only are prepared to discuss published material from peer-reviewed journals. It just dawned on me later that you take this quite literally, so I should have butted out immediately - again, sorry for wasting you time.

Your first suggestion is irrelevant for me because this 'dissipative medium' idea is new and not published (as far as I know, although 'ether drag' is a known concept, which might have interesting publications, at least somewhere on internet).

Your second suggestion in fact occurred to me today, and indeed I can imagine to submit a paper to for instance the JSE Journal of Scientific Exploration (mainstream astronomical journals probably are a bad bet;-) The content of such paper would question the logic structure of M/M's null result as unverifiable and thus un-scientific (by the accepted definition of the scientific method by Karl Popper), because the alternative of ether-drag is not proven to be non-existent. Also the data on more accurate measurements by their colleague Dayton Miller (who claimed *some* variation of interference measurements with the seasons) can't be trusted for the same reason. In such paper (provisional title "From Michelson/Morley to Hubble: on gravity, ether drag and ether friction") no details about measurements are required, just logic inspection of the applied method will suffice.

However, available extra-terrestrial data (re Laser-ranging the Moon, and the two moon orbits around Mars) might already suffice to show at least ether friction (I think ether drag near a heavy body might be more difficult to prove yet), which shows itself as non-closed orbits in any dissipative medium, since a closed orbit can _only_ occur in a lossfree medium. I suspect that if solar-system data are to be used, the solar wind and possibly other effects make the analysis non trivial.

Best greetings, Nico B.

Hi Nico

Just out of curiousity whats with the fascination about the ether? You don't have objections to say relativity as well do you?

Nico Benschop wrote:

Nereid wrote: While this may be interesting, I'm sorry to say that it seems to have almost nothing to do with the specific question I asked you ("Perhaps you would care to explain how you consider that paper to be relevant to this thread, whose focus is the origins of the universe and observational cosmology?" - added bold). Would you like me to clarify my question?
I also note that you seem to have repeated a common misunderstanding of modern cosmological theories ("Big Bang"), one which we have addressed, at considerable length already, in this thread.

Sure, I did already clarify your question about what redshift has to do with this topic 'The origin of the Universe'. Let me rephrase:
a) The BB theory assumes there *is* an origin (in time)
b) based on the assumption that the universe expands (and by time reversal the BB 'follows'- Gamow in the 1940's, and Le Mètre),
c) based on the assumption (Hubble, 1931) that the redshift of star spectra is a Doppler effect,
d) based on the assumption of 'empty space' (vacuüm), which cannot dissipate radiation, although an entropy-like dissipation of radiation had his preference (witness the footnote in his 1931 paper with Humason on measured redshifts)
e) based on Einstein's axiom that EM-fields (light) propagate at constant speed c (about 300.000 km/s) independent of source & observers motion, and lossless (a kind of perpetuüm mobile;-)
f) based on the assumption 'there is no ether medium' for EM radiation or the Earth or any object to move in (Michelson/Morley 1887).
g) This null-result was based on their assumption that if ether would exist it would not adhere to a heavy body like the Earth, hence not rotate with it, thus making any conclusion impossible about universal ether as a result of measurements along the Earth's surface. So they discarded this adhesion possibily (explicitely or not).

[snip]

I said I'd come back to this, and clarify some misunderstandings of the concordance model(s) of cosmology (a.k.a. Big Bang Theory, or BBT).

Evidence for the Big Bang is, IMHO, one of the best internet sites in terms of comprehensively addressing (most of) the misunderstandings in NB's post (quoted above).

The heart of the BBT is General Relativity (GR); crudely, the observable universe can be explained - quantitatively, consistently, and comprehensively - in terms of GR plus the quantum theory based package called the Standard Model (of particle physics).

So, pace NB, the core assumptions of the BBT are those of GR and the Standard Model.

Some extra comments, which go to some misunderstandings I read into NB's posts (to the extent that you did not mean these, Nico, I apologise in advance for my own misunderstandings).

First, that if quasars, and only quasars, turned out to be local, so what? The observed galaxy power spectrum, a.k.a. how the density of the Universe fluctuates from place to place on scales of millions of lightyears, would be unchanged. Or, if you prefer, quasars seem to be a minor component of the universe in the BBT; demote them to merely trivial players and nothing changes.

Second, good observations strongly suggest that quite a few quasars are indeed at cosmological distances, and analysis of results from large surveys such as SDSS, are entirely consistent with the overwhelming majority of quasars being at the cosmological distances implied by their observed redshifts.

An implication of these results is that the few 'Arpian' quasars are, very likely, simply chance alignments.

Third, detailed studies of large numbers of quasars and Seyfert galaxies strongly supports the unified model of active galactic nuclei. In other words, we have a consistent, comprehensive model of quasars, QSOs, type 2 quasars, Seyferts (both 1 and 2), DRAGNs, ... including their luminosity evolution. Conversely, you have to struggle very hard indeed to make the observational results fit a consistent Arpian story.

Lastly, on 'intrinsic redshifts': if they existed, as Arpians claim, and if you could get some matter from a planet orbiting a star in one of the galaxies or quasars with such an intrinsic redshift, and bring it into you local high school science lab, what wonders you would find! For starters, every visible object - leaf, emerald crystal, vial of bromine, gold bar, sodium vapour lamp, ... - would have an obviously different colour than counterparts made from Earthly atoms. Further, the colours would vary, depending on which quasar or galaxy the atoms came from. Yet the alien electrons and protons (etc) would, if analysed separately from the atoms they came from, be identical to Earthly ones.

Which leads to a point few of those who wish to praise the Arpian ideas even seem to realise, much less acknowledge: acceptance of Arpian ideas requires abandoning the cosmological principle; abandoning that principle means you have no logical basis for assuming that the lines observed in galaxy or quasar spectra originated in the atomic transitions so thoroughly explainable by the standard theory of the atom. If you lose that basis, then you can't explain the spectra of these objects at all (and so there are no 'intrinsic redshifts').

The Wolf effect: in the absence of the comprehensive results above, there might be grounds for spending time on this. However, as unresolved ('point sources') seem to have only redshifts (the Wolf effect, if in play, seems to say there would approximately equal numbers with blueshifts), and as the extent to which quasars can be resolved into extended sources is correlated with their redshifts (if the Wolf effect were in play, there should be no such correlation), even without the above, this hypothesis seems to lack observational corroboration.

An ether and GR: it's a common misunderstanding that SR (special relativity) and an ether (propagation medium for photons) are mutually inconsistent. They're not; the universe could be pervaded by an ether ... as long as it has properties which are not inconsistent with SR. Of course, if you propose such an ether, then it's hard to see how you could do experimental or observational tests to detect it (all such tests should be consistent with SR), nor why you'd want to have such a thing anyway (it doesn't explain anything that is not already explainable). When it comes to GR, same story: you can have a universal ether ... as long as it has zero mass-energy!

Dissipative medium, or photon decay: both of these are examples of 'tired light' hypotheses; AFAIK, there are lots of these, but none has legs ... in fact, all are inconsistent with the observations of light curves of distant type 1a supernovae - you can't get time dilation into any 'tired light' hypothesis.

Finally, inconsistencies.

One curious thing about much of the anti-BBT promotional stuff, especially that from 'plasma universe' supporters: ethers, Arpian quasars, and so on are, very likely, fatal to any purportedly consistent plasma cosmology! How odd, then, that Arp's observations figure so prominently on such sites.

astro_uk wrote:Hi Nico.
Just out of curiousity whats with the fascination about the ether?
You don't have objections to say relativity as well do you?

It's very simple John, as EE I learned that light is an EM wave phenomenon (Maxwell). So when I later read that Einstein (following Michelson/Morley 1887) based SR and GR on space = empty (lossfree vacuüm) I was flabbergasted: what wave-phenomenon without a medium to propagate in? That is a contradiction-in-terms. Moreover, to fit the data, Einstein had to 'bend space' by gravity . . . one counter-intuitive idea followed the other, several times, to save by such 'double twists' his theory (based on a wrong assumption that space is empty) and have it fit the facts. Newtons idea that light is a stream of tiny particles would be consistent with empty space, but NOT Huygens' (modern) model of photons as a wave phenomenon.

Mind you, if such medium would be lossfree for photons to propagate through, OK no problem: such medium does not change any characteristics of matter and/or waves passing through, so you might as well ignore it (Occams razor). But if such medium turns out to be dissipative - suggested by Hubble himself in a footnote - then that is another matter. So I went through various alternatives to the space=empty theory (GR) and it appears that many others had similar problems, which I for myself wrote-up , with a historical view , on my home page http://home.iae.nl/users/benschop/ether.htm

This was confirmed by my colleague's paper (Journal Louis de Broglie 1997) on the electron being a closed photon (see item #3 on my astro pages at http://members.chello.nl/~n.benschop ), so ether was the basis for both photons (propagating light) and matter (electron = closed photon) which I found fascinating. Ether drag by a heavy body then makes more sense, since they are made of the same 'stuff', and maybe classic fluid dynamics with properly fitted parameters, such as density and viscosity etc, might suffice for an explanation of what we observe. Some other idea's I won't bother you with - regarding gravity as gradient of ether density (causing light to bend simply by Snellius' refraction law around a heavy body like the Sun: an idea that Eddington proposed, but did not persue - he just called it a 'simulation' of the 1919 eclipse data!)
I can go on-and-on, but this forum is clearly not fit for such 'brain storming', I won't further waste your time.
Do Nereid my best greetings, and thanks for the extra links: one is never to old to learn !-) -- NB

PS: Congratulations on the edit function in this forum, which I see for the first time in my 30 year career in research.

Hello All

Darn I tried to post a large response to the above posts. My wireless connection went "BLINK"

There has been many points on both side of the fence.

I'm still busy for another few weeks.

Someone said I have stopped posting.That is not correct. Smile

My Focus in the last few month has been on the Ultra dense matter found in compact cores and it importance to the origin of the universe as part of a recyling process as we see it today.

I'm not going to discuss the BBT to me its based on ad hoc ideas. I could be wrong.

I hate to sound so stupid.

But, here goes.

If a sentient hominid wants to learn about what occurred untold billions or trillions of years ago,

maybe telepathy is the only answer.

Maybe the human soul needs to be able to touch upon the Souls of Those who were around, then.

Maybe Ingo Swann was right: there is Life Out There.

: ) Chai

shechaiyah wrote:I hate to sound so stupid.

But, here goes.

If a sentient hominid wants to learn about what occurred untold billions or trillions of years ago,

maybe telepathy is the only answer.

Maybe the human soul needs to be able to touch upon the Souls of Those who were around, then.

Maybe Ingo Swann was right: there is Life Out There.

: ) Chai

Welcome to the Cafe, shechaiyah!

As this is a science-based internet discussion forum, devoted to astronomy (and astrophysics and cosmology), I'm not sure this is the right place for speculation about telepathy or souls.

After all, I don't think you'll find either of these covered in modern scientific papers on astronomy ...

Hello All

Hello shechaiyah, Neried is right.

But! there are some interesting readings on the Origins Of the Universe from a religious point of view.

Hi Harry,

Great to see you still plugging away here! You get 10/10 for tenacity and perseverance.

Please contact me.

Hilton
ratcliff@iafrica.com

Hello Hilton

Smile

How are you?

I have posted an email.

As I said in the email,,,,,,,,,,,just reading through those papers.

http://arxiv.org/find/astro-ph/1/au:+Ma ... /0/all/0/1

I must take my hut off for your input in those papers.

Do anyone believed about the big bang theory..?

Do anyone believed that this universe came from the theory,big bang..?

Is their any scientific proof upon it..?

Welcome to The Asterisk*, zeilouz!

There is a lot of confusion, in the popular press, on what 'the Big Bang theory' actually is.

For example, it is often depicted as a scientific theory about the origin of the universe. In fact, the scope of the modern concordance model (of cosmology) does not extend to the origin of the universe.

One reason why is because there is no quantum theory of gravity (or theory of quantum gravity) ... at least none that has solid experimental or observational support and is in common use among cosmologists.

Why does any scientific theory on the origin of the universe need a good quantum theory of gravity? Because the Standard Model (of particle physics) and General Relativity - the two sets of physics theories that are the theoretical foundation of the modern concordance model - are mutually incompatible in very hot, very dense regimes ... as we expect the universe passed through as it cooled and expanded.

If you read this thread, you will find many more posts explaining this, giving references to easily accessible material which explain it in much more detail, and so on.

Thanks for the warm welcome..^_^

Okay,i get ur point..

But,the big bang is still working on its way to expand universe..what if,we could travel in the speed of light,and we are at the end of it,could we see,the big bang,with our own eyes..?

the creation of matters..?

Hello All

Instead of going around in circles whether the big bang or recyclic or string or what ever theory.

Why not look at the ongoing universe. What observation and images tells us. NOW.

The finger print to the Ongoing will present itself in the very near future.

Try taking images from the end of the galaxy of we could find ourselves watching how the big bang does his dirty job..