Error correction
Post number 59 reads
te = To ln(To/T1)
te = 10 ln (10/2) = 6.9 billion years
It should be
te = To ln(To/T1)
te = 10 ln (10/5) = 6.9 billion years
Sorry if it caused any confusion
Snowflake
Error correction
Post number 59 reads
te = To ln(To/T1)
te = 10 ln (10/2) = 6.9 billion years
It should be
te = To ln(To/T1)
te = 10 ln (10/5) = 6.9 billion years
Sorry if it caused any confusion
Snowflake
It seems to me that this is the keystone of your mode, Snowflake. If we accept that time has two dimensions , you can then continue with various explanations and formulae. But if, as several other posters have pointed out, time only has one dimension and there is no absolute time, then the rest of the model is irrelevant as it's based on a fallacy.Before you repeat yourself that a logarithmic description of a variation in time does not equal a two dimensional system, lets at least allow me the use of the terms since it avoids ambiguity for the model proposed.
Is that right or can your model also be derived from the conventional view of the time dimension?
Hi Celestial Mechanic
So you state that All proper clocks do not proportionally slow down because they “don’t have to”
And
“If physical process are controlled by proper time, as experimental evidence suggest, there is no need of any absolute time"
Yes you are right, you can assume all relative measures of time are not slowing down, but you would be wrong.
The “need” for absolute time is to describe how our relative measures of time are slowing down. It gives a reference for comparison.
Once Absolute measures of distance and time are used to describe the expanding universe, a amazing geometric structure is realized. What are called Fundamental principals, such as conservation of energy and momentum, and the inverse square laws, become geometrically predicted by a uniform expansion. Principles become geometrically based.
Also, I “need” to use “absolute” and relative measures of time to avoid confusion. As noted in post number 59 the absolute time differential between points is not the same as the experiential measure of time between points. The use of the two descriptions of time becomes necessary to avoid confusion.
Contrary to your statement, there is experimental evidence that “proper” or relative time is not “fixed”. Clock rates were faster in the past.
One example we have already discussed is the evidence that it appears that there are stars older than the Universe. You even said you were surprised to see that it was still a debated issue. You also noted that the majority of the papers still had the age of the stars in globular clusters fit within the age of a 13.7 billion year old universe. None of the papers allowed the age of these stars to fit within a universe that is “flat”. A flat universe requires no dark energy and the age of the universe becomes To = 2/3 1/Ho, which turns out to be about 10 billion years old.
If clock rates were faster in the past, stars would evolve faster in the past. The problem of stars being older than the universe disappears. The universe is “flat” in my model and thus requires no dark energy. In order for the limited expansion model to work, it has to assume the existence of dark energy.
It should be noted that the existence of dark energy is not proved; its existence is only inferred based upon the model used.
Snowflake
Hi Fortis
Just a few background points first.
I call the “standard model” in this thread a limited expansion model, since it assumes that the expansion of spacetime stops at the boundary of galaxies.
My model is a Uniform Expansion model, meaning that the spacetime within atoms also expands.
There is also a “standard model” in terms of the description of the relationships defining the structure within the atom. I am not attempting to redefine these relationships here.
You asked two questions
1 Why is gravity the “odd one out” in the standard model?
2 How does my model fix this problem?
Gravity is the “odd one out” because the relationships within the atom can be described by one set of field relationships, but the same set of field equations for the atom does not extend to explain gravity.
My model “fixes” the problem by having one physical process, expansion, responsible for establishing field effects. The inverse square laws become a property of an expanding spacetime field. The probabilistic expansion of spacetime a small “piece” at a time results in the probabilistic relationships observed in Quantum Physics. A geometric expansion of spacetime not only unites electromagnetic field relationships with gravity, it also unites gravity with quantum physics.
Snowflake
Hi spike,
I hope you do not mind, but I disagree with the logic and assumed conclusion you are implying in the following statement
You said
If we accept that time has two dimensions , you can then continue with various explanations and formulae. But if, as several other posters have pointed out, time only has one dimension and there is no absolute time, then the rest of the model is irrelevant as it's based on a fallacy.
Consider the following analagous statement.
If we accept that when our eyes are open, we can see light, But if we keep our eyes closed, then is it correct to conclude that light a fallacy?
If you use just one dimension of time, the true structure to which the Universe conforms to becomes lost to our eyes.
Snowflake
Hi Spike,
You also asked if my model can be derived from conventional view of the time dimension.
Yes it can. But only because there is a geometric relationship between the two dimensions of time. Just like if you know the vertical measure of a triangle it is possible to then know the horizontal measure of a triangle. Doing so also looses an important insight as to the structure of spacetime.
A relative derivation
John Hunter and C. Johan Masreliez have developed scalar expansion model as well and their relationships are derived using relative measures of time. (a scalar expansion is physically the same as a uniform expansion, matter itself expands with the expansion of spacetime. I have adopted the convention to describe an expansion model based on relative measures to be a scalar model and an expansion model based on absolute measures to be a uniform model)
John Hunter has made postings to this forum. He most recent post is at http://www.bautforum.com/showthread.php?t=34533
Those who are familiar with relativity will find the work of Johan Masreliez familiar.
(Masreliez http://redshift.vif.com/JournalFiles...F/V11N2MAS.pdf )
Masreliez’s relativistic derived scalar expansion model is fairly similar to that of John Hunter
Masreliez’s fundamental equation describing a scalar expansion of space-time is as follows.
ds^2 = e^(2t/T) x (dt^2 - dx^2- dy^2- dz^2)
This T is Hubbell time in Masreliez’s work and is a constant, T = 1/Ho, Ho = velocity as determined by cosmological red shift per distance to cosmological object. ”t” is a look back time or time interval between the two points as described by the speed of light c. c = d/t and in relativity c = to 1 .
(It should be noted that Masreliez does not associate the cosmological red shift to the expansion of space. The red shift is asserted to be the result of “cosmological drag” due to the scalar expansion of space. Galaxies maintain their relative distances, barring gravitational interaction. For the author, the cosmological red shift is due to actual motion of three dimensional space in an unobserved dimensional relationship that is described by the specific geometric rules of expansion.)
Last year, at a Physics conference in Florida I presented a poster board presentation in which I showed how the derivation of a scalar expansion using relative measures of time could be transformed to a Uniform expansion model using an Absolute measure of time.
Snowflake
References please! And from reputable journals, not Apeiron or Galilean Electrodynamics, etc.Originally Posted by snowflakeuniverse
Emphasis mine.Originally Posted by snowflakeuniverse
I believe you have confused me with one of the other posters. I have not commented on this issue.
Actually, your two "descriptions" have only caused confusion. And misusing the term dimension for what is really a different parametrization only compounds it.Originally Posted by snowflakeuniverse
BTW, you mentioned that the only person who asked you questions at a poster session was someone who sought you out because he was interested in two-dimensional time. Have you ever heard back from him?
Having now read some of the older threads, I see that there are quite a few unresolved questions.Originally Posted by snowflakeuniverse
Let's start with this one, from post #63 in this thread:Now in post #11 in this thread, you said "I want to present a paper for the members of the American Astronomical Society this coming January."One example we have already discussed is the evidence that it appears that there are stars older than the Universe. You [Celestial Mechanic] even said you were surprised to see that it was still a debated issue. You also noted that the majority of the papers still had the age of the stars in globular clusters fit within the age of a 13.7 billion year old universe.
I have no idea whether you intend to put these 'stars older than the Universe' comments into your presentation or not, but if you have,on this topic, nothing more what you presented in this old thread, then I'm pretty confident your presentation will have close to zero credibility, with at least the many astronomers in the audience who are familiar with this work.
Why? Well, look at post #9 in that old thread - you haven't even given full references to the five papers which, by anyone's standards, are likely to present your case in the strongest light, much less discussed why you think anyone in the next AAS meeting won't laugh you out of the room for presenting them (Celestial Mechanic was, I think, being gentle with you).
Can we have the full references to these five papers please?
... but I really, really would like snowflakeuniverse to address these 'quasar' questions!
Here is the June 2006 presentation of the snowflakeuniverse idea re quasars:There is a later thread, also begun by snowflakeuniverse, discussing quasars: Quasars without super massive black holes. There are quite a few, very pertinent questions about the snowflakeuniverse idea re quasars that are not answered, in either thread.Quasars - a different explanation for the energy production
Galaxies evolved from Quasars. Quasars put out 300 to 1000 times or more energy than a galaxy. The mainstream explanation for the intense energy production from a quasar is that it is matter falling into a super massive black hole at the core of the galaxy.
When the proposed uniform expansion model is used, it is not necessary to assume that there is a super massive black hole; it is just speeded up stellar mechanics. Quasars generally have a red shift factor of about 2. Using the ratios of time formula for a 10 billion year old universe locates the historical location of the Quasars to be at about 2.7 billion years from the beginning of time.
V2/V1 == (T1/T2)^(1/3)
V2/V1 = 3 = (T1/10)^(1/3)
T1 = 2.7 billion years
Quasars are observed 7.3 billion light years away
The effect of gravity at this time is increased
A2/A1 == (T1/T2)^(4/3)
A2/A1 == (2.7/10)^(4/3)
A1/A2 = 5.7 times, the effect of gravity would be 5.7 times greater.
I have not shown in this presentation that the effect of mass, a property of our motion along the unobserved dimension, was also greater in the past, according to the increased momentum imparted.
Between the increased effect of gravity, and the increased effect of mass, and the faster clock rates, the energy production from a galaxy skyrockets in the early universe. It takes less mass to form a star, so more stars are formed with less mass. I presented an analysis of this effect here at the BA at http://www.bautforum.com/showthread.php?t=8543
This model changes the variation observed in the energy output from quasars. Instead of mass falling periodically into a black hole, it is a chain reaction of exploding miniature stars.
One of the reasons for eliminating the super massive black hole from the core of a galaxy is that the model is extremely unstable and would not result in the universe we see today. Lets say we have two attracting magnets. As they get closer together, the force drawing them together increases by the square of the distance. If super massive black holes formed early in the universe, when everything is so much closer together, it becomes extremely likely to have super massive black holes fall into other super massive black holes. The fact that the mass of every galaxy in the universe tends to not exceed a few times that of the mass of our own galaxy precludes the early formation of super massive black holes from the “singularity” of the big bang.
Since I asked some of these, I'm going to re-ask them (I've added numbers):I think your case would be considerably more interesting if you also explained the following:Originally Posted by snowflakeuniverse
1) what are the objects we call 'galaxies', that we observe to have redshifts in the same range as quasars (you may choose 2, to correspond with your quasar choice)?
2) what is the nature of the 'fuzz' which we observe around (mostly low z) quasars? In the mainstream, these are called 'quasar host (galaxies)' (an example).
3) in the mainstream, quasars are merely one member of the general class of object, galaxies with active nuclei (or, AGN galaxies); the class also includes BL Lac objects, and Seyferts. Do you use the same 'speeded up stellar physics' to account for BL Lacs and Seyferts?
4) jets are a common feature of quasars; jets have also been observed in galaxies such as M87; in the mainstream, these are a similar phenomenon to the (radio) lobes observed in many radio galaxies. How does 'speeded up stellar physics' account for the jets and radio lobes?
5) Slightly OT, but nonetheless related: if you do away with SMBH at the heart of quasars (and, presumably, radio galaxies, Seyferts, etc), how do you account for the observations which lead mainstream astronomers to conclude there's an SMBH in the nucleus of our galaxy (SgrA*)?
Hi Celestial Mechanic
Stars older than Universe
Regarding the age problem of some stars being older than the age of the Universe, After I said you were “surprised” to find it was still an issue, you said the following
"I believe you have confused me with one of the other posters. I have not commented on this issue. "
Let me refresh you memory,
In post number 49 of two dimensions of time thread, we had the following exchange
http://www.bautforum.com/showthread....wflakeuniverse
You said
“So what proof do you have that all physical processes are slowing down at the same rate since the only measures we have are local measures of "relative time"?
To which I responded with
"Also, if one was not aware of the importance of absolute time in establishing gravitational relationships, one would be challenged to explain the discovery of stars older than the universe located in our galaxy and fully mature galaxies apparently billions of years old residing in a very young universe that is only a few million years old. "
To which you responded with
Citations for stars older than the galaxy? And please, not something from the '60s.
In post 50 I said
"I have posted on this topic previously in 2003 in this forum and if you follow the link http://www.bautforum.com/showthread.php?t=9052 and check out post number 21 you will see that I have summarized all the abstracts and papers on this issue I could find from 1986 to 2003, 55 total. I have separated them in terms of varies ages each party has determined for these globular cluster stars. After a careful review, I am convinced that the studies indicating that there is a real issue here are the best analyzed and most carefully reviewed. I believe this is because they are subject to the most criticism. Stars older than the universe is a problem, (unless the effect of gravity is a function of cosmic time, which means that stars would “age” more quickly than we presently assume)."
In post 51 you said
"My apologies. I thought that the problem of galactic cluster ages had been settled long ago. "
Snowflake
Thank you for refreshing my memory. Now let me return the favor. In post 51 I also wrote:Originally Posted by snowflakeuniverseI think it is safe to say that re-examination of the original data in the older papers would also lead to their ages being revised downward.I also note a tendency for the ages to decrease in the list of papers you have given.
Hi celestial mechanic
You said
Actually, your two "descriptions" have only caused confusion. And misusing the term dimension for what is really a different parametrization only compounds it.
BTW, you mentioned that the only person who asked you questions at a poster session was someone who sought you out because he was interested in two-dimensional time. Have you ever heard back from him?
I recently gave the example of the absolute measure of time between two points being 5 billion years and the experiential time that has elapsed from the object located 5 billion light years away as being 6.9 billion years. With just one dimension of time, such variation becomes ambiguous.
In this model it is necessary to differentiate the descriptions of intervals of time. I am not misusing the term dimension since I define dimension somewhat differently. We have talked about this before as well. (Dimensions are measures of change.)
Also I have not heard back from the professor, but I am sure our paths are going to meet again. I have some questions about his work on the formation of structure within spiral galaxies.
Snowflake
Hi Celestial Mechanic.
It is not “safe to say that re-examination of the original data in the older papers would also lead to their ages being revised downward”
It is safe to say that a re-examination of the papers will result in the ages being revised upwards
But you are still missing the point.
The ages of all the stars in all the 55 studies have stars older than what is allowable in a “flat” universe. A flat universe is about 10 billion years old. (post 21 http://www.bautforum.com/showthread.php?t=9052 )
In my model this would not be a problem since the increased effect of gravity, and accelerated clock rates, would cause stars to evolve much more quickly.
In my model the universe is “flat”. There is no dark energy.
Snowflake
(Emphasis mine)Originally Posted by snowflakeuniverse
I'm sorry, but that is not how the overwhelming number of mathematicians and physicists define dimension. The problem with defining things to suit your fancy is that no one else knows your definition and you have to go through the trouble of explaining and justifying your definition every time you use it. If you would use the standard definitions correctly, people would be more likely to understand your argument right away and not need endless clarifications.
I'll bet the reason you haven't heard from him is that he was hoping for some ideas about a multidimensional time manifold, instead of multiple parametrizations of a single time dimension.Originally Posted by snowflakeuniverse
Hi Nereid
Thank you for taking the time to review through the threads. This was not easy, I appreciate it,
Since the postings related to quasars seemed the most important to you, I’ll start there.
You listed the following 5 questions.
You asked
1) what are the objects we call 'galaxies', that we observe to have redshifts in the same range as quasars (you may choose 2, to correspond with your quasar choice)?
2) what is the nature of the 'fuzz' which we observe around (mostly low z) quasars? In the mainstream, these are called 'quasar host (galaxies)' (an example).
3) in the mainstream, quasars are merely one member of the general class of object, galaxies with active nuclei (or, AGN galaxies); the class also includes BL Lac objects, and Seyferts. Do you use the same 'speeded up stellar physics' to account for BL Lacs and Seyferts?
4) jets are a common feature of quasars; jets have also been observed in galaxies such as M87; in the mainstream, these are a similar phenomenon to the (radio) lobes observed in many radio galaxies. How does 'speeded up stellar physics' account for the jets and radio lobes?
5) Slightly OT, but nonetheless related: if you do away with SMBH at the heart of quasars (and, presumably, radio galaxies, Seyferts, etc), how do you account for the observations which lead mainstream astronomers to conclude there's an SMBH in the nucleus of our galaxy (SgrA*)?
Galaxies evolve from quasars. This is evolutionary process is generally accepted within the mainstream because of the following observations.
1. Quasars have a high cosmological red shift, (The bell shaped distribution has a peak with a z of 2.)
2. Since the red shift is high, they are very far away
3. and they are observed very far in the past.
4. In order to be as bright as seen, at the distance they are determined to be, it requires energy production beyond that of an ordinary galaxy.
Since there is no locally observed object of such mass that can produce the energy of a quasar, it has been assumed that quasars are young galaxies. There is no other object observed locally that could produce such tremendous amounts of energy.
Now there are some who have argued against this standard model. For example,
1. If quasars had some other cause for the large cosmological red shift, then they would not be as far away and would also no longer need a much mass to produce the energy observed. Quasars would no longer be required to have a galaxy sized mass.
2. There is observational evidence of quasars interacting with galaxies. If quasars are young galaxies, how could a quasar be seen interacting with a Galaxy? It is like having a 9-year-old grandson playing with his 9-year-old biological grandfather.
3. There is almost no time dilation in the variation in the energy output of quasars with respect to the observed red shift. (Hawkins writes in his own paper that the lack of time variation in quasars to present a fundamental threat to the big bang model).
4. The observed angular size of radio galaxies does not correspond to the expected image size based on cosmological red shift and the expansion of space. Their observed size is nearly flat verses cosmological red shift.
5. It has been observed that some very high red shift galaxies have evidence of “metals”. These elements, which are heavier than He, have to be the result of a star that has lived an entire lifetime and then self-destructed, spreading the enriched matter across the galaxy. This process takes billions of years. How can a star live billions of years within a galaxy when the observed location of the galaxy places it within the first few hundred million years of the beginning of the universe?
Proponents of the above 5 observations/arguments are usually found in the “anti big bang camp”. Some of their observations are truly not consistent with a big bang model. It is evidence that the limited expansion, big bang model is wrong.
Nereid’s first two questions point directly to a problem with the limited expansion big bang model. If quasars evolve into galaxies, how can galaxies be observed as far back, or before quasars?
The uniform expansion model presents a physical explanation for the discrepancies.
In order to resolve the above issues, it is necessary to describe how the universe begins in a uniform expansion model.
The mainstream often describes the expansion of the universe by using a balloon with pennies taped to the surface. In the uniform expansion model, the galaxies would have to be drawn on the balloon. If we let air out of the balloon, reversing the expansion of space, the proportional distance and size of the galaxies stays the same but get denser and denser. Instead of the universe converging to a singularity, the universe is converging to a multiplicity of singularities with each singularity forming a galaxy/quasar.
These initial streams of matter that will become galaxies, enter a universe that is devoid of matter and energy. It is just a bubble of empty spacetime.
Some of these streams of matter have much higher velocities than others, resulting in some quasars/galaxies having much greater velocities than others, relative to the “fabric of spacetime”.
Those quasars that are moving at relativistic speeds evolve more slowly than those not moving as fast.
Those quasars that are moving fast and evolving more slowly, are likely to encounter or pass by more quasars/galaxies that are not in motion. This explains how quasars can be seen near host galaxies.
Those quasars that are moving at not so high a relativistic speed away from us, will still evolve into galaxies, but since there motion away from us increases the amount of expansion the light must pass through, the observed red shift gets especially increased. The Doppler effect due to motion away increases the red shift, and the increased amount of expansion the light must pass through also increases the red shift. Since the rate of expansion early in the universe is so fast, this early increase in the amount of expansion with distance is exaggerated even more.
This explains how galaxies can have very high red shifts, some of which are greater than most quasars.
The lack of variation in the energy output from quasars is a result of two effects essentially canceling. Those quasars that are in motion away from us have their red shift exaggerated because of the Doppler effect and the increased space/rate of expansion the light from the quasar must travel through. Those quasars moving away have a higher red shift because of their motion, not just because of the expansion of spacetime. These quasars that are moving away are evolving more slowly due to the effects of relativity, and they are observed more in the past, so their clock rates are faster. The faster clock rates and closer than assumed cosmological distance flattens the expected variation in the energy output of quasars verses the observed red shift.
This physically explains the issue Hawkins felt was so important.
This same physical explanation also resolves the observed image size of radio galaxies
The answer to question 3 is, yes BL Lac objects, and Seyferts are young quasar/ galaxies but they have had their normal evolution disrupted by a gravitional tearing apart of their initial structure to early interaction with surrouning quasars moving at high speeds.
The answer to question 4, enters into an entirely different theortical model having to do with what I believe is a form of “dimensional collapse” A dimensional measure associated with spin is being lost, but this is going way off into another topic. Such beacons should be predictably greater in frequency in quasars, and they should be predictably smaller, base on my model.
The answer to question 5 is that since the effect of gravity is dependant upon the age the relationships of spacetime are established, then a young region of spacetime should exhibit extra or increased gravitational effects. If the effect of gravity were 30 times greater in the core of our galaxy, the necessity for a super massive black hole disappears. The mass of the stars would diminish by a factor of almost 1000 times and their rotational rates would be stable without having to assume there is some additional mass within the orbiting stars near the core. In this model matter and even spacetime enters the universe within the cores of galaxies.
This is observationally more consistent with what is observed. If a super massive black hole were in existence in the core of our galaxy for 10 billion years, shouldn’t the region near the core be all cleaned out by now? However, if matter were steaming into the cores of galaxies, then we should see a lot of gas, dust and matter near the core. The last explanation corresponds closer to what is observed.
Snowflake
Last edited by snowflakeuniverse; 2006-Jun-14 at 09:49 PM. Reason: typo
My answer would have been that all of the other "forces" in the standard model are described using the language of quantum field theory, whereas gravity is not.Originally Posted by snowflakeuniverse
I may have missed it, but I don't recall seeing an 'h-bar' in your posts. Can you be more explicit, i.e. with some math, in showing how your expansion model explains QM as well as gravity?My model “fixes” the problem by having one physical process, expansion, responsible for establishing field effects. The inverse square laws become a property of an expanding spacetime field. The probabilistic expansion of spacetime a small “piece” at a time results in the probabilistic relationships observed in Quantum Physics. A geometric expansion of spacetime not only unites electromagnetic field relationships with gravity, it also unites gravity with quantum physics.
Snowflake
It's good - and I must say unusual - for someone proposing an ATM idea to thank a challenger for the time and effort put into developing questions and challenges, so you words here are much appreciated.Originally Posted by snowflakeuniverse
(I should point out that my review of the various snowflakeuniverse threads, here in BAUT, turned up ~50 to >200 unanswered questions/unaddressed challenges. Not surprising I guess, if you are going to build a new cosmology, and rebuild much of astrophysics, and 20th century physics to boot, you will have a great deal of 'unexplaining' and 're-explaining' to do.It does? Not that it's directly relevant to your idea (or is it?), you might want to have a good reference handy to back this up ... it goes to establishing your credibility (AFAIK, the distribution of observed redshifts of quasars varies enormously; it is highly dependent on the selection method used).Since the postings related to quasars seemed the most important to you, I’ll start there.
You listed the following 5 questions.
You asked
1) what are the objects we call 'galaxies', that we observe to have redshifts in the same range as quasars (you may choose 2, to correspond with your quasar choice)?
2) what is the nature of the 'fuzz' which we observe around (mostly low z) quasars? In the mainstream, these are called 'quasar host (galaxies)' (an example).
3) in the mainstream, quasars are merely one member of the general class of object, galaxies with active nuclei (or, AGN galaxies); the class also includes BL Lac objects, and Seyferts. Do you use the same 'speeded up stellar physics' to account for BL Lacs and Seyferts?
4) jets are a common feature of quasars; jets have also been observed in galaxies such as M87; in the mainstream, these are a similar phenomenon to the (radio) lobes observed in many radio galaxies. How does 'speeded up stellar physics' account for the jets and radio lobes?
5) Slightly OT, but nonetheless related: if you do away with SMBH at the heart of quasars (and, presumably, radio galaxies, Seyferts, etc), how do you account for the observations which lead mainstream astronomers to conclude there's an SMBH in the nucleus of our galaxy (SgrA*)?
Galaxies evolve from quasars. This is evolutionary process is generally accepted within the mainstream because of the following observations.
1. Quasars have a high cosmological red shift, (The bell shaped distribution has a peak with a z of 2.)The first part of this statement is odd, but maybe OK; the second is essentially a non-sequitur - the evolution of quasars makes no such assumptions (at least, not in the bald way you write.)2. Since the red shift is high, they are very far away
3. and they are observed very far in the past.
4. In order to be as bright as seen, at the distance they are determined to be, it requires energy production beyond that of an ordinary galaxy.
Since there is no locally observed object of such mass that can produce the energy of a quasar, it has been assumed that quasars are young galaxies.This statement is nonsense ... BL Lacs and Seyferts are intensively studied because they seem to provide just the sort of cline with quasars that lead to the development of the 'standard' (unified) model (of quasars, BL Lacs, AGNs, Seyferts, ...).There is no other object observed locally that could produce such tremendous amounts of energy.
Anyway, I can't see what this has to do with the snowflakeuniverse idea, wrt quasars, so I'll move on ...This seems to have even less to do with the snowflakeuniverse idea, wrt quasars - so I'll ignore it (for now).Now there are some who have argued against this standard model. For example,
1. If quasars had some other cause for the large cosmological red shift, then they would not be as far away and would also no longer need a much mass to produce the energy observed. Quasars would no longer be required to have a galaxy sized mass.
2. There is observational evidence of quasars interacting with galaxies. If quasars are young galaxies, how could a quasar be seen interacting with a Galaxy? It is like having a 9-year-old grandson playing with his 9-year-old biological grandfather.
3. There is almost no time dilation in the variation in the energy output of quasars with respect to the observed red shift. (Hawkins writes in his own paper that the lack of time variation in quasars to present a fundamental threat to the big bang model).
4. The observed angular size of radio galaxies does not correspond to the expected image size based on cosmological red shift and the expansion of space. Their observed size is nearly flat verses cosmological red shift.
5. It has been observed that some very high red shift galaxies have evidence of “metals”. These elements, which are heavier than He, have to be the result of a star that has lived an entire lifetime and then self-destructed, spreading the enriched matter across the galaxy. This process takes billions of years. How can a star live billions of years within a galaxy when the observed location of the galaxy places it within the first few hundred million years of the beginning of the universe?Whoa!Proponents of the above 5 observations/arguments are usually found in the “anti big bang camp”. Some of their observations are truly not consistent with a big bang model. It is evidence that the limited expansion, big bang model is wrong.
The "observations" are what they are ... one doesn't need to be in one 'camp' or another. What does lead to 'camps' is the interpretation of the observations; the five points above are written in such a way that disentangling the observations from the interpretations would be quite a task.
But, as above, it seems irrelevant to the snowflakeuniverse idea, wrt quasars, so I'll ignore it (for now).Hmm, I've re-read these two questions of mine, and I can't see any reference to any 'problem[s] with the limited expansion big bang model', much less anything to do with 'quasars evolv[ing] into galaxies'Nereid’s first two questions point directly to a problem with the limited expansion big bang model. If quasars evolve into galaxies, how can galaxies be observed as far back, or before quasars?
So, let me clarify.
Many galaxies are are observed to have redshifts that are higher than many quasars. In terms of the snowflakeuniverse idea ("The first check for the verification is to see what happens when galaxy is observed in the distant past (z of 2). The energy production of a quasar results. NO BLACK HOLE NECESSARY."), how come we observe many 'galaxies' with higher redshifts than many 'quasars'?
Note that the question has nothing to do with any big bang theory, nor does it assume (the question that is) that redshift and distance are related.What has this got to do with "standard stellar physics speeded up"? Has the snowflakeuniverse idea been (drastically) revised, in the last ~9 months?The uniform expansion model presents a physical explanation for the discrepancies.
In order to resolve the above issues, it is necessary to describe how the universe begins in a uniform expansion model.
The mainstream often describes the expansion of the universe by using a balloon with pennies taped to the surface. In the uniform expansion model, the galaxies would have to be drawn on the balloon. If we let air out of the balloon, reversing the expansion of space, the proportional distance and size of the galaxies stays the same but get denser and denser. Instead of the universe converging to a singularity, the universe is converging to a multiplicity of singularities with each singularity forming a galaxy/quasar.
These initial streams of matter that will become galaxies, enter a universe that is devoid of matter and energy. It is just a bubble of empty spacetime.
Some of these streams of matter have much higher velocities than others, resulting in some quasars/galaxies having much greater velocities than others, relative to the “fabric of spacetime”.What is the quantitative relationship between 'moving' ('velocity relative to the "fabric of spacetime"'?) and the speed of evolution, for quasars?Those quasars that are moving at relativistic speeds evolve more slowly than those not moving as fast.What is the quantitative relationship between 'moving fast and evolving slowly' and the likelihood of 'encounter[ing] or pass[ing] by quasars/galaxies that are not in motion'?Those quasars that are moving fast and evolving more slowly, are likely to encounter or pass by more quasars/galaxies that are not in motion.And how well does this 'explanation' match the huge amount of quantitative data, wrt 'quasars seen near host galaxies'?This explains how quasars can be seen near host galaxies.
BTW, are you here referring to the Arpian 'host' galaxy (I believe they call them 'parent' galaxies - those which have very different redshifts than the quasars), or the standard 'host' (as in these HST observations; I understand that these hosts have essentially the same redshift as the quasars).I don't follow this at all - can you write down the relevant equations please?Those quasars that are moving at not so high a relativistic speed away from us, will still evolve into galaxies, but since there motion away from us increases the amount of expansion the light must pass through, the observed red shift gets especially increased. The Doppler effect due to motion away increases the red shift, and the increased amount of expansion the light must pass through also increases the red shift. Since the rate of expansion early in the universe is so fast, this early increase in the amount of expansion with distance is exaggerated even more.
Also, is the snowflakeuniverse idea a geocentric one? I mean, if the 'velocities relative to the "fabric of spacetime"' are random, why don't we see lots of transverse motion? Or approximately equal numbers of blueshifted galaxies (and quasars)?I don't follow - are you claiming that, if I select a significant sample (say, 100) of quasars with the same redshift (say, 2 ± 0.1), these quasars will have very similar magnitudes (say, ±1, in U, B, or V)?This explains how galaxies can have very high red shifts, some of which are greater than most quasars.
The lack of variation in the energy output from quasars is a result of two effects essentially canceling.Does this same 'snowflakeuniverse effect' apply to galaxies?Those quasars that are in motion away from us have their red shift exaggerated because of the Doppler effect and the increased space/rate of expansion the light from the quasar must travel through. Those quasars moving away have a higher red shift because of their motion, not just because of the expansion of spacetime. These quasars that are moving away are evolving more slowly due to the effects of relativity, and they are observed more in the past, so their clock rates are faster. The faster clock rates and closer than assumed cosmological distance flattens the expected variation in the energy output of quasars verses the observed red shift.I'm sorry to say that, for me, it 'physically explains' nothing at all.This physically explains the issue Hawkins felt was so important.
Can you write down the relevant equations please?How does this happen?This same physical explanation also resolves the observed image size of radio galaxies
The answer to question 3 is, yes BL Lac objects, and Seyferts are young quasar/ galaxies but they have had their normal evolution disrupted by a gravitional tearing apart of their initial structure to early interaction with surrouning quasars moving at high speeds.
I mean, is the 'gravitional tearing apart of their initial structure' essentially a tidal effect? If so, what were the timescales? what speeds? how massive were (are?) the quasars that did the disrupting? to what extent where the 'surrounding quasars' also disrupted?
And what is the quantitative relationship between the 'disrupting' and the energy output of BL Lacs and Seyferts?This seems to be a new feature of the snowflakeuniverse idea, is it?The answer to question 4, enters into an entirely different theortical model having to do with what I believe is a form of “dimensional collapse” A dimensional measure associated with spin is being lost, but this is going way off into another topic. Such beacons should be predictably greater in frequency in quasars, and they should be predictably smaller, base on my model.Please show me how this works, with equations.The answer to question 5 is that since the effect of gravity is dependant upon the age the relationships of spacetime are established, then a young region of spacetime should exhibit extra or increased gravitational effects. If the effect of gravity were 30 times greater in the core of our galaxy, the necessity for a super massive black hole disappears. The mass of the stars would diminish by a factor of almost 1000 times and their rotational rates would be stable without having to assume there is some additional mass within the orbiting stars near the core. In this model matter and even spacetime enters the universe within the cores of galaxies.Actually, what you wrote here is just a word salad. To be "observationally more consistent with what is observed" (whatever this means) you need to match observations. Observations are quantitative; ergo, unless you show, from your idea, some quantitative results, there is nothing to be consistent with.This is observationally more consistent with what is observed. If a super massive black hole were in existence in the core of our galaxy for 10 billion years, shouldn’t the region near the core be all cleaned out by now? However, if matter were steaming into the cores of galaxies, then we should see a lot of gas, dust and matter near the core. The last explanation corresponds closer to what is observed.
Snowflake
Celestial Mechanic Does it Even Better
I will revisit my earlier post concerning the derivation of a plausible formula for cosmological expansion using principles of dimensional analysis.
By the previous reasoning about addition of volumes, we conclude that the quantity of interest for expression the expansion of space is (dS/dT)/S, which being a logarithmic derivative has dimensions of T^{-1}. Now what can we put on the right-hand side that will express the dependence on the matter contained within the volume? Once again, as long as space is not too clumpy, the density rho fits the bill. rho has dimensions of M*L^{-3}. G, the Newtonian gravitational constant, has dimensions of M^{-1}*L^{3}*T^{-2}. The product of G*rho has dimensions of T^{-2}. Gee (no pun intended?), that's one power of inverse time too many. If we square our logarithmic derivative of S we shall also have something in dimensions of T^{-2}. We thus have:
[(dS/dT)/S]^{2}= k*G*rho,
where k is a dimensionless constant. Now k is dimensionless and constant, G is dimensionful but still constant, but rho is not constant. Is there some way we can get the variables isolated on one side of the equation and the constants on the other? It turns out that we can.
Remember that rho is defined as M/S, so that M = rho*S. The mass in the volume is assumed to be constant, so M=rho_{0}*S_{0}, where rho_{0} and S_{0} are the values of rho and S at some time T_{0}. We thus have:
[(dS/dT)/S]^{2}= k*G*rho_{0}*S_{0}/S,
S*[(dS/dT)/S]^{2}= k*G*rho_{0}*S_{0}, and taking the square root of both sides we find:
S^{-1/2}*dS/dT = sqrt(k*G*rho_{0}*S_{0}).
We may integrate by T from T_{0} to T_{1} and find:
2*(S_{1})^{1/2}-2*(S_{0})^{1/2} = sqrt(k*G*rho_{0}*S_{0})*(T_{1}-T_{0}).
So there is our expansion of the volume of space proportional to the square of the time. Of course this is under our assumptions of Euclidean space, etc., etc. The value of k necessary to tie this in with general relativity is 24*pi.
Last edited by Celestial Mechanic; 2006-Jun-19 at 12:41 PM.
snowflakeuniverserse:
I am still disappointed with your "proof" of dS/dT = T. Essentially you said:
This proof is flawed on logical and pedagogical grounds. Let's start with the first assertion, "if nothing ever changed, time would not exist." The only thing that can be inferred from nothing ever changing is an inability to measure time, not its nonexistence.Originally Posted by snowflakeuniverse
Your second assertion is: "Because space changes, time exists". Why does space change? Why not something else? If space did not change and something else did would time still exist? I'm not a philosopher (I despise the stuff) but I think a couple of philosophers could have a field day with your reasoning. Why, even a bunch of sophomore philosophy majors could have a lot of fun with this!
Another problem concerns the transition from word-salad to equation, namely that dS/dT ("because space changes") = T ("time exists"). Again, why the first derivative instead of the second or third or fourth? Why T instead of T^{2} or sinh(T/T_{0})? I just do not see how you get from your words to the physical quantities in the equation.
I also said the proof was flawed on pedagogical grounds. As I pointed out before, first you give it as an equation, then later after integrating you backpedal to explain that you really meant a proportion. Since you have been working on this for decades, certainly you should have a polished and refined presentation by now. This is one of the consequences of only presenting this to uncritical audiences.
Finally, one last thing: the laws of nature never (well, hardly ever! ) have the coordinates in them explicitly. Coordinates only enter as the arguments of fields or as derivatives and/or partial derivatives. In one of my dialogues I joked, "One could say that physics is primarily the application of second-order differential equations!" to which my unindicted co-conspirator BH replied: "No, that's just engineering. It doesn't become physics unless you add group theory to it." (The first of the "Layer-Cake Dialogues" over in Zanket's gravitational theory thread.)
An example: one of the most elementary things taught in a physics course is that the height of an object thrown upward from an initial height of h_{0} and initial velocity v_{0} at time t_{0} is z = h_{0} + v_{0}*(t-t_{0}) - (1/2)*g*(t-t_{0})^{2}, where g is the acceleration of gravity at the Earth's surface. But in actuality this is the solution of a differential equation, d^{2}z/dt^{2} = -g subject to the initial conditions stated. And even the g in the equation isn't a constant, it is equal to partial(U)/partial(r), where U=G*M/r, G is the gravitational constant, M is the mass of the Earth, and r is the radius of the Earth. Even the simplest thing that is taught in Physics 101 turns out to be the solution of a differential equation derived from a partial differential equation!
Of course we can't teach it this way to an advanced-placement high-school class, but you better believe that professors and grad students are aware of this. If they are not asking you the questions that I'm asking you, it's because they know how unproductive arguments with ATM proponents can be. I'm willing to give you the benefit of the doubt, so I will continue to ask penetrating questions about your theory and its foundations.
So, snowflakeuniverse, can you come up with a valid statement and proof of your primary equation? After all, your theory depends on it.
Hi Nereid,
You asked about the bell curve distribution of quasars.
I am thankful for the members that provided me the information, hope you find it interesting as well
Distribution of quasars
http://www.bautforum.com/showthread.php?t=17926
There has also been some discussion in this forum as to the periodicity observed at large red shifts.
Snowflake.
Nereid
You asked a very observant question. I had proposed that initially many quasars could have an initial velocity and since quasars evolve into galaxies, why isn’t there an observed red or blue shift observed in local galaxies?
There are two reasons for the lack of observed red shift/blue shift in local galaxies. Expansion reduces the velocity of all objects, from electrons to quasars, and the high red shift quasars are rare and we happen to not be near one of these rare events.
Sample problem
A quasar has an initial velocity, relative to the “fabric of space” of 1/10 c. After moving for 6 billion absolute years in a uniformly expanding spacetime field, how much slower is its motion? Assume a 7 billion year old universe.
V2/V1 == (T1/T2)^(1/3)
V2/V1 == (1/7)^(1/3) = .52 The current velocity would now be 1/20 c.
The number of these fast moving quasars/ galaxies would be rare. Early in the universe when these galaxies/quasars are formed, the “peculiar” velocity relative to the fabric of space would be effected by gravitational interaction, and a few would be “slingshotted” past one another, similar to how we slingshot a spaceship using the gravitational interaction between a planet. The relatively rapid rate the effect of gravity diminishes with time early in the universe makes the “sling shot effect” even more powerful
Sample problem
Compare the gravitational interaction between three galaxies separated the same absolute distance of 1 billion years from each other. The middle galaxy is observed when the universe is 2 billion years old, the furthest galaxy is observed when the universe is 1 billion years old, and the closest galaxy is observed when the universe is 3 billion years old. Assume the universe is 7 billion years old.
A2/A1 == (T1/T2)^(4/3)
A2/A1 == (1/7)^(4/3) = . 0746 The effect of gravity between the galaxies is 13.4 times more powerful, using “today’s” value as a standard.
A2/A1 == (3/7)^(4/3) = .323 The effect of gravity between the galaxies is 3.1 times more powerful, using “today’s” value as a standard.
This example shows that the force pulling galaxies together was more than 4 times more powerful in the past for the same absolute separation of 1 billion years from the middle galaxy. This effect helps the “sling shot” effect. The pull towards each other is initially strong, but once the galaxies/quasars slide past each other, the pull is weaker.
Now this is not a complete mathematical verification of the model. But it is leading to a prediction that could be used to verify the proposed model. It should be possible to derive the initial peculiar velocities of galaxies/quasars and determine though computer modeling, the request density and variation in velocity that would produce the observed distribution of quasars verses observed cosmological red shift. This should also correlate with predictions using computer modeling as to the number of quasars/galaxies that have been “sling shotted”.
Snowflake
My Review of the Critiques of the Uniform Expansion Theory, by Author
There have been a number of members of this forum that have offered critiques of the proposed model. I am grateful for the time and effort these members have spent. A few of these reviewers of the proposed theory have brought out important issues that, if not properly resolved, negate the validity of the theory. Also, a few of the reviews, and the ensuing discussions, I think are interesting.
One of the purposes of this thread was to give critics of the theory an opportunity to post their opinions. This was done, in part, to allow the students that I have “taught” the theory to, to see what others thought of the proposed theoretical model. If I were teaching something false, then this forum would at least provide an opportunity for those in the “mainstream” to correct the situation. After all, I am claiming that the proposed relationships constitute a fundamental advancement in theoretical physics, the basis for the long sought for Unified Field Theory. Any “wild” claim of this nature should certainly be held up to review.
Some of the best critiques of the proposed model are apart of previous threads, and in the interest of truth, I am listing by author what I consider to be some of the best criticisms of the proposed model. I am going to start with the review by CharlesEGrant
CharlesEGrant – Application of Formulas
In my opinion, the critique by CharlesEGrant was particularly insightful. In the last few years, I had presented the development of the theory to probably 40 to 50 graduate students, and at least 20 full professors of physics, but he was the only one who saw what appeared to be an inconsistency in the theory. It is clear that his understanding of mathematical relationships are based upon a physical understanding of what the relationships mean. He is one of the few that actually followed the mathematical development of the theory and discovered what appeared to be a problem. (Thank you Tobin Dax for also checking CharlesEGrant)
The thread that contains the comments by CharlesEGrant can be found at
http://www.bautforum.com/showthread.php?t=18805 Posting number 14.
(For those interested in the theory, this is a kind of interesting thread; it actually has some members expressing some encouragement for my work)
The issue, Improper Application of Formulas
Those familiar with basic calculus and algebra should be able to follow the development of what I call the Ratios of Time formulas. It is the application of the formulas developed that caught CharlesEGrant’s attention.
The ratios of time formulas started off with
dS/dT = T which could be “read” as, “a little change in space per a little interval of time equals Time”.
Integrating this relationship yields, in its simplest form,
S == T^2
(The == notation can be considered as meaning “proportional to”, but the relationship is more analogous to the relationship described by the speed of light, a relationship between spacetime and time).
What this equation S == T^2 is physically stating is that a volume of spacetime described by any enclosed surface varies to the square of the absolute time elapsed. Double the age of the universe and the volume of spacetime, or object, will increase 4 times.
The volume of any object is a distance measure cubed, times some constant,
D^3 x k = S = A Volume of spacetime.
Combining the relationships results in the following
D^3 = k T^2
Rewriting the above equation we get
D = k T^(2/3)
Taking the first derivative with respect to absolute time we get how the absolute velocity will vary for two points in spacetime
V = k (2/3) / T^1/3
Similarly for Acceleration we get
A = (-k 2/9)/T^(4/3)
We do not know the value for k but since this is a geometrically described rate of expansion, it is possible to state that at a particular time, T1, points in spacetime are a particular distance D1. Similarly at another later time, T2, the objects are at location D2. Dividing the two relationships by each other eliminates the constants resulting in
D1 = k T1^(2/3)
D2 = k T2^(2/3)
D1/D2 = (T1/T2)^(2/3)
Similarly for Velocity and Acceleration we get
V2/V1 =(T1/T2)^(1/3)
A2/A1 = (T1/T2)^(4/3)
These formulas are actually field formulas in that they describe, in absolute measures, the properties of an object in free space. (Free space means that no other unaccounted force is acting.)
The Ratios of Time
(Capitol letters indicate “absolute measures”, 1 and 2 are earlier and later measures respectively)
D1/D2 == (T1/T2)^(2/3)
V2/V1 == (T1/T2)^(1/3)
A2/A1 == (T1/T2)^(4/3)
E2/E1 == (T1/T2)^(2/3)
These relationships preserve celestial stability
I then went on to show that Celestial Stability was preserved in such a model. If the Distance between the orbiting bodies increased in absolute measures by the D1/D2 ratio, and the absolute Velocity varied by the V2/V1 ratio, then celestial stability was preserved.
These relationships preserve relative measures of time
I also showed that all clocks or physical processes kept their relative measure of time if the Absolute measures of the physical process varied as predicted by the Ratios of Time relationships. If one clock or physical process slowed a certain amount with the expansion of spacetime, all other clocks or physical processes all slowed down the same amount, preserving the local measure of relative time. (The one possible exception was the rates of nuclear decay since it appears the expansion of spacetime stops at the boundary or structure of the nucleus)
An apparent physical inconsistency
CharlesEGrant astutely observed that it appeared that the formulas presented were not being physically applied the correct way. (In the original post I stated that I did a “trick” and was wondering if anyone would catch it, CharlesEGrant did). (Also, thank you TobinDax who also checked the math).
The following example illustrates the physical inconsistency that CharlesEGrant discovered.
Lets say the distance between two points varies as D = 1/2 aT^2, which is the equation that expresses how far an object falls while experiencing a constant acceleration, if initially “at rest”, (D = distance, a = acceleration, T = time). The derivative of that relationship will determine how the velocity of the falling object varies over time. V = AT. Velocity is a vector relationship, meaning it has a magnitude and direction. Note that the direction of the velocity vector is in the same direction as the line that is changing length. The object is falling down, a line connecting the starting point to the falling object is drawn going down, the vector velocity of the falling object is also drawn “pointing” down. If a distance measure is defined by a function of time, the derivative of the relationship will yield a speed relationship with the velocity vector “in line”, or parallel to the relationship defining the distance measures.
In the development of the Ratio of Times Formulas, the Absolute distance measure was described as
D = k T^(2/3)
The first derivative of this with respect to absolute time results in how the Absolute Velocity varies,
V = k (2/3) / T^1/3
This would seem to imply that this describes the relative velocity between the two points described by D. The resulting direction of this Velocity would be expected to be parallel to the Distance measure.
However, when the Ratios of Time formulas were used for the check of orbital stability and the check for the consistency of relative measures of time, the Velocity appeared to be varying perpendicular to the distance measure, not parallel to the distance measure.
For example, using the Ratio of times formula, when the Radius of orbit doubled, the velocity of the object, which is perpendicular to the radius measure, was reduced by or divided by the square root of two times the original velocity.
This incongruity of the direction of the change in velocity vector to being perpendicular to distance measure needs to be explained, otherwise the model is mathematically incongruous or simply stated, wrong.
Resolving the issue with a “balloon bubble”
The incongruity can be resolved by considering the physical model from which the formulas are derived.
dS/dT = T “a little change in space per a little interval of time equals Time”.
What is changing is a volume of space, not just a distance measure. The velocity of an object diminishes with the expansion of spacetime, not a change in distance.
Consider a balloon filled with air. The surface tension in the balloon is a result of the internal pressure exerted by the moving atoms and molecules within the balloon hitting the wall of the balloon.
Now reduce the tension in the surface of the balloon. With less surface tension, the balloon will expand. The rebounding atoms within the balloon will have less momentum and there will be a corresponding loss of Kinetic Energy. Repeated collisions of the atoms within the balloon, results in a distribution of the loss of kinetic energy, which results in a reduction in the Temperature within the balloon.
While there is a specific distance measure that is increasing, the reduction in the velocity of the atoms in the balloon is general and not dependant upon the direction of motion. Only the averaged speed of the atoms is affected. The direction of motion makes no difference, so there is no vector relationship imposed, only a magnitude, or speed.
The analogy
Like the example of air in a balloon, it is proposed that infinitesimal elements of matter are contained with in infinitesimal “balloons” or “bubbles of spacetime”, dS. If the infinitesimal mass is in motion within the infinitesimal “bubble”, then it will encounter the retreating walls of the expanding bubble of spacetime it is “confined” to, and the subsequent rebound from the retreating “walls” of the bubble results in an overall loss of energy within the “bubble”.
Since the sum of the parts equals the total, any universal change in all the infinitesimal parts, is reflected in the sum of the parts. This means that the loss of kinetic energy from an absolute perspective will be independent of scale. The moving mass could be the size of an electron or a galaxy; they all will experience a loss in absolute velocity with the expansion of spacetime
Locally, the observation of the loss of Kinetic Energy will not be measured since all physical processes or clock speeds are slowing down in the exact proportion to maintain the relative measures of Energy and Momentum. The principles of Conservation of Energy and Momentum become established as geometrically based relationships based on a specific rate of expansion.
However, objects observed in the past should provide evidence of this increased velocity.
I am veering off onto the large-scale verification of the model, and before closing this post I’d like to present a few comments about the quantum scale characteristics of the model
Like a Snowflake
If matter is discretely located within infinitesimal volumes, this implies that there is region outside the spacetime “bubbles” in which matter is contained. We have our “bubble bound reality” within an “unformed” measure of distance and time. This “unformed” structure surrounds all of reality and slowly integrates pieces of itself into, or as part of existing structure. It is a bit like a growing snowflake. The existing structure of the snowflake provides the foundation for the expansion of the snowflake.
Living in a Sea
Dirac had expressed, according to Gamow, the belief that our reality may be within some kind of outside structure. The analogy used was a fish floating in a sea. The fish would not “know” that it was living within a sea of water. This model is consistent with Dirac’s perspective, our reality composed of “bubbles of spacetime” which is within a “sea” of the unformed measures of distance and time.
Vacuum pressure
The infinitesimal bubble model also lends itself to considering the pressure outside the bubble; if there were no pressure containing the bubble, the bubble would expand uncontrollably. There should be a corresponding “vacuum pressure” inherent in our reality. Using Dirac’s sea analogy, like the fish in a sea, we would not be directly aware of this pressure since it is uniformly integrated in every direction. This “vacuum” pressure should vary over time according to relationships consistent with the geometric expansion of spacetime.
Does my explanation of an infinitesimal “bubble” resolve CharlesEGrant’s issue?
The idea of an infinitesimal volume is a part of the basic premise of the model, dS/dT = T, so the model is physically consistent. The requirement that the Absolute Velocity of a mass changes with the same exact geometric/ algebraic relationship defining the expansion itself, can either be viewed as an unproven assumption or as an indication of the inter-dimensional geometry involved. Since the inter-dimensional geometry results in the inverse square laws, and the conservation principals of energy and momentum, I am inclined to belief the relationship is not arbitrary but defining form.
I think the next review of the various critiques of the Uniform Expansion model will be regarding the application of the model to observation, with the particular emphasis for evidence that the effect of gravity was more powerful in the past. There have been some good critiques of the observational evidence I presented that I feel are worthwhile reviewing. (Although I was a little disappointed in the lack of response to the assertion that when the model is applied to Type 1a supernovas, no dark energy was needed in order for the observed brightness to correlate to the red shift. The dimmer than expected Type 1a supernovas would be predictable because with an increased effect of gravity in the past, it would take less mass to reach the Chandrasekhar limiting pressure and a smaller supernova would be dimmer).
However, if anyone feels that they would like specific issues discussed that were brought out by others, or there are issues you feel are a problem for the proposed model, please let me know. I will try to nibble away at the questions.
Thank you
Snowflake
Hi Celestial Mechanic
You finished your posting with
So, snowflakeuniverse, can you come up with a valid statement and proof of your primary equation? After all, your theory depends on it.
The “proof” of a model, is verified by it’s conformance to observation.
Using the proposed model, based on the equations that are produced,
1. The expansion of the Universe becomes “flat” there is no dark energy
2. The inverse square law becomes a geometrically determined characteristic of an expanding spacetime field
3. The Principals of Conservation of Energy and Momentum become geometrically derived from a Uniform Expansion of spacetime.
4. A dimensional analysis using the Principal of Equivalence, supports the dimensional relationships involved.
5. The rate by which the effect of gravity diminishes with the passage of Cosmic time resolves a number of age issues in the standard limited expansion model
6. By having the expansion of spacetime occur a small “piece” at a time, at a certain geometric rate to produce the inverse square laws, it becomes possible to unite quantum physics with gravity using the same physical process or structure. The model is a true Unified Field Theory.
Snowflake
Here's the (snowflakeuniverse) source/claim:Originally Posted by snowflakeuniverseAs it stands, without qualification, it seems to refer to 'all quasars, throughout the (observable) universe'.1. Quasars have a high cosmological red shift, (The bell shaped distribution has a peak with a z of 2.)
The SDSS QSO Catalog III, from which Figure 3 is cited (by Ari), contains a distribution of observed quasars, from several sources, and on which the authors of the paper have entered numerous caveats and careful statements about selection effects.
Further, the distribution in Figure 3 is anything but 'bell shaped', even if you do not mean 'gaussian' (your audience will almost certainly expect you to enter a caveat, or qualification, if you do not mean 'gaussian').
If it is important, for your idea, that the number of quasars - density on the sky, or in space - declines significantly, beyond z ~ 2, then a (serious) challenge to your idea could be made - show that the apparent decline in such QSOs, beyond z ~ 2, still holds, when all relevant selection effects are taken into account.Indeed. How important is it, to the SFU idea, that there be a periodicity (in, or of, what)?There has also been some discussion in this forum as to the periodicity observed at large red shifts.
Snowflake.
Here are my questions; I've added numbers:Well, that's some of the questions.A. Many galaxies are are observed to have redshifts that are higher than many quasars. In terms of the snowflakeuniverse idea ("The first check for the verification is to see what happens when galaxy is observed in the distant past (z of 2). The energy production of a quasar results. NO BLACK HOLE NECESSARY."), how come we observe many 'galaxies' with higher redshifts than many 'quasars'?
B (i) What has this got to do with "standard stellar physics speeded up"?
B (ii) Has the snowflakeuniverse idea been (drastically) revised, in the last ~9 months?
C. What is the quantitative relationship between 'moving' ('velocity relative to the "fabric of spacetime"'?) and the speed of evolution, for quasars?
D. What is the quantitative relationship between 'moving fast and evolving slowly' and the likelihood of 'encounter[ing] or pass[ing] by quasars/galaxies that are not in motion'?
E. And how well does this 'explanation' match the huge amount of quantitative data, wrt 'quasars seen near host galaxies'?
F. I don't follow this at all - can you write down the relevant equations please?
G. Also, is the snowflakeuniverse idea a geocentric one? I mean, if the 'velocities relative to the "fabric of spacetime"' are random, why don't we see lots of transverse motion? Or approximately equal numbers of blueshifted galaxies (and quasars)?
H. I don't follow - are you claiming that, if I select a significant sample (say, 100) of quasars with the same redshift (say, 2 ± 0.1), these quasars will have very similar magnitudes (say, ±1, in U, B, or V)?
I. Does this same 'snowflakeuniverse effect' apply to galaxies?
J. How does this happen?
K. I mean, is the 'gravitional tearing apart of their initial structure' essentially a tidal effect? If so, what were the timescales? what speeds? how massive were (are?) the quasars that did the disrupting? to what extent where the 'surrounding quasars' also disrupted?
L. And what is the quantitative relationship between the 'disrupting' and the energy output of BL Lacs and Seyferts?
M. This seems to be a new feature of the snowflakeuniverse idea, is it?
Here is snowflakeuniverse's reply:This answer seems to address the following questions, at least in part: C, D, G; although, as snowflakeuniverse says, not quantitatively.Originally Posted by snowflakeuniverse
Wrt G: how come there are no blue-shifted quasars at all? How come the only blueshifted galaxies are all (very) local?
snowflakeuniverse, could you please at least outline how your answer addresses the other ~10 questions that I asked?
So what? Even a stopped clock is correct twice a day. Your theory rests on feet of clay, and your list of bullet points could follow from things not at all related to your theory. For example, the conservation laws of energy-momentum and angular momentum follow from translation invariance and Lorentz invariance of the Lagrangian, expansion of space(time) does not enter into it. So my question remains unanswered, therefore I ask it again: can you come up with a valid statement and proof of your primary equation? Please don't give a list of supposed consequences of the equation--give a real derivation of your equation.Originally Posted by snowflakeuniverse
So, you are still starting with a non-sensical equation. As we can read from what you have written here there is a difference between "=" (being an total equality) and "==" (being a proportional to, usually people use "~" for proportional).Originally Posted by snowflakeuniverse
So your definition of time dS/dT = T means that the unit of time is not seconds, otherwise your equation cannot have a "=" and you find from your intergration that space has the unit seconds^{2}, but I think usually the unit is cubic meters.
There has been enough critique on this simple thing. Being versed in math and physics, I see that your starting equation is wrong and hence your whole theorie that you build on this starting equation is wrong. This has been pointed out by Celestial Mechanics, in very eloquent mails, and he has shown you how to do it better.
All comments made in red are moderator comments. Please, read the rules of the forum here and read the additional rules for ATM, and for conspiracy theories. If you think a post is inappropriate, don't comment on it in thread but report it using the /!\ button in the lower left corner of each message. But most of all, have fun!
Catch me on twitter: @tusenfem
Catch Rosetta Plasma Consortium on twitter: @Rosetta_RPC
Hi Tusenfem
Thanks for the comments,
You, and Celestial Mechanic make the same mistake. You rush to judgment without even trying to understand.
When you criticized the formula you failed to acknowledge the complete explanation of “==”
I said
(The == notation can be considered as meaning “proportional to”, but the relationship is more analogous to the relationship described by the speed of light, a relationship between spacetime and time)
Your criticisms makes no reference to the last part of the definition of ==, which is an effort to explain the dimensional incongruity., What you left out was
a relationship between spacetime and time) You, and Celestial Mechanic missed that statement.
For example
C = D/T
The speed of light = distance / time
In many mathematical developments of relativity, the dimensional relationship of the speed of light is equated to 1, c = 1. A simplistic interpretation of the dimensional balance of any relationship based on equating the speed of light to ‘1’ would say that is wrong, D/T is not the same as D/D or T/T. Would you say that any mathematical model that takes advantage of the geometric relationship between measures of distance and time is also wrong? If you do, than you have issues with relativity. This same kind of geometric relationship explains the dimensional “imbalance” in dS/dT == T, it is describing a geometric relationship between Absolute spacetime and Absolute Time. If you prefer, dS/dT / T ==1.
Also, regardless of the dimensional issues, if you bothered to read further in the development of the model, I use a constant term k, which can take on dimensional parameters, which should have resolved your concerns. If you bothered to read a little further into the development of the theory, you would have seen that all constant terms that do carry dimensions are canceled out, resulting in dimensionless relationships based on geometric relationships.
Ratios of Time
The Ratios of Time
(Capitol letters indicate “absolute measures”, 1 and 2 are earlier and later measures respectively)
D1/D2 == (T1/T2)^(2/3)
V2/V1 == (T1/T2)^(1/3)
A2/A1 == (T1/T2)^(4/3)
E2/E1 == (T1/T2)^(2/3)
Snowflake