# Thread: Critiques of Presentation of Uniform Expansion Theory

1. snowflakeuniverse:

I find your reply concerning the constancy of k very disappointing. You give the following equation:

k=(3/2)*sqrt(2)*c/T1/3.

Let's parse the equation, OK? (3/2) is a constant, check. sqrt(2) is a constant, check. c is constant, check. T1/3 is not a constant. Therefore k is not a constant. Well, (3/2) and sqrt(2) are most definitely constants, can't do anything about that. What about c? We can make k a constant if c(T)=c0T1/3, so that it cancels the time dependence in the equation. But wait a minute! T1/3 is an increasing function of time! Didn't you say that the speed in the "unobserved dimension" which is sqrt(2)*c is decreasing? I have pointed it out and I will point it out again: your work is riddled with mathematical errors where some quantities are held to be constant and then at other times revealed to be time-dependent, rendering your proofs invalid.

A perfect example is when you write:
Originally Posted by snowflakeuniverse
k is still a constant. Consider the expression of an object experiencing a constant acceleration ...
Is anything in your model experiencing a constant acceleration? If so, then why do you have A==(-2/9*k)/T4/3, which is manifestly not constant? Again you are using formulas blindly without regard to domain of applicability.

That is why I am going to continue to insist on a decent proof of your fundamental equation. You may say:
Originally Posted by snowflakeuniverse
Perhaps it is best that we leave this question as unanswered by your perspective and answered by my perspective.
I find this utterly unacceptable. If you expect to ever take the stage at a real scientific meeting you are going to have to answer questions like mine, especially concerning the equation(s) fundamental to your theory.

So, once again, my questions about your fundamental equation:

1. Why the volume of space? Why not something else?

2. Why is the time dependence T? Why not T2 or T3 or even sinh(T/T0)?

Do not give a laundry list of successes you attribute to this equation, I'm only interested in a reasoned, not necessarily rigorous proof of your fundamental equation. I'm still waiting.

To be continued ...

2. Established Member
Join Date
Sep 2003
Posts
943
Hi Celestial Mechanic

The technique and methodology for determining the value of a constant in an algebraic expression is a first year algebra task.

I tried to illustrate the methodology with an example of s = 1/2 a t^2, This equation was used to illustrate how to determine a constant, (in this case “a”) by knowing the value of the variables s and t. This is the same technique I used to determine the value of k in “k=(3/2)*sqrt(2)*c/T^(1/3).”

Just as one can determine the value of a constant “a” in s = 1/2 a t^2 by knowing the value of the variables “s” and “t “at a particular moment, one can determine the value of “k” in “k=(3/2)*sqrt(2)*c/T^(1/3).” by knowing the value of c and T at a particular moment.

Continued.

Snowflake

3. Established Member
Join Date
Sep 2003
Posts
943
Celestial Mechanic continued

So, once again, my questions about your fundamental equation:

1. Why the volume of space? Why not something else?

2. Why is the time dependence T? Why not T2 or T3 or even sinh(T/T0)?

Do not give a laundry list of successes you attribute to this equation, I'm only interested in a reasoned, not necessarily rigorous proof of your fundamental equation. I'm still waiting.

1. Why a volume of space?

This is a good question and it is kind of a new one.

The reason for considering a volume of spacetime is to explain the properties of a mass and have that explanation to be similar to that of describing the properties of spacetime.

Mass is usually treated as if it is its own “dimension”, at least if one is trying to dimensionally balance an equation like F = MA, or F =g M1 M2 / D^2

In general relativity the relationships are based upon measures of distance and time, and this, to me, indicates a kind of “truth”, all we have to describe our universe are measures of distance and time. This presents the “challenge” of describing mass using just rulers and clocks.

I also held the idea that the same general description of a mass should apply to that of spacetime itself. The dimensional relationships that describe mass should be formally the same as describing spacetime.

If we observe an object in spacetime, lets say a cat, and we were to describe its location in spacetime, we would establish an array of points that describe the shape of the cat. These points that describe the cat are also separated by intervals of relative time. To complete the description of the cat, I add an additional measure of time, the historical location of the cat, relative to the beginning of time.

Inherent in this description of the cat, is that there is a volume being described with temporal relationships within the cat and there is a historical location of the cat. (Who has just left my desk.)

Similarly, spacetime can be described the same way, as a matrix of points separated by intervals of time with a given historical location.

The same methodology for describing spacetime and an object appealed to me, and it is from that perspective I approached my theoretical works. Reality would not be described by abstract and arbitrary coordinate systems but by unifying physical characteristics.

Question 2
Why is the time dependence T? Why not T2 or T3 or even sinh(T/T0)?

I have answered this before, but basically the reason a volume of spacetime varies to the square of the absolute time elapsed is because it works.

1. The relationship allows one to dimensionally balance F = MA and F = MM/D^2 with no constants that carry “units” (specifically “g”).
2. Any other relationship would not establish the inverse square laws as a characteristic of spacetime
3. Any other relationship would not establish the principles of conservation of momentum and energy to be a characteristic of spacetime based upon a geometric relationship
4. Any other relationship would not preserve the relative proportional measures of time
5. The proposed relationship predicts that the effect of gravity diminishes with the passage of absolute time, just as Dirac and Gamow believed.

The verification or more detailed explanation of the above relationships can be found in the original posting presented to the students.

Snowflake

4. Originally Posted by snowflakeuniverse
[Snip!] Similarly, spacetime can be described the same way, as a matrix of points separated by intervals of time with a given historical location.
And that is where your train of thought derails. The matrix of points in spacetime is NOT separated by intervals of time, they are separated by intervals of distance. Just because you can divide this distance by c to obtain a time does not make it a time. The intervals separating points are space-like four-vectors.
Originally Posted by snowflakeuniverse
The same methodology for describing spacetime and an object appealed to me, and it is from that perspective I approached my theoretical works. Reality would not be described by abstract and arbitrary coordinate systems but by unifying physical characteristics.
And how do these "unifying physical characteristics" lead to any kind of a useful result? How, for example, does the "unifying physical characteristics" (whatever those may be) of the Sun and the Earth enable me to determine the mutual gravitational pull of the two bodies upon one another? Don't I have to know the distance between the two? How do I measure the distance without a really, really, really long tape measure? I have to introduce a coordinate system in order to even begin making sense of any observations that could lead to this determination. Your use of the words "abstract and arbitrary" strike me as code words of math-phobia.
Originally Posted by snowflakeuniverse
Originally Posted by Celestial Mechanic
Question 2
Why is the time dependence T? Why not T2 or T3 or even sinh(T/T0)?
I have answered this before, but basically the reason a volume of spacetime varies to the square of the absolute time elapsed is because it works.
A weak answer at best. Have you demonstrated that out of ALL possible functions f(T) that you could have used in dS/dT=f(T), that k*T and ONLY k*T leads to a sensible theory. I'll bet you can't.
Originally Posted by snowflakeuniverse
1. The relationship allows one to dimensionally balance F = MA and F = MM/D^2 with no constants that carry “units” (specifically “g”).
Again you give a laundry list. I will only comment on the first one as the others do not follow exclusively from your theory, there are other reasons for their validity.

What you are really doing above is chosing units by setting G=1. This is legitimate, but you must remember that you are doing it. You have not made constants that carry units "go away". They are still there and you must be prepared to restore G to the equations if needed to facilitate computations in SI units. The same is true of all scientific theories that set one or more of c, h-bar, G, e (unit of electrostatic charge, not the number e), or the mass of some particle equal to 1 for the sake of convenience.
Last edited by Celestial Mechanic; 2006-Jul-09 at 05:21 AM.

5. Now I move to your answers to my five questions.
Originally Posted by Celestial Mechanic
1. Why do you only count the three observed dimensions when forming your fundamental equation?
Originally Posted by snowflakeuniverse
I apply the expansion formula to more than the three common dimensions that are usually described by an x, y, and z axis.
Not an answer to my question. Why do you only consider volume of space, S, in your fundamental equation? Why does S have units of m3 instead of m4 or m5 or whatever dimensionality your "spacetime" with all its "unobserved" dimensions has?
Originally Posted by snowflakeuniverse
But first I should state that my definition for dimension is tied to how physical measures change, and not an abstract coordinate system. What is traditionally described as a three-dimensional space, with an x, y and z measure, actually represents one spatial measure/dimension with three degrees of freedom. Degrees of freedom becomes a dimensional relationship, based on my definition.
And that's your problem, you redefine words in an ad hoc manner and sling around a bunch of terms you don't understand, such as degree of freedom.
Originally Posted by snowflakeuniverse
For example, according to my definition, what would traditionally be defined as a four-dimensional space would be descrribed as one spatial dimension with four degrees of freedom. Four spatial dimensions, by my definition, would require the four spatial measures to correspond to four unique physical characteristics.
And somehow three or four or possibly more directions orthogonal to one another is not unique enough?
Originally Posted by snowflakeuniverse
The three spatial dimensions that conform to the expansion formula dS/dT~T are:

1. Distance measures describing relationships along the unobserved dimension.
2. Distance measures describing gravitational relationships.
3. Distance measures describing electromagnetic relationships.
And why are these different? Distance is distance, or to paraphrase Gertrude Stein, "A rod is a rod is a rod." And even if they are different, it is not enough to constitute separate "dimensions" for each of them.
Also, the expansion formula is based upon a derivation using "absolute" time, which introduces two dimensions of time, relative measures of time and absolute measures of time.
Two different measures of one and the same thing, NOT two different things and certainly not two dimensions. Get over it. As Gertrude might say, "A clock is a clock is a clock."
Originally Posted by snowflakeuniverse
Distance measures describing forces within the nucleus do not conform to the expansion formula.
At what level does your "unlimited" expansion start? At the atomic? At the level of ordinary objects? Planets? Solar Systems? Galaxies? Clusters of galaxies? Perhaps it's time for you to examine the basic premises of your "theory" regarding expansion and its "limits".

To be continued ...

6. Established Member
Join Date
Sep 2003
Posts
943
Hi Celestial Mechanic
After reading your response, I find that none of your arguments invalidate the proposed model.

1. I have proposed a very specific rate of expansion, with very specific formulas.
2. I have shown how relative measures of time will slow at a very predictable rate, this necessitates the establishment of an “absolute” clock to describer how relative measures of time change.
3. I have shown how the basic geometry of the model produces the inverse square laws as a characteristic of spacetime
4. I have shown how the principals of conservation of energy and momentum are geometrically predicted by the proposed expansion.
5. I have shown that the effect of gravity would diminish at a very predictable rate
6. I have asserted that the proposed model does not require any dark energy for explaining the observed brightness of Type 1a supernovas and their cosmological red shift.
7. I have shown that the proposed model does not require any dark matter to preserve the structure in spiral galaxies.

All of your attempts to discredit the model mathematically have failed; (an example is your assertion that I did not derive “k” in my equations. All I used was elementary algebra. It appears you now understand what I did).

Just because the physical descriptions I use are different than that traditionally used by the “mainstream,” does nothing to invalidate the model. So what if I chose to look at volumes of spacetime as opposed to distance measures alone. So what if I require a dimension to correspond to a physical measure or property rather than a coordinate system. So what if I add motion to our observable spacetime along an “unobserved” dimension. None of these are really relevant issues in determining the validity of the model.

Theoretical models fail because they are either physically inconsistent or do not correspond to observation.

The “mainstream” limited expansion model is physically inconsistent. The principal of equivalence is violated with regards to conservation of energy.

The ‘mainstream’ limited expansion model does not correspond to observation, unless one adds “dark energy“ and “dark matter” to the model.

The Uniform Expansion Theory is physically consistent.
The Uniform Expansion Theory requires no Dark Energy and No Dark Matter.

Snowflake

7. ARRGGHHH!!! Another laundry list! OK, one more time:
Originally Posted by snowflakeuniverse
Hi Celestial Mechanic
After reading your response, I find that none of your arguments invalidate the proposed model.

1. I have proposed a very specific rate of expansion, with very specific formulas.
Whose derivation rests on pillars of sand.
Originally Posted by snowflakeuniverse
2. I have shown how relative measures of time will slow at a very predictable rate, this necessitates the establishment of an “absolute” clock to describer how relative measures of time change.
You have shown no such thing. What experiments show this?
Originally Posted by snowflakeuniverse
3. I have shown how the basic geometry of the model produces the inverse square laws as a characteristic of spacetime.
Geometry that is neither intrinsic nor unique to your model.
Originally Posted by snowflakeuniverse
4. I have shown how the principles of conservation of energy and momentum are geometrically predicted by the proposed expansion.
No, conservation principles are a consequence of the invariance of the Lagrangian under translations and rotations. You really ought to read up on Noether's theorem sometime.
Originally Posted by snowflakeuniverse
5. I have shown that the effect of gravity would diminish at a very predictable rate.
At what rate does G change in your theory? At the moment, the best upper bound on (dG/dt)/G is on the order of 10-11 yr-1. Is your value consistent with this?
Originally Posted by snowflakeuniverse
6. I have asserted that the proposed model does not require any dark energy for explaining the observed brightness of Type 1a supernovas and their cosmological red shift.
7. I have shown that the proposed model does not require any dark matter to preserve the structure in spiral galaxies.
Your model succeeds where it does only because of its resemblence to a matter-dominated universe with flat spatial geometry. It is utterly incapable of handling these last two issues.
Originally Posted by snowflakeuniverse
All of your attempts to discredit the model mathematically have failed; (an example is your assertion that I did not derive “k” in my equations. All I used was elementary algebra. It appears you now understand what I did).
Yes, I do. You ASSUMED k to be a constant when differentiating D to obtain V, V to obtain A. You ASSUMED that you could use ordinary relations for uniform acceleration to solve for k and obtained a formula for k where k has time-dependence. Your whole "theory" is riddled with such blundering mathematical incompetence.
Originally Posted by snowflakeuniverse
Just because the physical descriptions I use are different than that traditionally used by the “mainstream,” does nothing to invalidate the model. So what if I chose to look at volumes of spacetime as opposed to distance measures alone. So what if I require a dimension to correspond to a physical measure or property rather than a coordinate system. So what if I add motion to our observable spacetime along an “unobserved” dimension. None of these are really relevant issues in determining the validity of the model.
They are relevant. Volume is relevant because that is what you chose to use in your fundamental equation. The "unobserved" dimension and its existence/non-existence is relevant. And your insistence on redefining terms with already well-known and understood meanings guarantees that most of a reviewer or referee's efforts will be expended on trying to fathom what you mean by your use of the words--at least until they hit the first of your mathematical errors.

My suggestion is "Get thee to a library". Really concentrate on the math and physics. Understand what the current models say before you attempt to criticize. And understand the mathematical tools before you attempt to theorize.

8. Established Member
Join Date
Sep 2003
Posts
943
Hi Celestial Mechanic

Regarding the rate that the effect of gravity varies
You stated,
At what rate does G change in your theory? At the moment, the best upper bound on (dG/dt)/G is on the order of 10^-11 yr^-1. Is your value consistent with this?

The gravitational constant does not vary in this model, the effect of gravity does. It is the density of systems that decreases with the expansion of spacetime.

The accelerative field due to the expansion of observable space was shown to vary by the following relationship.

A1/A2 = T2/T1 ^ (4/3)

Assume a 10 billion year old universe,
Compare over a 1 year interval of time.

A1/A2 = (10,000,000,001/10,000,000,000)^(4/3)

In one year there would be a variation of about 1 part in 10^-10 which technically would appear to be measurable, according to your post,

However, how would this be measured?

It has been shown that all physical process all slow down at the same rate, thereby making any local measure of this small change over the passage of a year impossible.

For example,

Lets say we use a pendulum clock to measure intervals of time. Since the effect of gravity diminishes with the expansion of the Earth and the Clock, one would expect to measure an increase in the period of the clock and thus evidence of the expansion of spacetime and the diminished effect of gravity.

But all local clocks will also slow down the same proportional rate, resulting in no measurable change in period of the pendulum clock, which makes the local observation of the change in the effect of gravity impossible to measure.

However, objects observed in the past should bear evidence of the increased effect of gravity in the past, as well as faster clock rates. This effect has been empirically verified.

Snowflake

9. Order of Kilopi
Join Date
Mar 2004
Posts
13,440
Originally Posted by snowflakeuniverse
Hi Nereid,
One of the criticisms you make is that I have not provided quantitative answers. While I have not responded to every one your many questions with a quantitative analysis, I have been making a good faith effort to do so.

Also, while the responses to your many questions have not been quantitative, many of the responses have been consistent with predictions or characteristics of the model. The majority of the questions involve the prediction that the effect of gravity should be greater in the past and the observational evidence of this effect.
It seems that we have a significant communication gap.

That you sincerely believe what you have written, in terms of high-level summaries*, I do not doubt.

However, I (for one) find your presentions inconsistent, vague, ad hoc, and quite incomplete. Or, as Celestial Mechanic wrote, "And that's your problem, you redefine words in an ad hoc manner and sling around a bunch of terms you don't understand".

Our recent (and not so recent) exchanges on quasars is an example (more later).
However where I have provided a quantitative analysis for your review, you have chosen to ignore the analysis, which is a little disappointing.

Examples of quantitative analysis I offered for your review
1. A quantitative explanation that eliminated the need for dark matter in spiral galaxies,
If the No Dark Matter thread, which you began, is what you are referring to, then I would counter that it could serve as a good example of what I (and CM) have just described - inconsisent use of (essentially undefined) terms, confusion and inconsistency when details are examined (or questions asked), and (not included in the above) apparent inability to defend the ideas presented against relatively simple, straight-forward challenges.

If it is not this thread that you are referring to, please state where, in BAUT, you have presented this "quantitative explanation".
2. A quantitative explanation that eliminated the necessity for dark energy based on data from Type 1a supernovas and their observed cosmological red shift.
I seem to have missed this; I will re-read this thread, and look into this claim.
3. A quantitative analysis that predicts the principals of conservation of energy and momentum as a characteristic of spacetime.
4. A quantitative analysis that predicts the effect of gravity is a function of absolute time, just a Dirac and Gamow believed.
To the extent that "quasars" provide a good observational test of these last two "quantitative analyses", I'm sure you'd agree that what you have presented, in this thread, doesn't even get you to first base (e.g. not even a working definition of 'quasar', let alone an OOM quantitative match between your idea and observation).
I have presented a model that does not require dark energy. This is a pretty big deal.

I have presented a model that does not require dark matter to preserved the dynamic structure of spiral galaxies. This is a pretty big deal.

I also have the detailed quantitative analysis to back this claim.

Snowflake.
Let's get back to quasars, shall we?

Here is a simple, straight-forward, question:

In the SFU idea, what are "quasars"?

Here is a second, straight-forward, question:

To the extent that the templates labelled 30, 31, 32, and 33, on this SDSS page are of objects for which the term "quasars", as defined within the SFU idea, is applicable, to what (OOM) extent does the SFU idea match these spectra?

*such as "many of the responses have been consistent with predictions or characteristics of the model. The majority of the questions involve the prediction that the effect of gravity should be greater in the past and the observational evidence of this effect."

10. Order of Kilopi
Join Date
Mar 2004
Posts
13,440
Originally Posted by snowflakeuniverse
[snip]

However, objects observed in the past should bear evidence of the increased effect of gravity in the past, as well as faster clock rates. This effect has been empirically verified.

Snowflake
Are "quasars" among the objects included in your "[t]his effect has been empirically verified" claim?

11. Established Member
Join Date
Sep 2003
Posts
943
Hi Nereid,
First I have to thank you for the many links you provide in your posts. They are interesting and I have found them informative.

You asked what I define a “quasar” as.
I have stated this before, a quasar is simply a very young galaxy. This is consistent with “mainstream” explanation of a quasar. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quasar

I presented on this forum a brief quantitative analysis that showed that the energy production of a galaxy, when observed far enough in the past, would result in the energy production equivalent to that of a quasar, which is about 100 times that of a galaxy. The analysis also provided a different explanation for the cause of the energy variations observed from quasars. (Accelerated stellar evolution combined with sequential chain reaction supernovas as opposed to matter falling into a super massive black hole).

Also

(Note a few of years ago the Wikipedia link to quasars listed the energy production to be 100 to 1,000 times that of a galaxy. It appears that gravitational lensing was amplifying the luminosity, based on the changes reflected in the 7/2006 Wikipedia article)

The analysis provided by me also offered a different explanation for the cause of the energy variations observed from quasars. (Accelerated stellar evolution as opposed to matter falling into a super massive black hole).

As you repeatedly point out in your postings to me, there should be correspondence of the theory to observation. I thought of an observational “test” of the proposed explanation.

See next post.

Snowflake

12. Established Member
Join Date
Sep 2003
Posts
943

## Doppler effect and the Energy variation in Quasars

Prediction – Doppler effect and the Energy variation in Quasars

Quasars exhibit a variation in the production of energy. Some variations last days, some last weeks, months, even years.

The “mainstream” explanation for this variation is the variation in the magnitude and density of the masses inrushing towards a “super massive black hole”

The “Uniform Expansion Model” explanation for this variation is cascading chain reactions of miniature, densely packed supernovas. Since the effect of gravity is much greater in the past, it takes less mass to form a star. What today takes enough mass to form 1 star would form hundreds of miniature stars in the past. If one of these stars becomes a supernova, there would be initiated a chain reaction of super novas due to the much denser stellar population.

Method to Verify model
There should be observational verification of the proposed model. The verification involves a study of the spectra emitted during an intensification of the energy output from the quasar.

Spectra is the light emitted by elements and molecules. If the source is in motion when producing the spectra, there is a corresponding Doppler shift. Motion away from the observer causes a “red” shift, or a lengthening of the wavelength of the spectra and motion towards the observer results in a “blue” shift.

If the source of the energy variation from a quasar is the result of matter falling into a “super massive black hole”, than the spectra should be additionally red shifted. While there would be matter falling into the alleged super massive black hole corresponding to a direction towards our perspective resulting in a “blue shift”, there should be less of this blue-shifted spectra observed due to the absorption effects of the dust and gasses surrounding the “black hole”.

(There should also be a gravitational red shifting, which would also be observed in the Uniform Expansion model. This red shift would be relatively constant and not change significantly with a variation in energy output)

However
If the Uniform Expansion explanation for the observed variation in energy is correct, the exact opposite kind of Doppler effect should be observed. As the energy produced increases, there should be a corresponding “blue” shift observed in the spectra. If we are watching the progression of a chain reaction of supernovas approach our perspective, the velocity of the material approaching our perspective would cause a “blue shift” to the spectra. If we are watching a progression of a chain reaction of supernovas move “away” from our perspective, the velocity of the material departing would be red shifted, but this spectra would be reduced in intensity or dimmer due to the dust and debris from the nearer previously exploding supernovas absorbing the spectra.

The test
So, if the “super massive black hole” model is correct, there should be a red shift observed when energy production increases. If the “chain reaction of supernovas” model is correct, there should be a blue shift observed when energy production increases.

Is there observational evidence of any of these effects?

I will place a copy of this post to the “Ask the (mainstream) expert".

Snowflake

13. Established Member
Join Date
Sep 2003
Posts
943

## Question -Doppler effect and the Energy variation in Quasars

Prediction – Doppler effect and the Energy variation in Quasars

Quasars exhibit a variation in the production of energy. Some variations last days, some last weeks, months, even years.

The “mainstream” explanation for this variation is the variation in the magnitude and density of the masses inrushing towards a “super massive black hole”

The “Uniform Expansion Model” explanation for this variation is cascading chain reactions of miniature, densely packed supernovas. Since the effect of gravity is much greater in the past, it takes less mass to form a star. What today takes enough mass to form 1 star would form hundreds of miniature stars in the past. If one of these stars becomes a supernova, there would be initiated a chain reaction of super novas due to the much denser stellar population.

Method to Verify model
There should be observational verification of the proposed model. The verification involves a study of the spectra emitted during an intensification of the energy output from the quasar.

Spectra is the light emitted by elements and molecules. If the source is in motion when producing the spectra, there is a corresponding Doppler shift. Motion away from the observer causes a “red” shift, or a lengthening of the wavelength of the spectra and motion towards the observer results in a “blue” shift.

If the source of the energy variation from a quasar is the result of matter falling into a “super massive black hole”, than the spectra should be additionally red shifted. While there would be matter falling into the alleged super massive black hole corresponding to a direction towards our perspective resulting in a “blue shift”, there should be less of this blue-shifted spectra observed due to the absorption effects of the dust and gasses surrounding the “black hole”.

(There should also be a gravitational red shifting, which would also be observed in the Uniform Expansion model. This red shift would be relatively constant and not change significantly with a variation in energy output)

However
If the Uniform Expansion explanation for the observed variation in energy is correct, the exact opposite kind of Doppler effect should be observed. As the energy produced increases, there should be a corresponding “blue” shift observed in the spectra. If we are watching the progression of a chain reaction of supernovas approach our perspective, the velocity of the material approaching our perspective would cause a “blue shift” to the spectra. If we are watching a progression of a chain reaction of supernovas move “away” from our perspective, the velocity of the material departing would be red shifted, but this spectra would be reduced in intensity or dimmer due to the dust and debris from the nearer previously exploding supernovas absorbing the spectra.

The test
So, if the “super massive black hole” model is correct, there should be a red shift observed when energy production increases. If the “chain reaction of supernovas” model is correct, there should be a blue shift observed when energy production increases.

Is there observational evidence of any of these effects?

Snowflake

14. I moved this post from the Astronomy section to the ATM section. I'm going to look around for Snowflake's thread and merge it there. Snowflakeuniverse, this is a warning. You know better.

Further, your statements about the mainstream model of quasars show some serious lapses. Your "Universal Expansion Model" explanation has some gaps too, for example, how do supernovae have chain reactions?

15. OK, now I merged it, and see you've posted the same thing twice.

BTW, the photons we see coming from quasars should not have any substantial change in redshift when the total luminosity increases (or decreases). This light comes from jets interacting with matter far from the quasar, and is red-shifted according to the cosmological redshift plus the specific velocity of the cold matter the jet is hitting.

Also most of the shorter period variations in quasar brightness are thought to be from gravitational microlensing events. These shouldn't change the redshift either. Speaking of which, if the quasars are not single small sources of light, but numerous simultaneous supernovae, then the microlensing events should not be smooth rise&fall events, but a much more complex image should be derivable. This is especially true with the Einstein Cross quasars where the microlensing events are very frequent.

16. Established Member
Join Date
Sep 2003
Posts
943
Hi Antoniseb

Thanks for your response,

Regarding energy production from quasars

You said,

This light comes from jets interacting with matter far from the quasar, and is red-shifted according to the cosmological redshift plus the specific velocity of the cold matter the jet is hitting.

I thought that the mainstream explanation for the light observed from a quasar was the result of matter being accelerated to near light speeds and the interaction/collision of the matter falling towards the “super massive black hole” in produced heat and light.

Actually the material should spiral in towards the core, which would effect the Doppler shift due to “falling”, but I thought that there should be a Doppler effect observed as the spiraling material fell to the “black hole”.

I have heard of jets emanating from quasars, but have not associated the jets as the primary reason for energy production and the variation in energy production.

(P.S. I thought that since part of this thread would deal with just observational evidence, a separate / dual posting made sense).

Snowflake

17. Established Member
Join Date
Sep 2003
Posts
943
Antoniseb

Regarding my theory – multiple supernova chain reactions

”how do supernovae have chain reactions?”

If a star were close to another star that blows up, the radiation and pressure produced by the exploding star would cause the nearby star to explode.

According to the Uniform Expansion Theory, the effect of gravity was greater in the past since the density of all systems was greater in the past. This would mean that the mass presently required to form a star would be a lot less in the past. One solar mass of today could produce hundreds of mini stars in the past and these stars would be comparatively close. If one of these mini stars blew up, it would cause surrounding stars to similarly explode.

In many ways the successive explosion of near by stars is like a wild fire. The successive mini supernovas will only stop when there is too much distance between stars, or when the wave of explosions encounters a region which has already “burned”.

Snowflake

18. Order of Kilopi
Join Date
Mar 2004
Posts
13,440

## SFU's DE ideas

Originally Posted by Nereid
[snip]
Originally Posted by snowflakeuniverse
2. A quantitative explanation that eliminated the necessity for dark energy based on data from Type 1a supernovas and their observed cosmological red shift.
I seem to have missed this; I will re-read this thread, and look into this claim.

[snip]
It seems that this claim was made several times in this thread; for example, here (extract):
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
and here (extract):
9. I have applied the theory to type 1a supernovas and the observed cosmological red shift. My model requires no dark energy.

This is a pretty strong verification of the model. Just as the bending of light “proved” Einstein’s theory of General Relativity, my model is “proved” by the fact that no dark energy is needed in the model.
The post which presents this quantitative case seems to be #20 (extract; my bold):
No Dark Energy
Type 1a supernovas appear to be dimmer than they should be, based upon the limited expansion models expected rates of expansion. Because they are dimmer than expected, it has been stated that the universe has to be accelerating, and some kind of new unknown source of energy and force would have to be moving the distant galaxies these 1asn’s are in. Hence the invention of Dark Energy.

In the proposed model, Type 1a supernovas should be dimmer for two reasons. The effect of gravity was more powerful in the past, which would reduce the amount of mass necessary to reach the Chandrasekhar limiting pressure, resulting in less energy production. Also, as shown, the distance of an object is further away due to the different relationship describing the cosmological red shift.

The reduction in luminosity of a Type 1a supernova is somewhat predicable, as is the difference in the distance for the cosmological red shift. I have taken the predicted decrease in the luminosity of these supernovas and compared them to that the supernova group has stated in their web site as to what would be required to have a flat universe with no dark matter. The corresponding fit is perfect. No Dark Energy.

It is the application of the Uniform Expansion theory to 1asn’s resulting in a universe with no dark energy that I want to present to the American Astronomical Society.

In the presentation to the class I show the graphs used by the supernova group to show the necessity for dark energy. http://supernova.lbl.gov/ Figure 6. I will show them the predictions my theory makes regarding the expected decrease in luminosity verses red shift.
Is this the key post, in this thread (and, indeed, on BAUT) where the the quantitative 'conformance to observation' was presented?

If so, then it seems that you did not, in fact, present anything quantitative wrt an observational fit (merely summarised, in words, the results of some work you did (or, rather, claim to have done)).

If not, then where (in BAUT) did you present the quantitative case (SFUI predictions vs observational data)?

If you are unable to add an attachment (e.g. "Figure 6", with predictions from the SFUI added), please say so (and we will find a way to get the material presented).

In the meantime, I am very curious about one of your claims (my bold) - "The corresponding fit is perfect". What is your (quantitative) criterion for perfection, wrt fitting astronomical, observational data (1a SNe)?

19. Order of Kilopi
Join Date
Mar 2004
Posts
13,440
Originally Posted by snowflakeuniverse
Hi Nereid,
First I have to thank you for the many links you provide in your posts. They are interesting and I have found them informative.

You asked what I define a “quasar” as.
I have stated this before, a quasar is simply a very young galaxy. This is consistent with “mainstream” explanation of a quasar. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quasar
Leaving aside the issue of the extent to which any wikipedia entry can be considered a good summary of "“mainstream” explanations", and just looking at the "[t]his is consistent with" part:

-> in the mainstream view, quasars are galaxy nuclei (not galaxies)

-> BL Lac objects, blazars, type II quasars, Seyferts, AGN, ... are all closely related, in the mainstream view

-> the ("host") galaxies associated with (most) quasars are separate objects, which have been studied in some detail (an example).

So, with this more accurate summary of what "a quasar" is, in "the mainstream", would you please elaborate on your "very young galaxy" definition/idea? Specifically:

1) what proportion of these "very young galaxies" have disks? halos? bulges?

2) what is the mix of populations of stars (among I, II, and III), that comprises these "very young galaxies"?

3) what is the gas and dust content of these "very young galaxies"?

4) how old are the oldest stars in these "very young galaxies"?

5) how big (in kpc) are there "very young galaxies"?

6) are Seyfert galaxies, and AGN galaxies (such as M87) also "very young galaxies" (in the SFUI)?

7) are Seyfert nuclei, AGNs, blazars, BL Lac objects, Type II quasars (all) also "very young galaxies"?
I presented on this forum a brief quantitative analysis that showed that the energy production of a galaxy, when observed far enough in the past, would result in the energy production equivalent to that of a quasar, which is about 100 times that of a galaxy. The analysis also provided a different explanation for the cause of the energy variations observed from quasars. (Accelerated stellar evolution combined with sequential chain reaction supernovas as opposed to matter falling into a super massive black hole).

Also

(Note a few of years ago the Wikipedia link to quasars listed the energy production to be 100 to 1,000 times that of a galaxy. It appears that gravitational lensing was amplifying the luminosity, based on the changes reflected in the 7/2006 Wikipedia article)
In terms of the (revised?) SFUI, as presented in this thread, may BAUT members rely upon what you presented in those two threads (other than wrt the lensing caveat), as accurate (wrt the SFUI)?
The analysis provided by me also offered a different explanation for the cause of the energy variations observed from quasars. (Accelerated stellar evolution as opposed to matter falling into a super massive black hole).
Indeed.

To what extent is this SFUI analysis quantitative?

Specifically, how well - quantitatively - does application of the SFUI, to "very young galaxies", account for the observed "energy variations observed from quasars"?
As you repeatedly point out in your postings to me, there should be correspondence of the theory to observation. I thought of an observational “test” of the proposed explanation.

See next post.

Snowflake
And I have an even easier one, that can be done by any BAUT member, quantitatively ... and which will very quickly show how well the SFUI (as presented in this thread) matches observations: spectra.

If quasars are "very young galaxies", then their spectra will have the same features as spectra of very young galaxies.

Once snowflakeuniverse has answered the minimum set of the seven questions above, any BAUT member can download the appropriate template spectra (pop I stars, supernovae, gas, dust, ...), and produce their own, synthetic, spectrum of a SFUI "very young galaxy". This data is all freely available, on the web, as are lots and lots of (detailed) quasar spectra (an example).

But perhaps snowflakeuniverse has already done this?

20. Originally Posted by snowflakeuniverse
I thought that the mainstream explanation for the light observed from a quasar was the result of matter being accelerated to near light speeds and the interaction/collision of the matter falling towards the “super massive black hole” in produced heat and light.

Actually the material should spiral in towards the core, which would effect the Doppler shift due to “falling”, but I thought that there should be a Doppler effect observed as the spiraling material fell to the “black hole”.
What made you think such a thing? Certainly not anything in mainstream literature. Yes there is an SMBH involved. It shoots a jet in our general direction (if it's a different direction, we don't see it as a quasar). This jet is not visible photons, it is high energy charged particles. Visible photons are released along the way.

It is good that you're making an effort, but it is surprising to me how little you know about the mainstream model.

Concerning Supernovae chain reactions: how much pressure do you think that a supernovae 100 AU away from a mildly evolved star would exert on the core of its neighbor? How much pressure is there already in the core of that star? I don't think the extra pressure would be measurable.

21. Order of Kilopi
Join Date
Mar 2004
Posts
13,440
Originally Posted by snowflakeuniverse
Prediction – Doppler effect and the Energy variation in Quasars

Quasars exhibit a variation in the production of energy. Some variations last days, some last weeks, months, even years.

The “mainstream” explanation for this variation is the variation in the magnitude and density of the masses inrushing towards a “super massive black hole”
What are the ("mainstream") sources, that you referred to, for this explanation?
The “Uniform Expansion Model” explanation for this variation is cascading chain reactions of miniature, densely packed supernovas. Since the effect of gravity is much greater in the past, it takes less mass to form a star. What today takes enough mass to form 1 star would form hundreds of miniature stars in the past. If one of these stars becomes a supernova, there would be initiated a chain reaction of super novas due to the much denser stellar population.
Other than wrt mass, how do these 'past' stars differ from those we can see, in the local region of the Milky Way?

Specifically:

a) how do the oberved colours, spectra, incidence of starspots, stellar winds, incidence and evolution of binary systems, and variability differ (quantitatively)?

b) how does the incidence of planetary nebulae, supernovae remnants, neutron stars, generation of high energy cosmic rays, and rate of formation of 'metals' differ (quantitatively)?

c) what are the key processes involved in initiating, and sustaining, this "chain reaction of super novas"?

d) what is the expected mass of gas that would be expelled from the 'very young galaxy', by this "chain reaction of super novas"?

e) what proportion of the stars formed in these 'very young galaxies' that would supernova, in (say) 100 million years?
Method to Verify model
There should be observational verification of the proposed model. The verification involves a study of the spectra emitted during an intensification of the energy output from the quasar.

Spectra is the light emitted by elements and molecules. If the source is in motion when producing the spectra, there is a corresponding Doppler shift. Motion away from the observer causes a “red” shift, or a lengthening of the wavelength of the spectra and motion towards the observer results in a “blue” shift.

If the source of the energy variation from a quasar is the result of matter falling into a “super massive black hole”, than the spectra should be additionally red shifted. While there would be matter falling into the alleged super massive black hole corresponding to a direction towards our perspective resulting in a “blue shift”, there should be less of this blue-shifted spectra observed due to the absorption effects of the dust and gasses surrounding the “black hole”.

(There should also be a gravitational red shifting, which would also be observed in the Uniform Expansion model. This red shift would be relatively constant and not change significantly with a variation in energy output)
Have you done any calculations, to show how big any of these 'gravitational redshifts' would be expected to be (in either the SFUI, or mainstream)? If so, what were the quantitative results?
However
If the Uniform Expansion explanation for the observed variation in energy is correct, the exact opposite kind of Doppler effect should be observed. As the energy produced increases, there should be a corresponding “blue” shift observed in the spectra. If we are watching the progression of a chain reaction of supernovas approach our perspective, the velocity of the material approaching our perspective would cause a “blue shift” to the spectra. If we are watching a progression of a chain reaction of supernovas move “away” from our perspective, the velocity of the material departing would be red shifted, but this spectra would be reduced in intensity or dimmer due to the dust and debris from the nearer previously exploding supernovas absorbing the spectra.
Perhaps you could consider some (potentially) much, much more obvious signatures - if I've understood your idea correctly, the majority of the light from SFUI quasars would be from supernovae (SNe), and supernova remnants (SNR). Both have quite distinctive, characteristic spectra, so unless nuclear and atomic physics is also (completely) re-written in the SFUI, quasar spectra will show strong SNe and SNR footprints, even at quite modest resolutions.

Have you compared SNe and quasar spectra, in terms of this kind of match? If you did, what did you find?
The test
So, if the “super massive black hole” model is correct, there should be a red shift observed when energy production increases. If the “chain reaction of supernovas” model is correct, there should be a blue shift observed when energy production increases.

Is there observational evidence of any of these effects?

I will place a copy of this post to the “Ask the (mainstream) expert".

Snowflake
The quick answer to your question is "as written, it's impossible to say". Why? Because there's nothing quantitative!

For example, there may very well be "a red shift [..] when energy production increases" ("if the “super massive black hole” model is correct"), but the expected size of any such redshift, as determined from a quantitative model, may be far below detectibility (either because we can't resolve the relevant spectra with sufficient resolution, or (more likely) because any such effect would be completely swamped by other effects, such as line broadening).

Anyway, as I've said twice already, spectra should provide a clean test of this SFUI ... because the signature in quasars, of lots of SNe and SNR, should be very obvious.

22. Order of Kilopi
Join Date
Mar 2004
Posts
13,440
Originally Posted by snowflakeuniverse
Hi Antoniseb

Thanks for your response,

Regarding energy production from quasars

You said,

This light comes from jets interacting with matter far from the quasar, and is red-shifted according to the cosmological redshift plus the specific velocity of the cold matter the jet is hitting.

I thought that the mainstream explanation for the light observed from a quasar was the result of matter being accelerated to near light speeds and the interaction/collision of the matter falling towards the “super massive black hole” in produced heat and light.

Actually the material should spiral in towards the core, which would effect the Doppler shift due to “falling”, but I thought that there should be a Doppler effect observed as the spiraling material fell to the “black hole”.

I have heard of jets emanating from quasars, but have not associated the jets as the primary reason for energy production and the variation in energy production.

(P.S. I thought that since part of this thread would deal with just observational evidence, a separate / dual posting made sense).

Snowflake
If you'd like to post a question (not a thinly veiled advertisement for your idea) in BAUT's Q&A thread, on this topic, I think there will be lots of interesting replies.

In a nutshell: the observed light (cf x-rays, radio, ...) from quasars comes from at least four sources: the accretion disk, the jets, the broad-line region, and the narrow-line region (these last two are non-stellar; basically, clouds of gas). In the IR, a significant part of the observed 'light' is from the torus (especially for type 2 quasars).

For blazars (and BL Lacs), most or 'all' the light is from the jets; for Seyferts, the nucleus (which comprises all five components mentioned above) may be only a minor source of light (the stars and gas in the surrounding galaxy dominate).

The doppler shift of the infall you describe, in the accretion disk, has certainly been observed ... for a number of 'normal' galactic nuclei; for (most) quasars and other AGN, the accretion disk is far, far too small to be resolved, and the gas far too hot to easily disentangle any doppler broadening (from other, much more dominant, physical processes). IF the jets had nice narrow lines, some very interesting studies could be done (matter in the jets is moving at relativistic speeds); however, AFAIK, they don't

23. Established Member
Join Date
Sep 2003
Posts
943
The Uniform Expansion model has characteristics of a finite universe that is infinitely aged.

If the expansion includes matter, then the passage of time slows with the expansion of spacetime. Expand a pendulum and the period increases. Expand a light clock and the period increases. All relative measures of time or physical processes slow with the expansion of spacetime.

When we establish the age of the universe, we assume that our clock rates are constant, an incorrect assumption by the proposed model. Given this assumption, the age of the universe is fixed.

However, since clock rates were actually faster in the past, the amount of time elapsed is greater than we have assumed. The relationship is hyperbolic, when the universe began, the relative clock rate was nearly infinitely faster than today’s relative clock rate.

The result is from an “absolute”, or fixed constant measure of time, the universe has a beginning, but in terms of actually experiential time, the universe is infinitely aged.

Snowflake.

#### Posting Permissions

• You may not post new threads
• You may not post replies
• You may not post attachments
• You may not edit your posts
•