PDA

View Full Version : Big Bang! - Why Not?



Tim Thompson
2002-May-08, 11:37 PM
OK, the title of this forum is Against the Mainstream. Well, there is little doubt about big bang cosmology being "mainstream", whether it's right or wrong. And there is equally little doubt that critics of big bang cosmology, whoever they may be, are necessarily contradictory to the mainstream. So I thought that, just for grins shall we say, I would put this question up for persual: Why not big bang cosmology?

Surely we all know that there is no such ideal thing as the theory that provides only answers, but no questions. The "perfect" theory. Every theory of anything (including the Theory of Everything) will have some blank spot, some creeping mystery, some unanswered question, something left for the future to solve. So I think the issue is not just that there might be some as yet unanswered question in the cosmology of the bang, but whether or not there is some unanswerable question.

What weakness is there in the foundation of big bang cosmology, that is so starkly wrong, that the entire meta-theory of big bang must be dumped, in favor of some other theory? That's what I want to see, the criticism so profound that the theory can never stand against it, the question that is not just unanswered but is unanswerable.

Why should we abandon big bang cosmology? And, if you have an alternative (and I know somebody out there does), why is your alternative better (not just as good as, but better)?


Ned Wright's Cosmology Tutorial (http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/cosmolog.htm).
Cosmology 101 (http://map.gsfc.nasa.gov/m_uni.html) (from the MAP mission (http://map.gsfc.nasa.gov/)).
Dark Matter, Cosmology, and Large-Scale Structure of the Universe (http://www.astro.queensu.ca/~dursi/dm-tutorial/dm0.html).
Cambridge Cosmology (http://www.damtp.cam.ac.uk/user/gr/public/cos_home.html).
Cosmology Tutorial (http://cmb.physics.wisc.edu/tutorial/) (from the Observational Cosmology Group (http://cmb.physics.wisc.edu/) at the University of Wisconsin - Madison (http://www.wisc.edu/)).
Cosmology: The Structure & Future of the Universe (http://casswww.ucsd.edu/public/tutorial/Cosmology.html) (from Gene Smith's extensive Astronomy Tutorial (http://casswww.ucsd.edu/public/astroed.html)).
Ask a High Energy Astronomer: Cosmology (http://imagine.gsfc.nasa.gov/docs/ask_astro/cosmology.html) (a library of past Q&A).

ljbrs
2002-May-09, 01:40 AM
Tim Thompson:

Thanks for all of the wonderful links. They are all saved on my computer for future reading bliss.

ljbrs /phpBB/images/smiles/icon_biggrin.gif /phpBB/images/smiles/icon_smile.gif /phpBB/images/smiles/icon_biggrin.gif /phpBB/images/smiles/icon_smile.gif

_________________
*Nothing is more damaging to a new truth than an old error.* Goethe

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: ljbrs on 2002-05-08 21:57 ]</font>

ljbrs
2002-May-09, 02:18 AM
SCIENCE - Friday, 6 May 02 - had a Research Article in *Sciencexpress* (online only) which dismisses the Big Bang Cosmology and presents their own computer-generated theory of their rebounding, steady-state *A Cyclic Model of the Universe.* The research article should be printed soon in SCIENCE (either as a research article or in *Reports*, so stay tuned. The research paper dismisses the *Inflationary Period* of Alan Guth. They have an accelerated version followed by a deceleration as it moves into another parallel universe and both rebound. I do not, myself, trust computer-generated models which have no additional basis in actual observations. Of course, with the universe, how is one to view other parallel universes which are beyond our observational capability? The authors behind the research paper, Paul J. Steinhardt (Princeton, USA) and Neil Turok (Cambridge, UK) seem to have another steady-state universe, but this time it is rebounding, rather than static.

Oh, well, this ought to shake things up in Cosmology. Then again, perhaps not...

ljbrs /phpBB/images/smiles/icon_confused.gif /phpBB/images/smiles/icon_rolleyes.gif /phpBB/images/smiles/icon_confused.gif /phpBB/images/smiles/icon_wink.gif

_________________
*Nothing is more damaging to a new truth than an old error.* Goethe

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: ljbrs on 2002-05-08 22:21 ]</font>

John Kierein
2002-May-09, 02:02 PM
Well, why abandon Big Bang? How about to agree with observations? There are NO observations to support a big bang other than a cosmological red shift. But we certainly know that the red shift is not necessarily doppler. The red shift on the sun that varies from the center to the limb is certainly not doppler. The sun isn't moving away from us and certainly the edge of the sun isn't moving away from us. As Compton said, the red shift on the sun is due to the compton effect. It correlates with the thickness of the solar atmosphere we are viewing through and therefore the number of electrons for the Compton effect to occur.
There are many problems with a big bang. I've collected several of thems on my website: http://www.angelfire.com/az/BIGBANGisWRONG/index.html

Silas
2002-May-09, 03:42 PM
I must still be half-asleep...

How can you have a "rebounding steady state?" Don't the two terms contradict one another?

Silas

Spaceman Spiff
2002-May-09, 04:37 PM
I keep a list of Tim's and many more
cosmology links here:
http://homepages.wmich.edu/~korista/cosmology.html

Our John Kierein gets his 15 minutes of fame,
in this rebuttle of John's magic scattering:
http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/kierein.html
(half way down there is a direct rebuttle to
John's center to limb solar spectral line
dilemma)

Observational evidence - of that there is
plenty (some of it more fundamental than
others)...
http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/cosmology_faq.html#BBevidence
http://itss.raytheon.com/cafe/qadir/q401.html

Karl
2002-May-09, 06:18 PM
On 2002-05-09 12:37, Spaceman Spiff wrote:

Our John Kierein gets his 15 minutes of fame,
in this rebuttle of John's magic scattering:
http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/kierein.html
(half way down there is a direct rebuttle to
John's center to limb solar spectral line
dilemma)



From John's page:

Reber showed that the Compton effect was the cause of the red shift in order to explain the observations of bright very long wavelength extragalactic radio waves. Kierein used the Compton effect explanation to explain quasars and the red shift on the sun.

Grote Reber has a rather unique viewpoint on the low frequency Galactic Background Radiation (not to be confused with Cosmic Background Radiation). There is fairly universal agreement that:

1) Electron cosmic rays exist.
2) There is a galactic magnetic field.
3) Electrons spiraling in a magnetic field emit synchrotron radiation.

Reber seems to need to declare one of these three invalid to make his point.

Meanwhile, the properties of the GBR are being used to deduce the characteristics of the interstellar medium.

John Kierein
2002-May-09, 06:57 PM
You need to look at Reber's maps more closely. The radiation must obviously be coming from outside our galaxy and not be galactic. The galactic plane dims the radiation. and even the magellanic cloud dims it. The radiation is clearly like a photographic negative in that it is brighter away from massive objects in the milky way that are bright at very much shorter wavelengths. He had quite a time trying to identify the source and finally concluded it must be from the Compton effect causing the red shift. There is a link to a popular writeup of Reber's on my website, but for a better look at the maps you should go to the Journal of the Franklin Institute reference. The maps in the linked article were scanned in (with Reber's permission) and are not very good resolution. This radiation is hundreds of meters in wavelength and is definitely not due to galactic cosmic ray particles.
Reber is a very good radio astronomer and is extremely familiar with synchroton radiation. Nearly all the radio sources he has observed are of this mechanism. I am good friends with Reber and have had him as a guest at my house several times. I have also discussed his expertise with the likes of Frank Drake who worked with Reber at Greenbank and with many of his friends at the National Bureau of Standards (now NIST) where Reber measured the 10 cm radiation from the sun and correlated that to the solar sunspot cycle. These measurements are taken today to quantify the state of the solar cycle.

Quasar variabilities as a function of red shift do not exhibit the stretching out that would be indicative of near speed of light velocities. Their red shift is very hard to explain in terms of a doppler effect and is much better explained as intrinsic, just like the red shift on the sun. Ned Wright just like to stretch the facts so he can act as a debunker. I've given up arguing with him. The sun's red shift is much higher at the limb than can be explained as a gravitiational red shift and varies with solar cycle as the number on electrons in the sun's atmosphere varies. I much prefer the Nobel laureate Compton's explanation that this shift is due to the Compton effect. Wright wants to ignore Compton. He doesn't seem to think a Compton effect exists. I wonder if he thinks there's an electron that could interact with a photon.
I also like the Nobel laureate Max Born's explanation for cosmic background radiation not being due to a big bang, but just being the temperature of a static universe. I think some of these old Nobel prize winners were pretty good, but I also don't think that you should just believe in what they say because of "authority". Figure it out for yourself and look at the arguments.

Quasars and the sun are not the only objects with a suspected intrinsic red shift. Any synchrotron radiation bright source has a large number of electrons associated with it. Hercules A is a case in point. It is an anchronism in that it stands out as being the largest object in the sky (not counting chains of galaxies like the great wall which would take far too long to create for a big bang in many people's minds); but it is a bright radio source from synchroton radiation. If one puts it nearer than a cosmolgical red shift determination of its distance would put it, it doesn't become so unususal.

Karl
2002-May-09, 08:11 PM
On 2002-05-09 14:57, John Kierein wrote:
This radiation is hundreds of meters in wavelength and is definitely not due to galactic cosmic ray particles.

So which of the three points listed are not true? The accepted viewpoint has considerable observational and theoretical backing:

http://adsabs.harvard.edu/cgi-bin/nph-bib_query?bibcode=1978ApJ...221..114N&db_key=AST&high=3ba5007a5b25819





Reber is a very good radio astronomer. . .


I won't quibble with Reber's obsevational skills, he's one of the most, ahem, colorful historical characters I've ever met, a really delightful person. But I don't feel his strongest area of expertise is plasma physics, which is the key to this problem, since the frequencies in question have strong plasma interations.

Pi Man
2002-May-09, 08:11 PM
I think cosmic background radiation is evidence for the big bang. Isn't it?

John Kierein
2002-May-09, 08:30 PM
RAE-2 was unfortunately a disappointingly poor radio telescope with just a Vee antenna with very high sidelobes. Reber's telescope on the other hand was an excellent instrument covering several acres. As an array, at the time it was the largest telescope in the world. It had a large aperture for sensitivity but where it particularly excelled was in its very low sidelobes which allowed it to map dim spots against a bright background without the sidelobe radiation swamping the data. RAE-2 is OK for detecting that there is radiation, but it is highly suspect and of low resolution for good determination of directionality. Note that it may be a misnomer to call the RAE-2 results galactic. They state that they are getting data from the "galactic neighborhood". They were only able to map 4 points: the galactic center, the anticenter and the north and south poles. (Which is hardly a map). Rebers maps are far superior in resolution to RAE-2's but were limited to the southern sky as his telescope was in Tasmania.
I am an advocate of putting a very low frequency telescope on the moon. There have been some smaller telescopes that GSFC sponsored in New Zealand that confirmed Reber's maps at a much lower resolution.

John Kierein
2002-May-09, 08:34 PM
On 2002-05-09 16:11, Pi Man wrote:
I think cosmic background radiation is evidence for the big bang. Isn't it?

Actually, no. It is evidence that wasn't a big bang. If there were a big bang the background should be much higher.
http://www.dfi.uem.br/~macedane/history_of_2.7k.html

Tim Thompson
2002-May-09, 10:16 PM
There is way too much material on Kierein's website (http://www.angelfire.com/az/BIGBANGisWRONG/index.html) for me to try to do it all justice here & now. however, since I invited the criticisms of standard BB theory, I would like to address a few in brief fashion.

The argument that some objects appear older than the universe is not critical, nor even particularly important. For one thing, the statement that the best Hubble age for the universe is 10 billion years has not been true since about 1970. John Huchra (http://cfa-www.harvard.edu/~huchra/) has compiled a complete list (http://cfa-www.harvard.edu/~huchra/hubble.plot.dat) of every value for the Hubble constant ever published, since 1924. The age of the universe in the simplest models is just 1/h0 (with appropriate conversion of units). That age has been in excess of 10 billion years for all but a few cases since 1970. Since 1980 the grouping between 10 & 20 billion, with a mean about 15 billion, is quite obvious, and even more so since the Hubble Key Project (http://www.ipac.caltech.edu/H0kp/) got into the act. The best fit Hubble age for the universe has been 15 billion years for a long time, but the uncertainties are quite large, and so is the scatter in derived ages. The 1-sigma uncertainities extend from a low of about 10 billion years, to a high over 25 billion years, so there is plenty of room for the uncertain Hubble age to accomodate any astrophysical age, without bringing the basic bang scenario into question.

Coliding galaxies is another non-issue. The galaxies are not flying away from each other in a big bang cosmology, but the galaxy cluster are. It is standard theory that galaxy clusters are gravitationally bound, and either do not take part in the cosmic expansion at all, or do so extremely slowly (Future Evolution of Nearby Large-Scale Structure in a Universe Dominated by a Cosmological Constant (http://xxx.lanl.gov/abs/astro-ph/0204249), Nagamine & Loeb, April 2002; Future Island Universes in a Background Universe Accelerated by Cosmological Constant and by Quintessence (http://xxx.lanl.gov/abs/astro-ph/0107453), Chiueh & He, July & December, 2001).

We should expect to see galaxies colliding, and more of them as we go back in redshift, when the galaxy clusters were more densely packed, and the galaxies really were closer together. And that leads to the observation that the comment about galaxies not looking closer together is also not an issue. One cannot look at an image and say how close together things are, without translating the angular image distances into co-moving linear distance, which are model dependent. In BB cosmology, as we look to higher redshift, we look farther back in time. But the physically smaller universe occupies a much larger apparent volume on the sky, so the view is highly distorted, like looking through a fish-eye lens. You have to deal with the distortion first, and then comment on how close the galaxies are (or aren't), in that cosmological model.

The idea, as I expressed it was to provide a criticism "so profound that the theory can never stand against it, the question that is not just unanswered but is unanswerable". As I see it, these points I have mentioned are not critical arguments, and are easily handled by minor modifications to basic BB theory.

And a comment on issues of personality. Kierein's harsh criticism of Wright is unlikely to accomplish anything accept to make people very reluctant to pay any attention. In Wright's criticism of Kierein (http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/kierein.html), his comments are dirsct and specific. Wright says "Kierein adds a nonstandard factor of (wavelength)/(Compton wavelength) to the Thomson scattering cross-section, and thus gets a wavelength shift that is proportional to wavelength as required by the observations of redshifted spectra. However, this nonstandard factor is not allowed by observations." On Kierein's dark matter model, Wright says "With t = 2*86400 sec and f = 5E14 Hz, I get int n_e ds = 3E37 per sq. cm. For a typical cosmological distance of ds = 2E28 cm, this requires an electron density of 1.5 billion per cc, which is more than 1,000 times larger than the electron density in the Earth's ionosphere!". I read Kierein's Hubble's Constant in Terms of the Compton Effect (http://www.geocities.com/CapeCanaveral/9335/compton.html), and I see no response. In fact, I don't see a sample calculation anywhere. I suggest that it would be better to answer Wright's specific comments with an equally specific response. Is your Thomson cross section non-standard? And where do you use real numbers to duplicate observed redshifts for known objects? That would be a far more efficient response than insulting Wright's intelligence in public.

That should be enough for now. Cheers.

Chip
2002-May-09, 11:40 PM
Don't mean to muddy the waters, but a Professor K.U. Lu, a mathematician from the University of California at Long Beach, believes that both the rotation of individual galaxies and galactic cluster rotation is a direct consequence of Godel's concept of a rotating universe, that is also relativistic. Lu proposes searching for proof of Godel's rotating universe by the systematic observation of the rotations of early galaxies. He admits in his paper (http://universe.gsfc.nasa.gov/docs/roadmap/Cosmo-22.pdf) that this is all based on an assumption that Godel's model is real. Lu's three page paper as posted on the internet has very little math, and is probably an introduction.

I am not very familiar with this particular idea from Kurt Godel, which apparently has the universe expanding as observed but also with a rotation around an axis. (Would not this gigantic axis area be detectible?) Perhaps due to the fact that Godel is most well known for revealing that broad mathematical systems cannot be both consistent and complete, maybe his concept of a "Rotating Universe" is perhaps beyond detection.

John Kierein
2002-May-10, 02:58 AM
The reason I claim the age is 10 billion is not because of the estimates made, but because of the method of the estimates. Almost all the estimates Tim points out are based on brightness estimates, using such things as "standard candles", like cepheid variables or certain types of supernovas. They are all dependent on a long series of estimates of estimates of estimates of distances. But the 10 billion year estimate is based on a direct trigonometric calculation. I claim this is a much more direct and therefore better estimate of the red shift - distance relationship. People who spend their careers measuring cepheid variables don't like to admit this.
http://www.flatoday.com/space/explore/stories/1999b/060299h.htm
This is a recent measurement, not back in the 70s.

As for Wright's calculation of the electron density, he didn't use the correct calculation of the wavelength proportionality and gets the wrong answer. The best way to look at this is to use the solar red shift and to normalize the shift to the solar electron numbers in the solar atmosphere. There are too many variables to make a direct absolute calculation since there are adjustments required for the mass of the targets and the average angle. (Too many unknowns for the number of equations). But you can make estimates in comparison to the sun's red shift. The solar shift is on the order of 10^-5 or 10^-6. But the distances between galaxies are very large so you have to spread out the electrons over a very large distance. It is also possible that there are Compton collisions with neutrinos of very low but positive mass. The red shift is inversely proportional to the mass so the Compton shift from collisions with neutrinos is very large. There is no way to spectroscopically detect detect free electrons and free positrons between galaxies, but we know they are there because we see electron-positron gammas from above the galactic plane. Photons must interact with them. Gamma ray bursts also must produce electrons and positrons from pair production. In fact, Reber's (and others) measurements of the bright background at hectometric wavelengths is a nearly direct measure of their presence. The temperature that corresponds to Reber's brightness results is not 3 degrees Kelvin but more than a million times hotter. That's why it called non-thermal and is the result of electron and/or positron accelerations from the Compton effect.

As for the "fish-eye" lens this is not necessarily the case, especially if the universe is flat as now thought. When we begin to see collisions of groups of galaxies, then the big bangers will say that it's groups of groups that expanding. <font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: John Kierein on 2002-05-09 23:06 ]</font>

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: John Kierein on 2002-05-09 23:12 ]</font>

Silas
2002-May-10, 03:26 PM
When we begin to see collisions of groups of galaxies, then the big bangers will say that it's groups of groups that expanding.


And when your evidence fails to hold up, will you make changes in your theory to save it?

Ad hominems are not science.

Silas

Karl
2002-May-10, 05:20 PM
On 2002-05-09 22:58, John Kierein wrote:
In fact, Reber's (and others) measurements of the bright background at hectometric wavelengths is a nearly direct measure of their presence. The temperature that corresponds to Reber's brightness results is not 3 degrees Kelvin but more than a million times hotter. That's why it called non-thermal and is the result of electron and/or positron accelerations from the Compton effect.



And this is quite adequately explained as synchrotron radiation from electrons spiraling in the galactic magnetic field. Can you provide a mathmatical model and analysis of this radiation via the 'Compton effect' that explains in detail the spectral characteristics of this emission better than the standard theory? So far all we've seen is hand waving and assertions.

John Kierein
2002-May-10, 09:34 PM
Any acceleration of an electron or other charge produces radiation, but the background radiation is not concentrated in known galactic magnetic fields. It was this puzzling result that led Reber to believe the acceleration is from the Compton effect. Your assertion implies that the electrons are there, so if they are there it is inescapable that light must hit 'em. Voila or Viola or Bass violin; a red shift must result.

Karl
2002-May-10, 09:47 PM
On 2002-05-10 17:34, John Kierein wrote:
Any acceleration of an electron or other charge produces radiation, but the background radiation is not concentrated in known galactic magnetic fields.

Others have concluded that the results are consistent with the galactic field measured via Faraday rotation.


It was this puzzling result that led Reber to believe the acceleration is from the Compton effect. Your assertion implies that the electrons are there, so if they are there it is inescapable that light must hit 'em. Voila or Viola or Bass violin; a red shift must result.


I assume this means that the mathematical description does not exixt. . .

Chip
2002-May-10, 11:38 PM
Along the lines of Tim Thompson's question "Why not big bang cosmology?" and without much to go on, here's an idea for
an alternate of the Big Bang.

Instead of the expansion being perceived from a point, or as Lemaitre described, a "primordial egg", and expanding from everywhere, what if the universe only appears to be expanding from a single temporal point approximately 15 billion years ago? What if the currently perceived universe arose from a kind of cosmic Mandelbrot set?

In fractal theory, a Mandelbrot set is an infinite locus of points, which can be termed "C" upon which the expression:
Zn+1 = Zn * Zn + C, Z0 = (0,0) is bounded by a circle of radius "2", which could be arbitrarily centered on a selected reference point of origin.

Borrowing some visual symbols from chaos theory, if we considered this triangle symbol as an analogy for our current view of the cosmos:

http://www.duke.edu/~mjd/chaos/tri4.jpe

as we look back 5 billion years we (symbolically) see this:

http://www.duke.edu/~mjd/chaos/tri3.jpe

and 10 billion years away we see this:

http://www.duke.edu/~mjd/chaos/tri2.jpe

until we reach the cosmic background radiation, represented by this:

http://www.duke.edu/~mjd/chaos/tri1.jpe

The impression is of a compression or narrowing down. But just as the universe gives the illusion that it is expanding specifically from any location you happen to be in, what if it also gives the illusion that it is expanding from a specific point in time? In this "Mandelbrot Cosmos", the universe would be doing everything it appears to be doing, yet we also inhabit a temporal location that relates to a specific point "C" within the cosmic locus. If we could "see" beyond that point, we would see the universe as part of a continuous fractal-like expansion. We would (symbolically) "see" that what we thought was the origin,

http://www.duke.edu/~mjd/chaos/tri1.jpe

was part of the expansion we "see" later-or-earlier:

http://www.duke.edu/~mjd/chaos/tri2.jpe

which is part of a bigger picture, we see today:

http://www.duke.edu/~mjd/chaos/tri4.jpe

On the largest scale, this model does away with time and location. The Big Bang is the universe, not the cause of it.

If one follows what I'm saying (and I lack the tools here to be more precise), one might ask:
If the Big Bang is akin to a Mandelbrot set, how do you account for the merger of forces
as you get closer to the beginning? I don't know. How do you account for the detected acceleration in expansion? I don't know.
How do you account for string theory? Or for:________________ (fill in the blank.) --I don't know right now. And yes, this idea has errors and misconceptions. /phpBB/images/smiles/icon_wink.gif

I'm posting this on an enjoyable Astronomy bulletin board, in the "Against the Mainstream" section, in a spirit of fun and intellectual stimulation, and it is far from being any kind of theory or dissertation. Hope some find it interesting be it pro or con.

Chip

See also here:
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=Mandelbrot+cosmos&btnG=Google+Search

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Chip on 2002-05-10 20:36 ]</font>

Tim Thompson
2002-May-11, 02:07 AM
NGC 4258

The trigonometric measurement of the distance to NGC 4258 (Herrnstein et al. (http://xxx.lanl.gov/abs/astro-ph/9907013), 1999) is not exactly news. And neither is its effect on the value of h0 via the cepheid distance scale, namely to increase h0 by 12±9% (Maoz et al. (http://xxx.lanl.gov/abs/astro-ph/9908140), 1999). Increasing h0 decreases the age of the universe, so the effect of Herrnstein's measurement could be to decrease the cosmological age by a factor anywhere in the 1-sigma region 3% to 21%. That would push 15 billion down to anything between 14.6 billion and 11.9 billion. So even at its worst, it can't push the cosmological age as low as 10 billion years, if we assume a putative age of 15 billion years. Besides, the slop in 12±9% allows for essentially no change, or quite a bit of change. Kierein would have you believe that Herrnstein's measurement is a killing blow, and forces the cosmological age to 10 billion years. But the facts do not appear to support this assertion.

Furthermore, he also treats h0 as if the HST Key Project (http://www.ipac.caltech.edu/H0kp/) value is the only game in town. But a simple look at Huchra's data (http://cfa-www.harvard.edu/~huchra/hubble.plot.dat) reveals that there has been much scatter in the values reported for h0. Even since 1995, the values are pretty well scattered over the range 55 to 80 (km/sec/Mpc), which corresponds to unadorned ages 17.8 billion to 12.2 billion, ignoring the outliers. If you pump those numbers down by the full 21% that Herrnstein's observation might carry, and the range falls to 14 billion to 9.6 billion. Finally, a number that looks like 10 billion. But the range is still quite large enough to avoid astrophysical problems.

And what about those halo stars with radioactive ages of 15 billion years? The top range of 15±4 billion years (Truran et al. (http://xxx.lanl.gov/abs/astro-ph/0109526), 2001) spans the 1-sigma range 11 to 19 billion, which is more than adequate to include the large bulk of the age space allowed by Herrnstein's measurement of NGC 4258.

The point of this exercise is two-fold. First, the age of the universe as calculated from h0 is really a pretty sloppy quantity, that could be just about anywhere from as low as 10 billion to as high as 20 billion, and even that range may be conservative. Remember, even the much vaunted Key Project was only shooting for ±10%. So making a big deal out of any conflict with the age of the universe is to overestimate how well we actually claim to know it. And the second point is that even if we think we know it as well as Kierein thinks we think we know it, Herrnstein's observation of NGC 4258 is not a major problem.

Extragalactic radio background

The extraglactic radio background is not thermal, for the simple reason that it can't be fitted to any computed black body temperature. On the other hand, the cosmic microwave background is thermal to the limit of our ability to measure it. The two cannot be properly compared in that sense. Furthermore, to claim that the long wavelength radio implies a higher temperature in the millions of Kelvins is absurd. Any black body emitter that hot would emit virtually nothing in the radio, and cram all of its emission into very short wavelengths, in the X-ray region (as we see in the solar corona).

The reference to temperature is a semantic trick, translating the kinetic energy of very fast particles into temperature units. But it is fundamentally different than anything one would expect from a true blackbody thermal source, as is the case for the CMB. Particle temperature and blackbody temperature are very different kinds of "temperature". The CMB represents a blackbody temperature. The radio background does not.

Theories that are incapable of calculating their own fundamental properties are not very interesting theories. If the extragalactic electrons are capable of producing observed redshifts under observed consitions, then prove it by calculating a redshift.

Ned Wright's calculations

As far as I am concerned, Ned Wright's calculations are correct, until it is objectively demonstrated that they are wrong. I don't see the flaw in them.

Fractal cosmology

Chip may be onto something, though perhaps not exactly as envisioned. It seems that there is much agreement that the distribution of galaxies represents a fractal geometry. Whether this is a fundamental property of space time I don't know, though I suspect not. But recognizing fractal structure in the distribution does cause some problems in standard cosmology, where the concept of Hubble flow assumes a smooth (non-fractal) universe. The crossover from fractal to non-fractal is an issue in some quarters (Cornish & Levin (http://xxx.lanl.gov/abs/astro-ph/9510010), 1995; Labini (http://xxx.lanl.gov/abs/astro-ph/9806318), 1998; Ribeiro (http://xxx.lanl.gov/abs/gr-qc/9909093), 1999; Baryshev (http://xxx.lanl.gov/abs/astro-ph/9912074), 1999; Mittal & Lohiya (http://xxx.lanl.gov/abs/astro-ph/0104370), 2001; I don't know of any simple webpages or the like to reference, but hopefully these are not so opaque as to be useless to non-mathematicians).


<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Tim Thompson on 2002-05-10 22:09 ]</font>

John Kierein
2002-May-11, 02:19 PM
Oh, I'm sorry if I implied that Reber's measurements were thermal radiation. I just said that it "corresponds" to several million degrees if it were thermal. I believe it is due to Compton acceleration of intergalactic electrons which we know are there from electron/positron annihilation, AND the background redshifted radiation form an infinite static universe. We also know that some of the electrons have combined with protons to form hydrogen. There are clouds of hydrogen between galaxies. Some of the red shift may be due to Raman effect (a sort of version of the Compton effect for bound electrons)in the hydrogen. Jacques Moret-Bailly is of the belief that this causes the intrinsic quasar red shift.

Tim just doesn't see the inconsistency of the red-shift distance relationship with the age of stars to point to the wrongness of the big bang. There is no evidence to the contrary that these 15 billion year old stars are in the very distant galaxies within a couple billion years of the supposed start of the big bang. These galaxies look no different from ours, and seem to contain stars of old and young ages. To use star ages is proof of there being no big bang, because they seem to be much much older than any big bang allows.

How do big bangers rationalize such large scale effects as the Great Wall of galaxies and the Great Attractor? These don't seem to fit in the timeframes allowed for big bang evolution, but are consistent with an infinite universe. Such groups of galaxies are supposed to be flying apart.

Karl
2002-May-12, 12:47 AM
On 2002-05-11 10:19, John Kierein wrote:
I believe it is due to Compton acceleration of intergalactic electrons which we know are there from electron/positron annihilation, AND the background redshifted radiation form an infinite static universe.


So, produce the model that describes this phenomena so it can be analyzed and tested agaist observations.

As Tim Thompson puts it:

Theories that are incapable of calculating their own fundamental properties are not very interesting theories. If the extragalactic electrons are capable of producing observed redshifts under observed consitions, then prove it by calculating a redshift.

Earlier you stated that:

There are too many variables to make a direct absolute calculation since there are adjustments required for the mass of the targets and the average angle. (Too many unknowns for the number of equations).

Well, that's what a model does. Define the ranges of the variables and the equations necessary to make your theory work. What are the electron densities required? What are the scattering parameters? Then the assumptions are in plain view of everyone concerned and your idea can be properly evaluated. If you are really serious about promoting this idea, you <underline>know</underline> that this is what is required.

Without presenting a proper model, you are reduced to spouting buzzwords and handwaving. You might as well claim that invisible pink unicorns make it all happen, and that's all the consideration it merits until you produce something concrete.

I'm interested in seeing your model predict spectral characteristics of the hectometric radio background, Tim would like to see redshift calculations, as well as your correction of Ned Wright's "error". Since you claim the same phenomena as the root cause of these, you should be able to come up with them right?

Silas
2002-May-12, 01:06 AM
If the Big Bang is akin to a Mandelbrot set, how do you account for the merger of forces
as you get closer to the beginning? I don't know. How do you account for the detected acceleration in expansion? I don't know.
How do you account for string theory? Or for:________________ (fill in the blank.) --


Pretty images! It seems to be largely consistent with the Big Bang theory of spacial expansion: each "space" (triangle) is expanding. It seems to be consistent with the B.A.'s model of the movie theater where all the seats move apart. The only difference is that, in this model with triangles, a new triangle appears between each of the old ones. In the movie theater model, it's as if a new seat appeared in the space between all the old ones as they move apart.

Since the seats are empty, nothing "real" has been created. (The various steady state theories would hold that "something" is created in those spaces, such as an occasional hydrogen atom...)



I don't know right now. And yes, this idea has errors and misconceptions. /phpBB/images/smiles/icon_wink.gif


Happy grin! There is nothing, ever, wrong with an honest person saying, "I don't know." (There are some difficulties that arise when someone says to another, "...And you don't know either.")

Silas

John Kierein
2002-May-12, 02:18 AM
So, produce the model that describes this phenomena so it can be analyzed and tested agaist observations.


Try Here:

http://www.geocities.com/CapeCanaveral/9335/compton.html

[/quote]

Chip
2002-May-13, 06:12 AM
On 2002-05-11 21:06, Silas wrote:
"...It seems to be consistent with the B.A.'s model of the movie theater where all the seats move apart. The only difference is that, in this model with triangles, a new triangle appears between each of the old ones. In the movie theater model, it's as if a new seat appeared in the space between all the old ones as they move apart.

Since the seats are empty, nothing "real" has been created. (The various steady state theories would hold that "something" is created in those spaces, such as an occasional hydrogen atom...)


Yes. The idea sort of combines a steady state with a big bang but with some redefining. The "big bang" is still going on and we're in it. I'm not sure if this would imply that the "big bang" we see as begining with a point in the past didn't start space and time and the universe, perhaps it is the universe. (Or the portion we can detect.) Perhaps time began as we experience it, including its distortions via SR, during the fractal-like phase that we happen to be a part of.

The "steady state" could be redefined as steadily expanding but in a state of flux from a previous universe into a the version we can "now" see. Unlike the conventional steady state cosmos, new matter and energy need not be continuously created somewhere to replace spent matter and energy. The second law of thermodynamics still is observed and holds sway.

If one watches a fractal expansion animation, (using the Mandelbrot equation), there comes a moment just when the previous image or topography gets "too close" and fills the screen, becoming unrecognizable. At that moment, we suddenly notice the same pattern in the "distance" which is in fact part of the original image. As it also moves closer, (or expands), it too reaches that point where it is replaced (al'la steady state) but perhaps without new material "being" created. The "new" material was there already.

This fractal cosmos could still be finite yet unbounded, but in the sense of a continuously expanding series that folds into itself. It could be a kind of chain of multiverses with a single point of temporal origin that is illusionary on the largest scale. It could perhaps have infinite points of origin (hence the Mandelbrot equation analogy). A continuous expansion (but not into any pre-existing space). Time flows in a linear way (for us) but in the largest sense is also an illusion. The smallest quantum relation and largest galactic clusters are all related. This universe in flux is "all there is" because ultimately it has no dimensions and no time. It is a state of continous transition.

However, as Tim Thompson implied, the actual physics and the observed cosmos may not be as envision here.

Chip /phpBB/images/smiles/icon_smile.gif


<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Chip on 2002-05-14 00:21 ]</font>

Spaceman Spiff
2002-May-13, 09:23 PM
If one reads Ned Wright's pages on Kierein's
magic scattering, it gives a simple
explanation for what to John seems
inexplicable, except for his magic
scattering, to a line shift phenomenon in the
solar photosphere. It's called convection.

Ned Wright has already taken what John has
presented on his scattering and given a nice
set of rebuttals on several fronts. John's
only defense is that Ned didn't do something
right. What? And where are the detailed
computations from John's model?

Next: Quasar variability with redshift.
First, there is no definitive answer as of
yet on whether quasar variability timescales
scale with (1+z). Hawkins has produced
several papers discussing this issue, but
HE HAS NOT come down on the side that z is
uncosmological, as John would have you
believe. see here for his latest paper on the
subject:

http://xxx.lanl.gov/abs/astro-ph/0110707

The problem is too that we already know that
the quasar population evolves with redshift.
Variability time scales depend upon
things like the mass of the blackhole, the
rate of mass transfer, and other intrinsic
physics that we don't yet fully understand
(QUASARS are my field). What is definitely
known is that luminous quasars do not vary
like their low redshift cousins, the Seyfert
galaxies, even though they share most of
their other spectroscopic properties (and
that both lie in the centers of galaxies).

Next, NOBODY but John and a few others out
in the fringe claim that the cosmic microwave
background radiation is anything OTHER but
what originated in the big bang. John would
have you believe that it is too cool or not
intense enough or whatever. But it's not.
It simply represents the light in a universe
MUCH MUCH smoother than the present one, with
virtually NO temperature gradients (less than
1 part in 10,000). A big bang like model can
explain the existence of this former state
of our universe.

Hope this helps.

John Kierein
2002-May-13, 09:39 PM
Next, NOBODY but John and a few others out
in the fringe claim that the cosmic microwave
background radiation is anything OTHER but
what originated in the big bang. [/quote]
Out on the fringe? Max Born? Eddington? Herzberg? Nernst?
By the way, what's wrong with fringe?

John Kierein
2002-May-13, 09:41 PM
Next, NOBODY but John and a few others out
in the fringe claim that the cosmic microwave
background radiation is anything OTHER but
what originated in the big bang. [/quote]
Out on the fringe? Max Born? Eddington? Herzberg? Nernst?
By the way, what's wrong with fringe? Galileo was on the fringe, and so was Copernicus, etc. etc.

Tim Thompson
2002-May-13, 10:15 PM
Karl: So, produce the model that describes this phenomena so it can be analyzed and tested against observations.

JK: Try Here: http://www.geocities.com/CapeCanaveral/9335/compton.html

First, I find it less than awe inspiring that, despite having a model in hand, JK declines to actually calculate anything with it. As I said before, and will say again, Theories that are incapable of calculating their own fundamental properties are not very interesting theories. That admonition works just as well when the word "theories" is replaced with the word "theorists".

However, let's do take a look and see if anything comes of it. JK gives us the formula for the redshift induced by a single Compton event: Dli = h (1 - cos q) / mc. Here, cos(q) is the cosine of the scattering angle. later on we find this: ... cos q is the "average cos q" observed over the large number of interactions involved.

So consider looking at a galaxy with a substantial redshift. Its angular size is rather small. Even the nearby ones are only a few arcminutes across, the extremely redshifted ones are only a few arcseconds (and there is a strong correlation between angular diameter and redshift - the bigger the redshift, the smaller the angular diameter). If we make the bold assumption that the distant galaxy "is" where it appears to be, then we are looking aloing a line of sight, built by photon trajectories that have scattered over an average angle of zero, or very near to it. Cos(0) = 1, so 1-cos(0) = 0, so Dli from the scattering equation is zero and we don't see a redshift.

I only see one way out of this dilemma. One is that the galaxy "is" somewhere else, and that we are seeing photons which have actually scattered over a large average angle. However, this requires the rather remarkable phenomenon of Compton scattering creating a coherent beam (so the image can remain intact), despite the probability oriented nature of the scattering events. It also makes the theory behind it useless & indeterminate, since it becomes impossible to know the true location of the galaxy and test the theory. One can construct other ways out of the dilemma, all of which sufer the same uncomfortable requirement that the Compton scattering be coherent & create an effective beam.

It certainly appears to me that this theory cannot create the observed redshifts (nor any other redshifts).

JK: Tim just doesn't see the inconsistency of the red-shift distance relationship with the age of stars to point to the wrongness of the big bang. There is no evidence to the contrary that these 15 billion year old stars are in the very distant galaxies within a couple billion years of the supposed start of the big bang. These galaxies look no different from ours, and seem to contain stars of old and young ages. To use star ages is proof of there being no big bang, because they seem to be much much older than any big bang allows.

I see a few flaws here. First, there is also no evidence contrary to the standard assertion that there are not any such old halo stars around very distant (very young) galaxies. So the only real argument is that JK thinks they may be there, and that proves that the big bang must be wrong. I don't find this to be a confident refutation.

Furthermore, the high redshift galaxies certainly do not look like the nearby galaxies, which is one of the points made by the HST observations of "Galaxies in the Young Universe (http://oposite.stsci.edu/pubinfo/PR/94/52.html)" in 1994 ("This is compelling, direct visual evidence that the universe is truly changing as it ages, as the Big Bang model insists," emphasizes Alan Dressler of the Carnegie Institutions, Washington, D.C. - from the press release (http://oposite.stsci.edu/pubinfo/press-releases/94-52.txt)). Also see Hubble Sees Early Building Blocks Of Today's Galaxies (http://oposite.stsci.edu/pubinfo/PR/96/29.html), which similarly emphasizes the observational difference between then & now. In fact, the early galaxies have much larger populations of young blue stars than do todays galaxies, indicating a higher star formation rate in the past (as standard theory predicts).

I don't consider the old halo stars to be an issue because they aren't one. It is simply an assertion with no evidence behind it that there are 15 billion year old halo stars in high redshift galaxies. Furthermore, the assertion that they should be there, because the high redshift galaxies look like the low redshift galaxies, appears contrary to the observational evidence presented. Standard theory does not anticipate their presence, and observation does not reveal it (of course, in its current state, observation is incapable of revealing such stars, so it is not surprising that we don't see them, even if they are in reality there).

JK: How do big bangers rationalize such large scale effects as the Great Wall of galaxies and the Great Attractor? These don't seem to fit in the timeframes allowed for big bang evolution, but are consistent with an infinite universe. Such groups of galaxies are supposed to be flying apart.

No, as I have already pointed out & referenced, such groups are not supposed to be flying apart, and cannot fly apart in a standard big bang cosmology, because their own self gravitation counteracts the cosmological expansion. From above: (Future Evolution of Nearby Large-Scale Structure in a Universe Dominated by a Cosmological Constant (http://xxx.lanl.gov/abs/astro-ph/0204249), Nagamine & Loeb, April 2002; Future Island Universes in a Background Universe Accelerated by Cosmological Constant and by Quintessence (http://xxx.lanl.gov/abs/astro-ph/0107453), Chiueh & He, July & December, 2001).

Whether or not the formation time scales for such large structures is a problem for big bang cosmology remains to be see, but the theory & evidence thus far imply that this too will not be a major issue (Recent Advances in Large-Scale Structure and Galaxy Formation Studies (http://xxx.lanl.gov/abs/astro-ph/0204074), L. Guzzo, April 2002; Large-Scale Structure Studies with Clusters of Galaxies (http://xxx.lanl.gov/abs/astro-ph/0110231), R.C. Nichol, October 2001; Big Bang Leftovers in the Microwave: Cosmology with the Cosmic Microwave Background Radiation (http://xxx.lanl.gov/abs/astro-ph/0005365), Eric Gawiser, May 2000, 182-page PhD thesis).

JK: Actually, no. It is evidence that wasn't a big bang. If there were a big bang the background should be much higher. http://www.dfi.uem.br/~macedane/history_of_2.7k.html

I cannot connect with that page, and have not been able to do so at all, since it was posted. I assume it is a dead link. So I cannot respond to whatever is supposed to be there. However, there is a page from the dreaded Ned Wright which might be applicable: Eddington's Temperature of Space (http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/Eddington-T0.html), which counters the false agrument that Eddington predicted the cosmic background. In fact, Eddington reported an effective temperature of about 3.18K for the integrated starlight. But he also went on to state that its overall spectrum would not be thermal, and he gives a saple spectrum. The spectrum of Eddington's starlight background is very much different from that of the CMB. Furthermore, Eddington was explicit about his integrated starlight being nonthermal, whereas big bang cosmology is explicit about the CMB being thermal, which fact is confirmed by observation. I have a copy of Eddington's book, The internal Constitution of the Stars (1926, 1930 reprint; Dover Publications 1959). I will attest that Wright's representation of Eddington is factually correct.

I have no idea if this is what the mystery webpage refers too, but it seems relevant to that issue. I do not know whay the cosmic background temperature is supposed to be larger, unless perhaps due to anticipated absorption of background radiation by the intergalactic medium. Infrared & Optical background emission that are coupled with that issue are independent from the CMB (and are both observed & charcterized in the literature).

We have yet to see a substantial argument that the basic big bang cosmology shoud be distrusted.

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Tim Thompson on 2002-05-13 18:19 ]</font>

Jim
2002-May-14, 01:28 AM
JK: Actually, no. It is evidence that wasn't a big bang. If there were a big bang the background should be much higher. http://www.dfi.uem.br/~macedane/history_of_2.7k.html

TT: I cannot connect with that page, and have not been able to do so at all, since it was posted. I assume it is a dead link.

No, it's working. (Try sticking your tongue out the left side of your mouth; always works for me.)

Here's a synopsis:

History of 2.7 K Temperature Prior to Penzias and Wilson
André Koch Torres Assis & Marcos Cesar Danhoni Neves

"We present the history of estimates of the temperature of intergalactic space. We begin with the works of Guillaume and Eddington on the temperature of interstellar space due to starlight belonging to our Milky Way galaxy. Then we discuss works relating to cosmic radiation, concentrating on Regener and Nernst. We also discuss Finlay-Freundlich’s and Max Born’s important research on this topic. Finally, we present the work of Gamow and collaborators. We show that the models based on an Universe in dynamical equilibrium without expansion predicted the 2.7 K temperature prior to and better than models based on the Big Bang."

(jump to the conclusion)

"As we have seen in this paper, Gamow and collaborators obtained from T ~5 K to T = 50 K in monotonic order (5 K, >=5 K, 7 K and 50 K) ... These are quite poor predictions compared with Guillaume, Eddington, Regener and Nernst, McKellar and Herzberg, Finlay-Freundlich and Max Born, who arrived at, respectively: 5 K < T < 6 K, T = 3.1 K, T = 2.8 K, 1.9 K < T < 6.0 K! All of these authors obtained these values from measurements and or theoretical calculations, but none of them utilized the Big Bang. This means that the discovery of Penzias and Wilson cannot be considered decisive evidence in favour of the Big Bang. Quite the contrary, as the models of a Universe in dynamical equilibrium predicted its value before Gamow and with better accuracy. And not only this, Max Born also predicted that the cosmological redshift and the cosmic background radiation should be related with radio astronomy eleven years before the discovery of the CBR by Penzias and Wilson utilizing a horn reflector antenna built to study radio emissions!
Our conclusion is that the discovery of the CBR by Penzias and Wilson is a decisive facto in favour of a Universe in dynamical equilibrium, and against models of an expanding Universe, such as the Big Bang and the steady-state."

Ring any bells?

John Kierein
2002-May-14, 02:21 PM
Somebody misunderstands average scattering angle. If a wave approaches at less than c it's because each individulal photon has taken a zig zag approach when travelling. Each individuual photon travels at c but takes a longer path than the reconstructed wave. The average angle of the individual photon is greater than zero even though the wavefront does not deviate. This is because the Compton effect does not depend on the electromagnetic characteristics of the target or the photon. It is totally explained by conservation of energy and momentum. It occurs for both charged and neutral "scatterers". But since the ExH vector is unchanged, the wavefront proceeds undeviated. However, the wave is slowed according to the scattering angle and number of scatterings. This shows up as an index of refraction of the transparent scattering medium. The index of refraction is defined as the speed of the wave in in a vacuum divided by the speed of the wave in the medium.

Spaceman Spiff
2002-May-14, 07:59 PM
On 2002-05-13 17:41, John Kierein wrote:
Next, NOBODY but John and a few others out
in the fringe claim that the cosmic microwave
background radiation is anything OTHER but
what originated in the big bang.
Out on the fringe? Max Born? Eddington? Herzberg? Nernst?
By the way, what's wrong with fringe? Galileo was on the fringe, and so was Copernicus, etc. etc.
[/quote]

Nothing is wrong with these people. But there
is something wrong with the way you appeal
to authority (even calling what is clearly
Kierein scattering - your own laws of
physics - Compton scattering), and appealing
to authority of what these people had to say
based upon the evidence of their day. There
is something wrong with making unsubstantiated statements (those without
evidence), and saying that you are discussing
science. And I do take issue with your
calling scientists who are trained and
daily work in the field - stupid - either
implicitly, or explicitly.

Redshifts may be uncosmological. The Big
Bang may be entirely wrong. But that's not
where the evidence lies today. IF and when
that evidence arrives, astronomers will
go where the evidence takes them. WE ARE
NOT "big bangers", as if we belonged to
some kind of religion. Our job is to pose
the experiments that will enlighten us
as to the nature of the universe, whatever
that may be.

John Kierein
2002-May-14, 09:26 PM
Hey it's not Kierein scattering. Compton himself said the solar red shift was due to the Compton effect. Compton, A. H.,
1923 Phil. Mag. 46, 897
This was before the Cosmological red shift was discovered.

Spaceman Spiff
2002-May-15, 03:24 AM
And science never makes progress?

I thought you were of the opinion that
astronomers/scientists aren't smart enough
to see what is so plainly before them. What
makes Compton any different? Do you get to
pick and choose whose ideas are "right" and
whose are "wrong"?

Yeah, so Compton proposed an application of
his scattering mechanism. Yeah, so it
applies in some environs, but doesn't
apply everywhere. So what's new here? We
all make mistakes, eh? Science makes the
most progress that way.

As of the moment, there is no compelling
or overwhelming evidence against the present
interpretation of redshifts or of the general
model describing a formerly hot, dense,
nearly smooth universe (whatever version of
the "big bang").

Whatever your model for the cosmic BG
radiation, it had better be a perfect single
temperature blackbody to better than 1 part
in 10,000. This implies an opaque, nearly
isothermal source of thermal radiation over
all directions in the sky. You
can find these conditions in the early
universe described by the big bang. Stars
cannot, thermodynamically, produce this
kind of light, neither can dust. I don't
think we can reproduce a blackbody to this precision in the lab, even under contrived
conditions (though somebody out there might
be able to comment on that).

3 final comments to John:
1) Make detailed, specific predictions with
your model, just as astronomers do.

2) What makes yours better than the present
one?

3) Astronomers will "follow the evidence".
The Big Bang is not a religion. It is simply
a model and theory that best describes and
predicts the body of evidence currently
available (and is consistent with known laws
of physics).

traztx
2002-May-15, 05:39 AM
Excellent topic! I will have to do some study to understand some of the points already mentioned /phpBB/images/smiles/icon_smile.gif

I wouldn't even pretend to be intelligent in this field... but have wondered about some things.

I've wondered about black holes and the Big Bang. If they are both singularities, then why does one implode and the other explode? Anyone recommend a link or book that explains this? I've heard references to the "laws of physics" changing during the early big bang. This doesn't seem very elegant to me.

Another thing that I wonder about is expansion evidence. Is it possible to think of light (in a vacuum) as particles of photons oscillating between magnetic and electric? It seems like this way of thinking still accounts for wave properties like diffraction without requiring a medium. Maybe not. I don't really know enough about this to build the math behind the concept. But if I pretend this is possible... then could it be that the rate of oscillation can slow gradually over the lightyears via a electric/magnetic version of tidal forces? But then am I shooting myself in the foot... because such an effect would be more pronounced where there is higher density of light? I'm not making a point here... just curious about other thoughts in this direction.

Again... a book reference or link would be cool. I read Hawking's book about black holes and baby universes and it evokes more questions than answers.
--Tom
info@tommyraz.com

John Kierein
2002-May-15, 06:02 PM
You didn't read the link I sent you. It specifically predicts a deviation from Hubble's law at high redshifts. Test it.

Karl
2002-May-20, 06:16 AM
On 2002-05-14 10:21, John Kierein wrote:
Somebody misunderstands average scattering angle. If a wave approaches at less than c it's because each individulal photon has taken a zig zag approach when travelling. Each individuual photon travels at c but takes a longer path than the reconstructed wave. The average angle of the individual photon is greater than zero even though the wavefront does not deviate. . . .


So, what percentage of photons are scattered and 'lost', and what percentage is 'focused' back to form the "reconstructed wave"? This certainly isn't like the Compton scattering I measured back in my school days.