[Little Bang]

Right now it appears that the expansion of the universe is accelerating. How does that fit with your veiws cc?

[coldcreation]

Originally Posted by Little Bang

Right now it appears that the expansion of the universe is accelerating. How does that fit with your veiws cc?

First, the deviation from a linear redshift-apparent magnitude, as seen in the spectra of high-z SN Ia, is expected in a continuous curved spacetime. It was not expected (never predicted) by the standard model or any of its derivatives. To explain the contradictory observations a force had to be invented. It was not Einstein's cosmological term. It was a dark force. One that outweighed gravity on the large scales yet remains for all time undetectable. This ad hoc force thought to accelerate the cosmos is not needed in a nonexpanding general relativistic universe. The universe is not accelerating.

The early de Sitter models were nonexpanding models based on GR in a curved spacetime manifold. They had latter been interpreted as expanding models, I should add erroneously.

With regard to certain ideas of expansion, i.e., that matter too is expanding along with the universe (Poof, McC. etc.): I should say not. There is another way to explain gravity without introducing another mechanism, one that cause expansion. See another thread called The Cosmological Constant: A New Law, by Coldcreation. The mechanism behind the gravitational interaction is indeed layed out. It is a much more simple and symmetric explanation of gravity, and it too agrees with observations, both locally and globaly without introducing an ad hoc force, expansion, dark energy etc.

If there are any further questions about gravity, I will bring back the thread about lambda.

Redshift z, lambda, gravity, the CMB, and matterial creation are all related directly, and so should be discussed in one thread, but because of the complex interrelations between them it was deemed better to seperate them into threads of their own.

[questor]

how can something spread to infinity ? it goes against the definition.

[coldcreation]

Originally Posted by questor

how can something spread to infinity ? it goes against the definition.

Not sure what you mean by 'spread.'

As far as a universe that is infinite in spatiotemporal extent there is no problem, by definition. The problem arises when the universe is not infinite. Because, then, a boundary condition (e.g., a singularity at the horizon) needs to be introduced.

Hawking was a master at avoiding this problem, with his famous 'there is no north of the North Pole.' He needed a spherical universe for that to work though. Observations show the universe is not spherical but hyperbolic. See high-z Supernovae Type Ia results of the late 1990s. The data suggests (besides the erroneuos interpretation of accelerated expansion) an infinite, unbounded, open universe. Ta ta Dios.

cc

[Southtown]

What about the blantant structure of varying redshifts within galaxies and among companions? Arp's peculiars? How does CC explain those observations?

[coldcreation]

Originally Posted by Southtown

What about the blantant structure of varying redshifts within galaxies and among companions? Arp's peculiars? How does CC explain those observations?

Yes, Yes, the discordant redshifts. They are really not so blatent, as you write. But they nevertheless constitute a conundrum for most theories. That why cosmologists can't stand Arp. He is one of the most hard working observational cosmologists alive today.

The basic value of Arp's research is exemplified by the likelyhood that redshift is non-Doppler. i.e., the universe is nonexpanding. Why? Objects with luminous bridges connecting them that show greatly different redshift should be at large distances from one another.

Quickly (I'm in Madrid on someone elses computer) there is no problem fitting Arp's discoveries into the CC theory. Recall, the CC universe is not expanding. So far so good. What about discordant redshifts in a globally curved hyperbolic spacetime continuum? In addition to the general relativistic redshift z there are superimposed intrinsic redshifts, both gravitational (zgrav) and Doppler, when objects move toward the observer (or blueshifts when away from our point of view).

If, in the case of high-z quasars, the objets is extremely dense and moving towards us, the three redshift effects are operational at the same time. The result is a high-redshift object that appears closer than expected if redshift were striclty cosmological in nature. Likewise, an object could appear neither redshifted nor blueshifted and still be a great distances if the object were moving towards us, as the blushift would cancel the global (cosmological) redshift z.

It is true too that if global redshift is a Doppler effect in an expanding universe the same explanation can be used (motion towards or away and zgrav) to justify discordant redshifts without doing away with expansion. This is what should be argued rather than chance alignments.

There is another important aspect of Arp's work that does not fit in at all with the expansion hypothesis, and that does work extremely well with Coldcreation theory. The patterns of objects (e.g., galaxies, quasars) are often often aligned along straight lines as well as other patterns. Arp's interpretation is that the parent galaxies ejected material (young mater, high-z) out from the nuclei along an axis.

I do not think so. I will elaborate further on this, as it is fundamental to the CC theory. It has to do with the geometric structure found by Lagrange. This argument explains associaed objects like Einstein's Cross, barred galaxies, barred spirals and most if not all of Arps structures: the idea is that there is initially a mass M1 and a mass M2. Material rotates around the halo L1 orbit and mass ends up at L4 and L5, which are stable areas. There is no other more simple explanation.

The standard model has no explanation for these patterns. First, because the object are not supposed to be near each other. Second, because the universe is thought to be highly unstable, expanding. There can be no organized patterns like Arp's because galaxies when to close to on another gobble each other up, canabalism, they collide gravitationally. According to the standard model, unless there is orbital motion, centrifugal force that exactly cancels gravity, object with collide.

Again I can (and will) expand on this subject if need be.

cc

[Little Bang]

May I ask a real stupid, what data are you using to make the statement that the universe is not expanding. For the life of me I don't why I am wasting my time on you.

[coldcreation]

Originally Posted by Little Bang

May I ask a what data you are using to make the statement that the universe is not expanding. snip.

Sure. But first, it should be said that the there is no proof that the universe is expanding. We do not see galaxies moving away from us on cosmological scale, we do not see galaxies disappearing off the horizon, we cannot make space expand in earth-based experiments and so on.

Indeed littlebang, the Doppler effect has been attributed to the redshift, but it is just an interpretation of the data. There is one other interpretation that is not in disagreament with the data, and it is just as viable (more so actually). That is the subject of this thread. It may be wrong, but it may be right. Only recently has it been possible to differenciate between the two competing interpretations. There is increasing discrepancy between the Doppler interpretation and observation: discordant redshifts (see Arp), no deceleration parameter (turns out the universe must be accelerating), and quasars, which have never fit the Hubble expansion lineage.

What data do I use? All the data available. And not just the redshift data. Too, data on apparent magnitude, rotational curves, color, etc.

For more info read this thread. Everything written above is already in the thread.

[Southtown]

From what I can tell there's a lot in common with your ideas and his. You both lean towards a non-expanding universe, and a constant formation of matter. You don't agree on gravity or redshift. You say space is curved by gravity, while he thinks space is flat and full of 'gravitons'.

Hence, the redshift would be gravitational in curved space, but not in flat space. Arp then has to find a mechanism, and that would be that matter grows with the accumulation of information (e.g., photons, gravitons, etc.) over time, thereby altering the energy carried by the light given off.

That would explain the "finger of God" z-pattern found in galaxies and companions. Also, Arp's theory explains galaxy formation much more solidly than any accretion models. I'm not sure which I agree with, it would depend on the true nature of gravity. I'm not totally comfortable with either gravity theory.

[questor]

if the universe is expanding, what is it expanding into? and as it expands, either matter must expand with it or voids would be created between the
''strings'' or dark matter or whatever is there. in addition, when we talk of curved spacetime, does that not imply a finite, static universe? from what point could this curvature be evident?