[BlameTheEx]

coldcreation

"THE tired light concept" has indeed been ruled out. However variations are still possible. In essence I am suggesting that light and presumably any travelling object is slowly damped down as it travels. Perhaps some property of space itself. Perhaps some sort of gravitational drag. Whatever, it must have the effect of acting like Doppler shift or for that matter a gravitational well.

What I have against the Doppler interpretation was clearly stated - it is inconsistent with the universe existing, with considerable size, before the BB. For that matter anything like a standard BB expansion cosmology is also inconsistent. I started with an assumption and then looked for a set of rules that would make it possible. I would just as happily start with the assumption that the moon is made from green cheese and look for a set of rules for that. If it turns out that the rules look absurd then I am just playing devil's advocate.

Frankly I stand with C1ay here - Cosmology is a messy business and the current position looks fudged with Dark Matter, Dark energy, and an embarrassing lack of antimatter. These aparently overaged globular clusters lead to further unease. The truth could easily be something unexpected so keeping an open mind is just common sense.

[coldcreation]

Originally Posted by BlameTheEx

coldcreation

"THE tired light concept" has indeed been ruled out. However variations are still possible. In essence I am suggesting that light and presumably any travelling object is slowly damped down as it travels. Perhaps some property of space itself. Perhaps some sort of gravitational drag. Whatever, it must have the effect of acting like Doppler shift or for that matter a gravitational well.

What I have against the Doppler interpretation was clearly stated - it is inconsistent with the universe existing, with considerable size, before the BB. For that matter anything like a standard BB expansion cosmology is also inconsistent. I started with an assumption and then looked for a set of rules that would make it possible. I would just as happily start with the assumption that the moon is made from green cheese and look for a set of rules for that. If it turns out that the rules look absurd then I am just playing devil's advocate.

Frankly I stand with C1ay here - Cosmology is a messy business and the current position looks fudged with Dark Matter, Dark energy, and an embarrassing lack of antimatter. These aparently overaged globular clusters lead to further unease. The truth could easily be something unexpected so keeping an open mind is just common sense.

OK BTX now I understand. Forgive me. I thought you were pushing the old tired light concept and the big bang at the same time. Two concepts that from the ouset are at odds with each other. We are in total agreement. Thanks for the clarification.

One thing though, if C1ay and I are not in agreement how can BlametheX and coldcreation?

[C1ay]

Originally Posted by coldcreation

OK BTX now I understand. Forgive me. I thought you were pushing the old tired light concept and the big bang at the same time. Two concepts that from the ouset are at odds with each other. We are in total agreement. Thanks for the clarification.

One thing though, if C1ay and I are not in agreement how can BlametheX and coldcreation?

Ah, but you really don't know what my complete POV is.

I do not necessarily support any of the interpretations of redshift Z. It's all over the board with some objects supposedly flying away from us at more than 30,000 km/s and other objects coming at us at over 2000 km/s It just doesn't sound like expansion to me.

For context, my personal belief is this: The universe is infinite and has existed for eternity. There was some local event approximately 13 billion years ago that resulted in a dispersion of matter and energy we refer to as the universe. I think this event has an expanding event horizon that we see as the boundary of our universe. I think this event occured in a region where old galaxies and clusters already existed and we see them within the envelope of the event horizon. This is why they are older than the event itself.

Imagine the room where you sit now as an infinite space. Hold up a soccerball and it represents the universe as we know it within the larger infinite space. You could event imagine other balls throughout the room as representing other big bangs. This is my personal view of the universe. I even imagine that some of the material from the various events is intertwined and that is why we have bodies in our local region that are older than our own local event.

This model has some expansion of the local dispersion of matter and energy. The energy wave may actually move some of the already existing matter much like a floating item on the water is nudged by a passing wave. Some of the matter that existed in the local area would have been moving away from it's own origin and would subsequently be moving toward our own showing a negative redshift z as we see with some objects.

This is all speculative imagination though, not any formal claim of truth. For me it is just one model that kind of fits the data.

[coldcreation]

Originally Posted by C1ay

Ah, but you really don't know what my complete POV is.

I do not necessarily support any of the interpretations of redshift Z. It's all over the board with some objects supposedly flying away from us at more than 30,000 km/s and other objects coming at us at over 2000 km/s It just doesn't sound like expansion to me.

For context, my personal belief is this: The universe is infinite and has existed for eternity.

This is all speculative imagination though, not any formal claim of truth. For me it is just one model that kind of fits the data.

Hmm, so we are in agreament on a number of points. Very interesting. Question: Would the laws of physics be different in every region of expansion, as in the muliverse theroy, of chaotic inflation (as in Lynde's version). Or would all your balloon universes abide by relativity, the fundamental constants, QM and thermodynamics, etc.

I would hope that anyone out there, physicists, laymen, and what not, that are out to find a TOE or even just a standard theory, would use the laws of nature as a starting point, then observations, then interpretations. Otherwise you run the same risks of been totally off the mark, obliged to use new physics, and end up disgruntled when someone points out evidence that contradicks your dogmatic stance. Good luck men, may nature be with you, pleasent journey into never never land.

Coolcreation

[C1ay]

Originally Posted by coldcreation

Hmm, so we are in agreament on a number of points. Very interesting. Question: Would the laws of physics be different in every region of expansion, as in the muliverse theroy, of chaotic inflation (as in Lynde's version). Or would all your balloon universes abide by relativity, the fundamental constants, QM and thermodynamics, etc.

I tend to think that the laws of physics would apply throughout the Universe. For me there really aren't seperate universes, just different regions of the same universe. There may even be some properties that our local region doesn't exhibit that we can't observe. I think man has done a fair job thus far at trying to analyse nature as we know it but I think man will still be learning fundemental aspects of nature eons from now with technology we can't even imagine at this point.

[infamous]

Originally Posted by C1ay

I tend to think that the laws of physics would apply throughout the Universe. For me there really aren't seperate universes, just different regions of the same universe. There may even be some properties that our local region doesn't exhibit that we can't observe. I think man has done a fair job thus far at trying to analyse nature as we know it but I think man will still be learning fundemental aspects of nature eons from now with technology we can't even imagine at this point.

I tend to agree with your fundamental point of view C1ay. I also view the universe as infinite and eternal. One question I would like to pose to everyone in this thread would be: Because science has proposed the idea of gravitational collapse, black holes, is it possible that there may be an alternative explanation for this accumulation of aggregate matter? Because we know that neutron stars exist, the possibility then confronts us that a quark star may be lurking out there somewhere. Because I haven't yet been convinced that black holes exist, it may be possible that there exists a boundry beyond which mass can accumulate. After reaching this point of compaction, some as yet not understood mechanism would allow the body to explode back into surrounding space. If this is occuring, it may only happen very seldom leaving the human experience without any evidence except what we call the big bang. Or maybe we should call it an intermediate bang???

[C1ay]

Originally Posted by infamous

it may be possible that there exists a boundry beyond which mass can accumulate. After reaching this point of compaction, some as yet not understood mechanism would allow the body to explode back into surrounding space. If this is occuring, it may only happen very seldom leaving the human experience without any evidence except what we call the big bang. Or maybe we should call it an intermediate bang???

That is a model I've given consideration to for some time now.....

[BlameTheEx]

C1ay

It is difficult to get away from the Hubbell constant. Maybe the red shift is due to expansion and maybe it isn't but red shift IS clearly the product of 3 factors - distance, local velocity and gravity. There is just too much evidence for the distance component.

It is also difficult to view the cause of the Hubbell effect to be located at a point in space. It is too even in all directions. The only viable point would be right here and that seems implausible without a religious explanation (We are in the centre of the universe because God made it all for us).

All told I just can't see this Big Bang (or Little Bang) as a local event if it is associated with the Hubbell constant, and I can't see much evidence for any sort of a bang if it isn't.

Ignoring expansion means you have to assume that the new matter (presumably mostly hydrogen and helium) was just dumped into this universe with no particular velocity. As it is well spread out now you have to assume that it arrived spread out. Given that one bit of the sky looks much like any other the matter is more or less spread out evenly in all directions at any particular distance. That implies (but doesn't prove) that it was originally spread out throughout the universe more or less evenly.

Think in terms of the universe itself receiving a load of energy and dumping it as best it can.

[C1ay]

Originally Posted by BlameTheEx

It is difficult to get away from the Hubbell constant.

Yes but the darn redshift is just all over the place to say conclusively that it means one thing or another. If there was some kind of explosion, a big bang, then it makes sense that the affected matter would be expanding.

Was there other matter in the vicinity though and was the imparted energy variable relative to it's distance from the event? Was there matter in the vicinity that was actually moving toward the event or tangent to it such that the imparted energy from the event slowed it down or deflected it?

Is there matter between us and some of the point light sources with high redshift and do we even know what that matter is? Not that I'm a dark matter supporter but we have located a dark galaxy, at least we think we have.

How about this one fom left field. You're likely familiar with the mirage effect that tricks people into thinking they see water in the desert. It's simply an effect of the distortion of light caused by the heat of the sun. Our planet is located relatively close to our sun will within the heliosphere of our sun. Is the light from distant light sources effected by the heliospere of our sun and does it taint our ability to observe that light? Do waves of heat and radiation cause any ripple in the light we receive from distant points and does that ripple explain any of the variablity in redshift? Mind you, I'm not saying that it does. I'm just asking if we really know the answer to these questions.

I expect that some of the expansion we see is just that. I don't buy the 'balloon inflation' model though since it imples everything is moving away from us when in fact we have logged over 2000 objects with blueshift. I think we have a lot to learn yet about interpreting the data we collect from observation. Man's doing pretty well so far but we haven't learned it all yet.

[coldcreation]

Originally Posted by C1ay

Yes but the darn redshift is just all over the place to say conclusively that it means one thing or another. If there was some kind of explosion, a big bang, then it makes sense that the affected matter would be expanding.

I expect that some of the expansion we see is just that. I don't buy the 'balloon inflation' model though since it imples everything is moving away from us when in fact we have logged over 2000 objects with blueshift. I think we have a lot to learn yet about interpreting the data we collect from observation. Man's doing pretty well so far but we haven't learned it all yet.

The point to make is that Friedmann was well aware of the extraneous nature of his cosmogony—in all honesty—as he wrote about this sort of intellectual speculation early on. The author, while maintaining a distance from his own text, considered, not without reason, that such a proposal offered a precious document d’époche, for both historians of science and historians of mythology. To introduce his new ‘discovery’ of world models with variable radius of curvature, Friedmann had a few words published. You’ll get a BANG out of this:

The variable type of universe represents a great variety of cases; there can be cases of this type when the world’s radius of curvature…is constantly increasing in time; cases are also possible when the radius of curvature changes periodically: The universe contracts into a point (into nothing) and then again increases its radius from a point up to a certain value, then again, diminishing its radius of curvature, transforms itself into a point, etc. This brings to mind what Hindu mythology has to say about cycles of existence, and it also becomes possible to speak about “ the creation of the world from nothing,” but all this should at present be considered as curious facts which cannot be reliably supported by the inadequate astronomical experimental material.” (Friedmann, 1923)

Coldcreation