Hello pgrmdave
You said
"Harry, if you don't believe that the universe is expanding, then how do you explain the red shifting of the galaxies? If everything is moving away from everything else, does it not make the most sense that the space between them is expanding, not that they are moving? "
----------------------------------------------------------------
The universe by definition is "ALL" and all cannot expand or contract.
How can it get bigger or smaller?
The observable universe is another question.
I do not think in the overall sense that even this is expanding the reason being is that it has no reason to expand unless some parts are going through explosion and contraction process.
----------------------------------------------------------------
Links to dispute the expanding universe but not limited to these.
http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0509611
quote:
"Surface brightness data can distinguish between a Friedman-Robertson-Walker expanding universe and a non-expanding universe. For surface brightness measured in AB magnitudes per angular area, all FRW models, regardless of cosmological parameters, predict that surface brightness declines with redshift as (z+1)^-3, while any non-expanding model predicts that surface brightness is constant with distance and thus with z. High-z UV surface brightness data for galaxies from the Hubble Ultra Deep Field and low-z data from GALEX are used to test the predictions of these two models up to z=6. A preliminary analysis presented here of samples observed at the same at-galaxy wavelengths in the UV shows that surface brightness is constant, mu=kz^0.026+-0.15, consistent with the non-expanding model. This relationship holds if distance is linearly proportional to z at all redshifts, but seems insensitive to the particular choice of d-z relationship. Attempts to reconcile the data with FRW predictions by assuming that high-z galaxies have intrinsically higher surface brightness than low-z galaxies appear to face insurmountable problems. The intrinsic FUV surface brightness required by the FRW models for high-z galaxies exceeds the maximum FUV surface brightness of any low-z galaxy by as much as a factor of 40. Dust absorption appears to make such extremely high intrinsic FUV surface brightness physically impossible. If confirmed by further analysis, the impossibility of such high-surface-brightness galaxies would rule out all FRW expanding universe (big bang) models.
Full-text: PDF only"
http://home.pacbell.net/skeptica/edwinhubble.html
Most of todays’ astronomers/cosmologists have ignored and/or abandoned Hubble. This indicates that Hubble has not succeeded. For Hubble found that the observational data best fit a linear relation between redshift and distance. But to Hubble a linear relation did not mean an expanding universe. Before I explain the above statement further, let’s take a look at how Hubble considered the interpretation of redshifts as being velocity-shifts. From The Realm of the Nebulae, (In the early 20th century galaxies were referred to as nebulae.):
This explanation interprets red-shifts as Doppler effects, that is to say, as velocity-shifts, indicating actual motion of recession. It may be stated with some confidence that red-shifts are velocity-shifts or else they represent some hitherto unrecognized principle in physics. [...]
Meanwhile, red-shifts may be expressed on a scale of velocities as a matter of convenience. They behave as velocity-shifts behave and they are very simply represented on the same familiar scale, regardless of the ultimate interpretation. The term “apparent velocity” may be used in carefully considered statements, and the adjective always implied where it is omitted in general usage. --pp. 122-123
Because it was known that receding motion in the line of sight will produce a redshift (a blueshift if approaching) and because no other satisfactory understanding was available of how a redshift might be produced, the popular interpretation was to view redshifts as Doppler effects. In Hubble’s paper, “The Problem of the Expanding Universe,” as well as in many other of his writings, one can see his reasons for skepticism regarding the Doppler interpretation for galactic redshifts. In the section “The Interpretation of the Red Shifts,” Hubble writes:
The investigations were designed to determine whether or not red shifts represent actual recession. In principle, the problem can be solved; a rapidly receding light source appears fainter than a similar but stationary source at the same momentary distance....
For velocities of a few miles or a few hundred miles per second, the dimming factor is negligible. But for the extremely distant nebulae, where the apparent recessions reach tens of thousands of miles per second, the effects are large enough to be readily observed and measured. Hence, if the distances of the nebulae were known quite accurately we could measure their apparent faintness and tell at once whether or not they are receding at the rates indicated by red shifts.
Unfortunately, the problem is not so simple. The only general criterion of great distances is the very apparent faintness of the nebulae which we wish to test. Therefore, the proposed test involves a vicious circle, and the dimming factor merely leads to an error in distance. However, a possible escape from the vicious circle is found in the following procedure. Since the intrinsic luminosities of nebulae are known, their apparent faintness furnishes two scales of distance, depending upon whether we assume the nebulae to be stationary or receding. If, then, we analyze our data, if we map the observable region, using first one scale and then the other, we may find that the wrong scale leads to contradictions or at least to grave difficulties. Such attempts have been made and one scale does lead to trouble. It is the scale which includes the dimming factors of recession, which assumes that the universe is expanding. --pp. 108-109.
As to the question I opened with: Yes, Hubble was consistent. He, I believe, would have strongly challenged as totally unfounded statements like this one by Allan R. Sandage (Sandage is said to have taken over the work of Hubble): “The expansion of the entire universe is the most important single hard scientific fact of cosmology” (from The Hammond Barnhart Dictionary of Science, Barnhart Books, 1986, under the word cosmology). This is particularly curious coming from someone who in his closing sentence in his introduction to Hubble’s The Realm of the Nebulae (Dover, 1958) writes: “Hubble’s original approach to observational cosmology remains." Yet, obviously it doesn’t with astronomers like Allan Sandage. Hubble’s approach was one of caution, even skepticism, regarding the expanding universe idea. From the conclusion of Hubble’s “The Problem of the Expanding Universe”:
Thus the use of dimming corrections leads to a particular kind of universe, but one which most students are likely to reject as highly improbable. Furthermore, the strange features of this universe are merely the dimming corrections expressed in different terms. Omit the dimming factors, and the oddities vanish. We are left with the simple, even familiar concept of a sensibly infinite universe. All the difficulties are transferred to the interpretation of red shifts which cannot then be the familiar velocity shifts. [...]
Meanwhile, on the basis of the evidence now available, apparent discrepancies between theory and observation must be recognized. A choice is presented, as once before in the days of Copernicus, between a strangely small, finite universe and a sensibly infinite universe plus a new principle of nature.
It is not unusual to find astronomy and cosmology books that credit Hubble with the discovery of the expansion of the universe. As we now see this is inaccurate. Such talk doesn’t square very well with Hubble’s repeated declarations that “for a stationary universe, the law of red shifts is sensibly linear." And “The results may be stated simply. If the nebulae are stationary, the law of red shifts is sensibly linear; red shifts are a constant multiple of distances. In other words, each unit of light path contributes the same amount of red shift." (1)
It is frequently said that 1929 is the year Hubble discovered that our universe is expanding. Yet, six years later in the abstract of a paper he co-authored with Richard Tolman, they wrote that the data is “not yet sufficient to permit a decision between recessional or other causes for the red-shift." (2)
To the best of my knowledge Hubble’s 1929 paper (3) is the only published paper where the reader is left with the view by Hubble, and now apparently universally adopted, that the linear law of redshifts applies only as a velocity-distance relation. It is no wonder that this is the paper that is usually cited by itself in astronomy textbooks.
Big Bang critic, and radio astronomy pioneer Grote Reber desires to make it known that Hubble expressed “grave doubts about red shifts being caused by relative motion.” Reber asks us to see pages 2, 21, 26, 31, 43, 44, 54, 63 and 66 of Hubble’s 1937 book The Observational Approach to Cosmology. This book is excellent in showing Hubble’s doubts about redshifts being due to the Doppler effect. In a 1934 lecture with the title "Red-Shifts in the Spectra of Nebulae," Hubble writes:
The field is new, but it offers rather definite prospects not only of testing the form of the velocity-distance relation beyond the reach of the spectrograph, but even of critically testing the very interpretation of red-shifts as due to motion. With this possibility in view, the cautious observer refrains from committing himself to the present interpretation and prefers the colourless term “apparent velocity.” (4)
The field was still young, but not so new by the time Hubble died in 1953, so perhaps Hubble dropped his doubts by then. Yet even in 1953, in his last lecture before he died, Hubble still treated the linear velocity-distance relation as an apparent velocity-distance relation. In his George Darwin Lecture of 1953 with the title “The Law of Red-Shifts,” a graph is provided showing a linear relation of several galaxy groups. On the bottom corner of the graph are the words “NO RECESSION FACTOR." In other words, if the dimming factor for recession of the galaxies is not used, the relation between redshift (usually expressed as velocity) and apparent magnitude will be linear. And in Hubble’s words from the same lecture: “When no recession factors are included, the law will represent approximately a linear relation between red-shifts and distance." (5)
other links
http://redshift.vif.com/JournalFiles...F/V10N1ANT.pdf
http://www.newtonphysics.on.ca/UNIVERSE/Universe.html
http://ourworld.compuserve.com/homep...p5/explode.htm
http://www.electric-cosmos.org/arp.htm
Halton C. Arp is a professional astronomer who, earlier in his career, was Edwin Hubble's assistant. He has earned the Helen B.Warner prize, the Newcomb Cleveland award and the Alexander von Humboldt Senior Scientist Award. For years he worked at the Mt. Palomar and Mt. Wilson observatories. While there, he developed his well known catalog of "Peculiar Galaxies" that are misshapen or irregular in appearance.
Arp discovered, by taking photographs through the big telescopes, that many pairs of quasars ("quasi-stellar objects") which have extremely high redshift z values (and are therefore thought to be receding from us very rapidly - and thus must be located at a great distance from us) are physically associated with galaxies that have low redshift and are known to be relatively close by. Arp has photographs of many pairs of high redshift quasars that are symmetrically located on either side of what he suggests are their parent, low redshift galaxies. These pairings occur much more often than the probabilities of random placement would allow. Mainstream astrophysicists try to explain away Arp's observations of connected galaxies and quasars as being "illusions" or "coincidences of apparent location". But, the large number of physically associated quasars and low red shift galaxies that he has photographed and cataloged defies that evasion. It simply happens too often
Because of Arp's photos, the assumption that high red shift objects have to be very far away - on which the "Big Bang" theory and all of "accepted cosmology" is based - is proven to be wrong! The Big Bang theory is therefore falsified.
NGC 4319 and Markarian 205
A prime example of Arp's challenge is the connected pair of objects NGC 4319 and Markarian 205.
Dr. Arp has shown in his book "Quasars, Redshifts and Controversies" that there is a physical connection between the barred spiral galaxy NGC 4319 and the quasar like object Markarian 205. This connection is between two objects that have vastly different redshift values. Mainstream astronomers deny
the existence of this physical link. They claim these two objects are not close together - they are "coincidentally aligned".
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
http://www.ingentaconnect.com/conten...00002/05138613
Abstract:
The Lehto-Tifft redshift quantization model is used to predict the redshift distribution for certain classes of quasars, and for galaxies in the neighborhood of z=0.5. In the Lehto-Tifft model the redshift is presumed to arise from time dependent decay from an origin at the Planck scale; the decay process is a form of period doubling. Looking back in time reveals earlier stages of the process where redshifts should correspond to predictable fractions of the speed of light. Quasar redshift peaks are shown to correspond to the earliest simple fractions of c as predicted by the model. The sharp peaks present in deep field galaxy redshifts surveys are then shown to correspond to later stages in such a decay process. Highly discordant redshift associations are expected to occur and shown to be present in the deep field surveys. Peaks in redshift distributions appear to represent the spectrum of possible states at various stage of the decay process rather than physical structures.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
http://www.setterfield.org/staticu.html
Setterfield's Response
quote:
"In his rejection of this paper, Dr. Chaffin states, "I believe I have discovered a mistake in the logic concerning the comparison of the cosmological expansion to the gravitational binding effects. Once one realizes that this mistake is there, then I would think the author would wish to withdraw the paper, but in any case the editor would [be] obliged to reject the manuscript." This "mistake in logic" concerns the effects of cosmological expansion. In this current paper, it was pointed out that one of the explanations for the redshift was that, according to the Friedmann equations, the wavelengths of light were being stretched in transit as the fabric of space expanded. The logic is that if such things as small as the wavelengths of light are being stretched as the fabric of space expands, so also must things like atoms, our measuring devices, star systems, and galaxies. However, there are a number of problems that this introduces as discussed in the body of the paper. The usual way to overcome these problems and save the existing paradigm is to claim that expansion only occurs between clusters of galaxies. The explanation is that expansion does not occur on smaller scales due solely to the effect of gravity. This is the position taken by a number of theorists.
However, the problem is not nearly as settled as many believe. Cooperstock, Faraoni and Vollick acknowledged in 1998 "The recurrent attention paid to this issue indicates that to this point a definitive answer is still lacking." They point out that it was first raised by McVittie in 1933, by Jarnefelt in 1940 and 1942, then Pachner in 1963, Dicke and Peebles in 1964, plus both Callan et al. and Irvine in 1965 with Noerdlinger and Petrosian in 1971 and so on until the discussion conducted in 1995 by Anderson. In order to assist a decision on this matter, an equivalent system was then studied in 1996 by Bonnor who examined the distribution of pressureless charged dust in equilibrium between electrical repulsion and gravitational attraction. He concluded that the lesser systems participated in universal expansion despite gravitational acceleration. This led on to an admission by Cooperstock, Faraoni and Vollick in 1998 that the Friedmann equations do not dictate a scale for expansion, "and in principle, it could be present at the smallest practical scale as a real...expansion and observable in principle. ...Thus in this debate we are in agreement...that it is most reasonable to assume that the expansion does indeed proceed at all scales." However, if cosmologists accept these conclusions that atoms, stars and galaxies partake of universal expansion, Sumner's unacceptable result of a blue-shift of light from these atoms necessarily follows as explained in this current paper.
It is against this background that the alleged "mistake in logic" comes in. This current paper notes that the gravitational force between the clusters is 1010 times greater than the force exerted on the Sun by the Milky Way. Dr. Chaffin concedes this is correct. Consequently, one would expect that if the cosmological expansion force is not strong enough to overcome the gravitational force on the Sun by the Milky Way system, it will have even less effect on clusters of galaxies, even when the distance factor over which it operates is taken into account. In other words, the space between the clusters of galaxies should not expand either. But Dr. Chaffin (in a separate note he included in his letter of rejection) states that this "is like comparing apples and oranges since the mass of a galactic cluster is not the same as the mass of either the Sun or of a galaxy. A more relevant quantity is the magnitude of the accelerations caused by the gravitational binding compared to that caused by cosmic expansion." It is here that Dr. Chaffin calls attention to the paper by Cooperstock, Faraoni and Vollick, for which he is thanked. This calculates both the gravitational acceleration of the Sun by our Galaxy, and the acceleration between clusters of galaxies and compares them with the acceleration of the cosmological expansion. In this case, the cosmological acceleration is largest for the clusters of galaxies. The conclusion drawn from this by Dr. Chaffin was that only the space between clusters of galaxies would expand under these conditions in contradiction to the calculation performed in the current paper, therefore there exists a "mistake in logic."
But this is probably the wrong conclusion for Dr. Chaffin to draw for two reasons. First, in their 'Discussion and Conclusions' section, Cooperstock, Faraoni and Vollick examine the numerical results obtained for the magnitude of the correction to the acceleration of objects subject to external forces. They specifically conclude: "The numerical estimates obtained in Sec. 3 suggest that the correction is extremely small and unobservable for galaxy clusters, galaxies and the solar system, and negligible for smaller systems such as stars and even more so for molecules and atoms." The actual figures tell the story. For the best case, that is with galaxy clusters, the gravitational acceleration is about 8 x 10-11 metres per second per second, while the acceleration due to cosmological expansion is merely 5.6 x 10-18 metres per second per second. Thus, as Cooperstock, Faraoni and Vollick state, the correction is extremely small and unobservable. These figures indicate that the gravitational acceleration for galaxy clusters is 7 orders of magnitude greater than that of the cosmological acceleration, a point that Cooperstock, Faraoni and Vollick actually make. Despite the fact that it is the best result obtainable, they also state "it is still nevertheless essentially ignorable." In other words this calculation suggests that even when comparing the gravitational and cosmological accelerations, not only do the stars and galaxies not expand, it seems that even the space between clusters does not expand either. This does not contradict the conclusion reached in the current paper using the forces argument that if the atoms, stars, and galaxies do not expand, neither does the space between the clusters. So Dr. Chaffin appears to have come to the wrong conclusion.
There is a second reason why this may be the wrong conclusion for Dr. Chaffin to draw. Cooperstock, Faraoni and Vollick try to overcome their problem with the magnitude of the expansion effect by doing a different calculation using the local equations of motion applied to two bodies under Newtonian conditions. Here, the cumulative effect of cosmological expansion on the Sun-Earth system is essentially negligible. However, it becomes increasingly significant for larger systems over the lifetime of the cosmos. But there is then a problem, because Cooperstock, Faraoni and Vollick admit: "In this case, the approximation used in this paper becomes invalid." They finalise by saying: "As a conclusion, it is reasonable to assume that the expansion of the universe affects all scales, but the magnitude of the effect is essentially negligible for local systems, even at the scale of galactic clusters." In other words, if the gravitational binding argument is accepted at all, it leads to the conclusion that the expansion effect "is essentially negligible" even between clusters of galaxies, so there will never be any observational proof for cosmological expansion. In other words, it becomes an unfalsifiable theory. In this case, the weight of observational evidence presented in this current paper assumes a greater priority, and it all points in one specific direction. Under these circumstances, Dr Chaffin's rejection of this current paper on the basis of a "mistake in logic" seems unduly harsh.
Dr. Chaffin also asked in his additionally enclosed note "Would [cosmic expansion] become predominate at larger scales? I think the answer is yes. To say otherwise is to say that Friedmann and Lemaitre did their calculations wrong, and that many others who repeated these calculations, such as Landau & Lifshitz, 'Classical Theory of Fields', got the arithmetic wrong." Dr. Chaffin was kind enough to supply some relevant pages there. However, his comments seem undiscerning. Far from showing that cosmic expansion became predominate at large scales, Cooperstock, Faraoni and Vollick show that even at the scale of clusters of galaxies it is still "essentially negligible." Dr. Chaffin then makes the accusation that "To say otherwise is to say that Friedmann and Lemaitre did their calculations wrong," This is incorrect. Cooperstock, Faraoni and Vollick show that the cosmic expansion does not predominate in the way Dr. Chaffin expected, but their calculations are not therefore wrong. They merely show that the effect that Friedmann and Lemaitre theoretically envisioned was not behaving in the way they assumed.
However, there exists one final problem. Dr. Chaffin sent me the first three pages of the Cooperstock, Faraoni and Vollick article, upon which he based his rejection. I initially accepted this gratuity as an act of kindness, and was grateful. However, when the full article was obtained from the web, it became apparent that the other pages in the article largely counteract Dr. Chaffin's reasons for rejection as outlined above. Consequently, I am left to wonder at the rationale behind both his rejection of this current paper, and his forwarding of only three pages."
