Origin of the Universe,,,,Bang or no Bang

[Jay-qu]

Originally Posted by modest

It is not useful to talk about how redshifted "the universe" is. Redshift is relative. Something at some distance is redshifted some amount and something else at another distance is redshifted differently. Andromeda is blueshifted to us but is redshifted to someone else. It's relative. It depends on the position and speed of two reference frames. This makes no sense: "In the beginning the universe was the most red shifted as it hurled through space." None at all.

-modest

Yes it is relative but the interesting consequence of the universe been homogeneous and isotropic means that everywhere is the centre of the universe and thus everyone will see the majority of the rest of the universe redshifted (especially things far away).

An example from the very early universe is the CMBR which shows the surface of last scattering before the universe became transparent to EM radiation. It is this radiation that has being redshifted the most. From its very hot ~3000K down to its now 2.7K

[modest]

Originally Posted by Jay-qu

Yes it is relative but the interesting consequence of the universe been homogeneous and isotropic means that everywhere is the centre of the universe and thus everyone will see the majority of the rest of the universe redshifted (especially things far away).

An example from the very early universe is the CMBR which shows the surface of last scattering before the universe became transparent to EM radiation. It is this radiation that has being redshifted the most. From its very hot ~3000K down to its now 2.7K

This is true for anyone at T=13.7 Gyrs. Their CMBR would be 2.7 K, their Hubble constant and scale factor would be the same as ours. If this is what HB meant or not, I cannot discern.

-modest

[Mike C]

Originally Posted by C1ay

Can you prove this? Yes or no? We expect you to support your claims and what you "think" or your "opinion" is not support.

I introduce a lot of 'new science' to fill the gaps (questions) in our current teachings of the astronomy and cosmology sectors.
I also make corrections in some aspects of todays teachings.

The 'creation of photons' has no establishment scientific explanation for this.

The Bohr atomic model is the source of my CoPh's theory. Couple this with the 'electric' fields that surround the electrons, are 'real'.
So these fields can be explained by these 'real field particles' rather than as they are currently portrayed as 'virtual'.
This to me, is credible for the nature of the universe model that deals with hydrogen alone and does not need the Schroedinger model of the HA.

This is my evidence that I consider as real science.

Thank you for understanding.

Mike C

[C1ay]

Originally Posted by Mike C

I introduce a lot of 'new science' to fill the gaps (questions) in our current teachings of the astronomy and cosmology sectors.
I also make corrections in some aspects of todays teachings.

Stating your "opinion" is NOT introducing new science. Stating a new hypothesis and your supporting evidence would be introducing new science. Now, support your claims here, that's the rule. If you don't like our rules then go start your own forum and make your own rules there!

[Zythryn]

Originally Posted by Mike C

...These particles are still a mystery as far as I know regarding whether they have any mass or their strength in their charges.
However, I think I give the best description of how these photons are generated.

Mike, this is a thought experiment and nothing more. It doesn't even reach the level of a hypothesis.
If you have no experimental evidence for this, can you even suggest WHAT experiments could test your ideas?

[Pluto]

G'day

I lke Mike C to keep on explaining his ideas.

And if possible support them.

I do not think he can do that in one or two post.

[Mike C]

Originally Posted by Zythryn

Mike, this is a thought experiment and nothing more. It doesn't even reach the level of a hypothesis.
If you have no experimental evidence for this, can you even suggest WHAT experiments could test your ideas?

Various experiments have been done to show the nature of these electric charges and the magnetic fields. This is high school physics.
The simplest instrument proving their existence is the 'electroscope'.

The characteristics of the electric fields have been proven by the mathematical nature of them that their strength falls off inversally in relation to their distance from the sources.

Their action at a distance is common knowledge.
My physics book has 20 pages devoted to these electric fields.
Title: Introductory Physics by Mashuri l Warren.

Since these fields fill the space around the charges, it does not take much of an imagination to consider what they are conposed of.
So the term 'virtual' particles is used to describe these fields and their composition.

Mike C

[Zythryn]

Mike, I apologize for not being clear enough. I am not talking about the well established and researched behavior of electric fields.
What I am talking about is summed up by your words here:

Originally Posted by Mike C
...These particles are still a mystery as far as I know regarding whether they have any mass or their strength in their charges.
However, I think I give the best description of how these photons are generated.

Where you have NO experimental evidence or even suggested experiments that could offer data is how photons are affected by electric fields.
In a lab, we have been able to show support for e=mc^2, yet you say that doesn't work.
Yet, you show no experimental data to back up your speculations that photons are affected by electric fields.

[Pluto]

Hello All

I like the opinion on these links: Just reading through many papers to understand compacted objects and the formation of jets. It will take me years to understand their workings.

*[astro-ph/0005216] Magnetic fields around black holes

Magnetic fields around black holes

Authors: Z. Budinova, M. Dovciak, V. Karas, A. Lanza
(Submitted on 10 May 2000)

Abstract: The electromagnetic field near a rotating black hole is being explored in educational style here. By employing analytic solutions for electrovacuum fields, we plot the surfaces of constant flux and we show how the field is dragged around the black hole by purely geometrical effects of the strong gravitational field. We visualize the structure of magnetic lines and we also propose possible astrophysical applications of more realistic situations involving the presence of plasma: The entangled and twisted field lines result in reconnection processes which accelerate the particles injected into the vicinity of the black hole. Such acceleration mechanisms of the electromagnetic origin are considered as a possible source of high-speed outflows emerging from numerous nuclei of galaxies where black holes reside.

*[astro-ph/0006101] Collimated outflows of rapidly rotating young stellar objects

Collimated outflows of rapidly rotating young stellar objects

Authors: E. Breitmoser, M. Camenzind
(Submitted on 7 Jun 2000)

Abstract: We present an analytical model for the magnetic flux surfaces for rapidly rotating magnetized young stellar objects which is based on ideal, stationary, axisymmetric magnetohydrodynamics. The resulting cold wind solutions reproduce observed wind velocities of a few hundred kms$ $ and the outer jet radi us for a collimated jet of several thousand stellar radii. The theory of axisymmetric magnetospheres around rapidly rotating stellar sources is outlined including electric fields due to the rapid rotation. Gravity of the central object is consistently built into this theory. A consistent wind theory is developed which contains the Newtonian theory as a classical limit. Current--carrying plasma flows will lead to a collimation of the magnetospheric structure into a cylindrical shape. We show that the asymptotic structure is essentially determined by electric forces in the pinch equation, and not by centrifugal and pressure forces.

[Mike C]

Originally Posted by Zythryn

Mike, I apologize for not being clear enough. I am not talking about the well established and researched behavior of electric fields.
What I am talking about is summed up by your words here:


Where you have NO experimental evidence or even suggested experiments that could offer data is how photons are affected by electric fields.
In a lab, we have been able to show support for e=mc^2, yet you say that doesn't work.
Yet, you show no experimental data to back up your speculations that photons are affected by electric fields.

I did not say photons are affected by electric fields.
I did say that photons are transmitted through the electric fields.

Can you supply the data of the experiment that supports the Einstein M/E formula?

I would be curious to know what it is based on?

Energy as applied to light was introduced by the DeBroglei formula that is stated as:

E = hv......................Plancks Constant x frequency of light
This is a lot simpler formula and more realistic.

Mike C

.