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

[maddog]

Originally Posted by Pluto

What you say is main stream.

Mainstream shmainstream. Expansion is THE Observed evidence.
You are welcomed to interpret as INACCURATE as you wish....

Originally Posted by Pluto

All observation do not show that the parts within the universe expand.

You can repeat as often as you wish -- gibberish is gibberish...

Originally Posted by Pluto

Observations do not show expansion in metric, but! clustering of matter.

I don't think you understood that paper you threw out a couple of days ago. The one showing how rotation could be modeled from a derivation using Einstein Tensor equation did indeed discuss Expansion and Hubble Redshift in agreement. The author's conclusions did show they could attain the accelerated expansion of Einstein's Lamba term directly. I did find this interesting. I did see though in the beginning where some Steady State assumptions were made. This to me weakens the argument.

Originally Posted by Pluto

I will expand on this.

I don't think you need to bother.

maddog

[FRIPRO]

Pluto asked for a reference web address for a stereo photo which shows a NASA' deep space photo (by Hubble) of the most distant Universe.

I would like to give the web address for the distant Universe's stero photo but it appears on my web site and the rules of this forum do not permit me to list my own
site.

Perhaps the moderator can clarify this important point of the rules of this forum.

I was amazed when looking at NASA's deep space photo by Hubble (in stereo) made me believe that the Universe was rotating, due to the slow down of the red shift. I saw (perhaps it could be interpid differently) what looked like a possible rotating Universes crowded with galatic systems in spiral or vortex like arrangement all tied to each other in string like bands.

The spiral vortex of families of galaxies are easily viewed, more so in stero. In fact there is a slight curveture of the globe's photo.

If it is a rotatonal Universe then it has to be supported by some mechanics;however, if there is an infinate void, then the Universe would not have to be supported as it rotates. Thus giving us the gyroscopic gravitey "G".

I insist that the gyroscopic adjustment of the the INSS is to keep the space station in proper orbit. If rotating gyros can accomplish this with out thursters, then this is a key point to possibility that the Universe is also in rotation.

We all know that rotation makes artificial gravity in space. (Of course the Earth is also rotating.)

In closing the BBT perhaps did formed the Milky Way galaxi and other families nearby systems; but, could never create the Universe out of a void.

[Pluto]

G'day from the land of ozzzzzzzzz

Hello Maddog

I post links of interest and sometimes related to the topic.

It does not mean that I agree or disagree.

As for a rotating universe.

The total ebing infinite I do not the universe rotates.

But the parts within have a common movement and rotatiion.

We have a MW galaxy rotation that forms a part of the local group of galaxies that rotate around M87 and this local cluster forms part of a cluster of cluster of galaxies that also rorate, and so it goes on forming a super cluster of clusters of galaxies.

Where do you stop?

As for the BB creating the MW and other galaxies its just a theory, that I cannot vision it working.

Observations (Hubble deep field) shows us over 100 billion galaxies and within that super monsters of clusters of galaxies. Now getting them to form throughout the universe at the same time is more than a miracle and to top it off, do it in 13.7Gyrs.

Yes you can use ad hoc theories and make it work.

But at the end of the day the King does not wear invisible robes.

[modest]

Originally Posted by FRIPRO

I would like to give the web address for the distant Universe's stero photo but it appears on my web site and the rules of this forum do not permit me to list my own site.

Perhaps the moderator can clarify this important point of the rules of this forum.

The rules say:

Originally Posted by Site Rules

Our policy on linking to other sites is pretty simple. Members may link to any other site that provides information that helps answer another member's question or is just of general interest to members of that particular forum. We do, however, encourage members to add these links to our reviewed science links database for indexing and easier access out of context.

The only type of linking (besides porn, pyramid schemes, hateful sites, and spam, of course) that will not be allowed on our site is when members solicit people to leave our site and join a competing service. That's just common sense. We won't allow people to use our site to promote a competing service any more than a brick-and-mortar store would allow his competitor to paste flyers all over his walls.

However, observing these rules, members are always welcome to link to any online resource, whether it's on our site or any other site, in order to share useful information with fellow members.

I assume you refer to this link, which is fine. However, the link not being scientific in nature presents problems of a different sort.

For example, you say the images make a "distant Universe stereo photo". Such a claim seems very odd to me and your link doesn't have sourced information that would normally make such a claim falsifiable. The images you offer for cross-eyed viewing appear to be the HUDF. Where did you get them? Are the left and right images separately from ACS and NICMOS? Why are the two "stereo" photos scaled disproportionately horizontally? Is that editing you did? If so, why? Etc...

~modest

[FRIPRO]

Yes that is the site that I was refering to. I am impressed how the HSF software has improved so that it can reproduce hyperlinks for reference from other parts of the internet.

In fact I made the same mistake of clicking on the reference and then could not get back into HSF. I forgot to copy HSF's thread so I had to log out and come back on.

To answers your questions: I congratulate you for your observations. The orginal photos are from Hubble's latest deep space signals-- prior to its telescope mal- functioning.

The photo is not true stero as at the distance involved it would take Hubble millions of year to photgraph the change in the rotation or what ever you call it.

By shifting the true photo slightly one gets a stereo photo as if they waited the million of years to see.

When the brain see the shifted photo it give one a clearer image as the computer can shift the photo vertically slightly to see a clearer image.

What one see in the side by side photos can be interpit differently by the train or untrain observer.

Some computers display the photo verticall side by side, other show them under each other. A wide screen (like a laptop) will see the phots side by side.

If one were to print out the side by side photo one would have to reverse the side by side to get the stereo effect seen on the computer screen.

Looking at the photo in synthetic stereo one can see the galatic formations in a vortex arrangement. In fact there is a definate dark area or black hole in the center of the galatic formations pictured. Possibly two!

[modest]

Originally Posted by FRIPRO

The photo is not true stero as at the distance involved it would take Hubble millions of year to photgraph the change in the rotation or what ever you call it.

I see where you're coming from. No, this is not true stereo. But, neither is the deep field a single moment in time. Ever-distant galaxies take longer for their light to reach us which means they're older.

If galaxies of increasing distance had tangent velocities to us (i.e. the universe is rotating) then we would see that rather easily. Distant galaxies would be squished in a uniform direction. No need to tweak the photo—that kind of thing would be very apparent.

Originally Posted by FRIPRO

By shifting the true photo slightly one gets a stereo photo as if they waited the million of years to see.

This is true to an extent, but your method is flawed. You are simply scaling the same image. This creates the perception of perspective toward the center of the photo regardless if that is the case or not.

A better method would be to pull the redder bits of the image into their own frame and the bluer bits into their own frame. Scale the red frame smaller than the blue. You could then combine them and put them back on the original image if you have a pair of 3D glasses, or leave them separate if you don't.

Point is: this method will not arbitrarily create perspective toward the center of the photo. It will make greater-redshifted galaxies appear further with bluer galaxies appearing closer (so long as your eye stays focused at the center of the combined image).

Looking at the HUDF, it's clear to me that blue and red is evenly distributed, so this should not show an overall pattern. Redshift surveys agree.

~modest

[Pluto]

G'day from the land of ozzzzzzzz

Modest said

Point is: this method will not arbitrarily create perspective toward the center of the photo. It will make greater-redshifted galaxies appear further with bluer galaxies appearing closer (so long as your eye stays focused at the center of the combined image).

Looking at the HUDF, it's clear to me that blue and red is evenly distributed, so this should not show an overall pattern. Redshift surveys agree.

Evenly distributed.

Wow! do you know what that implies?

[modest]

Originally Posted by Pluto

Evenly distributed.

Wow! do you know what that implies?

If galaxies appear evenly distributed then that implies the universe is isotropic, which is a principle of standard cosmology.

Cosmological principle

~modest

[Pluto]

G'day modest

How does this explain expansion of the universe?

[FRIPRO]

Please take another look at the stereo photo link

I assume you refer to this link, provided by Modest.

The red shift is very obvious. The blue shift is negligible!

I am not sure what that means perhaps others can interpret this issue.

The question I ask the forum is: why is the red shift so dominate in the sterographic like photo--which shows trilions of galaxies and stars?

My estimate is above 75% of these glaxies are red in color very few are blue!

The Big Bang could never have produced this Universe, as pictured by Hubble!