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

[maddog]

Originally Posted by Pluto

As for a rotating universe.
The total ebing infinite I do not the universe rotates.

So does that mean for you "rotating universe" is/is not for you ?
I am ok either way. I found your paper interesting by deriving from Einstein's Metric Tensor.

Originally Posted by Pluto

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.

Is M87 really in our local cluster. I was aware not of that.

Originally Posted by Pluto

Where do you stop?

Good Question.

Originally Posted by Pluto

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

That is ok with me too.

Originally Posted by Pluto

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.

Not when you take into account Inflation. Not that I like Alan Guth's theory anymore that you do.

Originally Posted by Pluto

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.

Where I see things starting to behave somewhat "ad hoc" (borrowing your term) is when in BBT
we start to consider what is going at fractions of a sec after initial event
because of speculation in various GUT theories that have had only fractional sucess
(independent of String Theories...)
Even though most of the age paradox has been explained with updated data, there is still some sloppiness in the Hubble Constant -- not so ironed down.

maddog

[Pluto]

G'day maddog

You said

Even though most of the age paradox has been explained with updated data, there is still some sloppiness in the Hubble Constant -- not so ironed down.

Updated data????

[FRIPRO]

Originally Posted by Pluto

G'day

Fripro said



I do not have a problem of the parts within the universe rotating to some extent. We do have galaxies rotating in different directions and at the same time are part of a cluster of galaxies that rotate around a super cluster. The universe as a total being "ALL" cannot rotate. It would become quite complicated to see which super cluster rotates where.




That is the part that I do not agree with. Imagine your one side of the observable universe and your 27 billion on the other side and you have 0ver 100 billions of galaxies forming and popping up at the same time all over the place.

The king does not wear invisible robes.

I would only answer with in the many space photos of the deep Universe the Galaxies that you mention are at all different angles and distribution.

There are clusters of Galaxies and also the have a vortex design, as do the Huricanes in the Alantic ocean on Earth and on Jupiter's red spot, also Neptune has them and so does Saturn.

The deep space photos show interconnection of most of the galaxies. They are also visible in the stereo photos shown above URL by Modest. Color can not be dependent on the internet photos; but, doppler effect is valid for all wavelength coming and going thus the Universe's rotation is a valid Hypothesis.

It is a stronger Hypothesis than the Big Bang creating the Universe 13+billion light years ago. Which I will never accept as valid.



It seem to be a pattern for vortex arrangement of hurricane like galaxies at all levels of the cosmos.

The different angles of the galactic clusters in the deep space photos, also give credit to a rotating Universe.

Very similar to the Hurricanes that are on the Earths ocean's surface. If the Earth were transparent we could see similar construction. Of course the Earth rotates? So does our Milkey Way galaxy

.

[Pluto]

G'day

The cyclones on Earth are quite different to the jet formation from star bodies.

Jets that form create:

1) Vortex at high speed that remains uniform depending on its origin for time (T).
2) Degenerate matter
3) Compaction of the degenerate matter.

[FRIPRO]

Originally Posted by Pluto

G'day

The cyclones on Earth are quite different to the jet formation from star bodies.

Jets that form create:

1) Vortex at high speed that remains uniform depending on its origin for time (T).
2) Degenerate matter
3) Compaction of the degenerate matter.

Pluto

I agree with you there are billions of Jets that emit from black holes (the center of Galaxies and they do spawn vortexs new (galaxies) both rotating clockwise on one side and counter clockwise about another side and lighhouse beam flashing into the dark matter of the Universe.

THESE ROTATING GALAXIES ARE ON THE SURFACE OF THE ROTATING UNIVERSE (THE HYPOTHESIS?)

.

Further informaton from NASA states that the visible light from the distant Universe does not exist towards the 13.56 Billion light years thus only red and blue are recorded in deeper space. THEREFORE i WISH TO MODIFY A STATEMENT THAT I made about a rotating universe where I said the white light is in the background. This is wrong as there is no white light in the deepest photos by NASA only red and blue. This give me even more thought (hypothsis) that the Universe is rotating. FRIPRO

[Pluto]

G'day fripro

Mate I think you have quoted yourself.

Smile,,,,,,,

You said

THESE ROTATING GALAXIES ARE ON THE SURFACE OF THE ROTATING UNIVERSE (THE HYPOTHESIS?)

It becomes quite complicated.

Yes! all rotate.

I question whether they rotate as a total unit.

[Pluto]

G'day from the land of ozzzzzzz

It does not effect one way or another which theory is correct as to the origin or origins or ongoing universe.

What is interesting is that there are scientists who have other theories that are able to be backed by science.

"Big Bang Blasted!"
The Home of Tired Light. Redshift, the Hubble constant, Cosmic Microwave Background (CMB) and the Expanding Universe all explained.

Tired Light is an alternative theory to that of the expanding Universe. This theory explains the experimental evidence without resorting to the 'cosmological constants' or 'vacuum energy' that are essential to the theory of the expanding Universe.

Experiment tells us that photons of light from distant galaxies have a longer wavelength on arrival than when they set off. Since red light has a longer wavelength than blue light, we say that they have been 'redshifted'. The Theory of the Expanding Universe explains this as space expanding and stretching the photons as it does so. In Tired Light we say that the photons lost energy during their journey to us by bumping into electrons on the way.

The Tired Light Theory (that redshift is due to electron interaction) is supported by the fact that measured values of the Hubble constant, H are exactly equal to a combination of the parameters of the electron. This is known as 'Ashmore's Paradox'. If, in the expanding Universe, the expansion is not related to the electron then why is the Hubble constant found experimentally to be related to the electron?

http://www.lyndonashmore.com/preprintpdf.pdf

Recoil Interaction Between Photons and The Electrons In The Plasma Of Intergalactic Space Leading To The Hubble Constant And CMB

ABSTRACT:
The Hubble diagram for type Ia Supernovae gives the value of the Hubble constant, H as 64±3 km/s Mpc-1, which, in SI units, is equal to ‘hre/me per cubic metre of space’ (2.1x10-18 s-1). This coincidence could suggest a relationship between H and the electrons in the plasma of intergalactic space that act collectively and oscillate if displaced. The possibility that light from distant galaxies is absorbed and reemitted by the electrons is considered with the electron recoiling on both occasions. A double Mössbauer effect leads to a redshift in the transmitted light. Introduction of the photoabsorption cross section 2reλ leads to the relationship H = 2nehre/me giving H ≈ 12 km/s Mpc-1 when ne has the reported value of ne ≈ 0.1m-3. The small amount of energy transferred to the electron by recoil is radiated as bremsstrahlung with a wavelength in the

As I read I like to share my readings.

If I'm on the wrong track, than usually someone somewhere will tell me.

[simcha]

... Shalom to those within our Science-Forum,
no! i am Not trying to get myself shot, as I can appreciate Harry's viewpoint (i.e.: MOST, are not! as educated as they pride themselves with) ... BUT, Listen to me !!
Indeed you are All correct in what you say.
Indeed most of what you All declare, OH YES INDEED CAN!! be proven ... and,
indeed i do not have the energy to prove now what i'd like to add/ supplement, which is simply this:

1) The universe is BOTH "Closed-Parabolic-Finite" (... This is "Eternal") ... AND!
2) "Open-Hyperbolic-Eternal" (... THIS is "INFINITE") ...

... Now that wasn't too difficult to understand, ... was it ???

and as you are all re-loading ,... so will i.
all the best. ... Simcha.

[modest]

Originally Posted by Pluto

G'day from the land of ozzzzzzz

It does not effect one way or another which theory is correct as to the origin or origins or ongoing universe.

It really does. The same theory that we use to explain the behavior of satellites in orbit and the color of gold metal (i.e. relativity) also explains the history of the cosmos. If the history of the universe is significantly different than we think then we would need a new theory that works with local and cosmic observations.

Cosmologists and astronomers aren't just making up stories and random explanations for observations. They are using very exact theories that have been tested here on earth and extending them to the cosmos. Astronomers will either find that the data fits the theory or does not. The examples where the data does NOT fit the theory are very rare, but also very welcome.

Originally Posted by Pluto

What is interesting is that there are scientists who have other theories that are able to be backed by science.

"Big Bang Blasted!"
The Home of Tired Light. Redshift, the Hubble constant, Cosmic Microwave Background (CMB) and the Expanding Universe all explained.

The book "Big Bang Blasted" by Lyndon Ashmore and the theories it discusses are addressed extensively in the thread: Big Bang Blasted.

I've read a couple chapters of the book and could read no more. It's completely ridiculous.

Originally Posted by Pluto

http://www.lyndonashmore.com/preprintpdf.pdf

Recoil Interaction Between Photons and The Electrons In The Plasma Of Intergalactic Space Leading To The Hubble Constant And CMB

As I read I like to share my readings.

If I'm on the wrong track, than usually someone somewhere will tell me.

This is a good example of Ashmore's ridiculousness. He makes up a "paradox" and names it after himself: "Ashmore's Paradox". And, he doesn't seem to know what a paradox is. A paradox is some statement or situation that contradicts itself, "Ashmore's paradox" is actually a coincidence.

His coincidence points out the Hubble constant (i.e. Hubble time) expressed in one set of units is almost equal to Plank's constant multiplied by the mass of an electron divided by the radius of an electron in another set of units. This coincidence is completely ridiculous—it has no meaning whatsoever. It's like pointing out that George Bush is 63 years old and the Pyramid of the Sun in Mexico is 63 meters tall. That's not much of a paradox, and a pretty meaningless coincidence as well.

~modest

Moderation Note: Subsequent discussion regarding the relativistic effects of gold were moved to The color of gold and relativity

[Pluto]

G'day from the land of ozzzzzzz

Hello modest in reference to:

"Big Bang Blasted!"
The Home of Tired Light. Redshift, the Hubble constant, Cosmic Microwave Background (CMB) and the Expanding Universe all explained.

Tired Light is an alternative theory to that of the expanding Universe. This theory explains the experimental evidence without resorting to the 'cosmological constants' or 'vacuum energy' that are essential to the theory of the expanding Universe.

Experiment tells us that photons of light from distant galaxies have a longer wavelength on arrival than when they set off. Since red light has a longer wavelength than blue light, we say that they have been 'redshifted'. The Theory of the Expanding Universe explains this as space expanding and stretching the photons as it does so. In Tired Light we say that the photons lost energy during their journey to us by bumping into electrons on the way.

The Tired Light Theory (that redshift is due to electron interaction) is supported by the fact that measured values of the Hubble constant, H are exactly equal to a combination of the parameters of the electron. This is known as 'Ashmore's Paradox'. If, in the expanding Universe, the expansion is not related to the electron then why is the Hubble constant found experimentally to be related to the electron?

What is wrong with this logic?

Is this logic further than reality as explained by the BBT expansion of the universe via space/time without reference to actual observations.

==================================================

This paper is quite interesting

http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0401420
Redshift of photons penetrating a hot plasma

Authors: Ari Brynjolfsson
(Submitted on 21 Jan 2004 (v1), last revised 7 Oct 2005 (this version, v3))

Abstract: A new interaction, plasma redshift, is derived, which is important only when photons penetrate a hot, sparse electron plasma. The derivation of plasma redshift is based entirely on conventional axioms of physics. When photons penetrate a cold and dense plasma, they lose energy through ionization and excitation, Compton scattering on the individual electrons, and Raman scattering on the plasma frequency. But in sparse hot plasma, such as in the solar corona, the photons lose energy also in plasma redshift. The energy loss per electron in the plasma redshift is about equal to the product of the photon's energy and one half of the Compton cross-section per electron. In quiescent solar corona, this heating starts in the transition zone to the corona and is a major fraction of the coronal heating. Plasma redshift contributes also to the heating of the interstellar plasma, the galactic corona, and the intergalactic plasma. Plasma redshift explains the solar redshifts, the redshifts of the galactic corona, the cosmological redshifts, the cosmic microwave background, and the X-ray background. The plasma redshift explains the observed magnitude-redshift relation for supernovae SNe Ia without the big bang, dark matter, or dark energy. There is no cosmic time dilation. The universe is not expanding. The plasma redshift, when compared with experiments, shows that the photons' classical gravitational redshifts are reversed as the photons move from the Sun to the Earth. This is a quantum mechanical effect. As seen from the Earth, a repulsion force acts on the photons. This means that there is no need for Einstein's Lambda term. The universe is quasi-static, infinite, and everlasting.