From: Eric Flesch (eric@flesch.org) Message 1 in thread Subject: Reflections on a 1/z Universe Newsgroups: sci.physics, sci.astro Date: 1997/11/13 In observing the most distant reaches of the universe, a strong linear inverse correlation is seen between z (redshift) and theta (angular size). Current understanding points to theta decreasing more slowly than z increases, indeed even that theta should increase at sufficiently large z. However, all that is actually observed is that when z doubles, theta is halved. No theory addresses this strongly-observed correlation. Cosmological redshift is widely assumed to represent recession, to such a degree that cosmologists routinely describe redshift in terms of km/sec. However, all that is actually incontestible about the redshift is that it represents a slowing of time, as redshifted processes are observed to progress in a suitably retarded way. This means, in the normal view, that if the time-lag between us and some distant object (at z=1) is precisely 10^9 years, that 24 hours from now the time lag will be 10^9 years + 12 hours. This changing time differential implies some dynamic agent such as expansion, if space-time is viewed in the standard way. A steady-state cosmology must, in some way, compensate for the apparent changing time-lag. An amusing dichotomy exists where space is often described as the 3-dimensional surface of a 4-dimension hypersphere. However, it is known that for sufficiently large triangles, the interior angles add up to less that 180 deg. The space required for such triangles is that of a 4-D saddle, not the surface of a hypersphere. This saddle-space is distinguished by that there is "more" space volume at, say, 10^9 LY away than is allowed for by a standard flat ("onion-peel") space. What this means is that objects at (say) 10^9 LY distance would be seen at a smaller size than would be the case in flat space. This size reduction appears to be unmentioned in the theoretical literature. The 1/z universe, where z is linearly inverse to theta, reminds me of the harmonic series. This series is the summation of 1/n (i.e. 1 + 1/2 + 1/3 + 1/4 + ...), and is the "cheapest" summation to infinity, reminiscent of the balanced expansion (omega=1) for which theorists seem to yearn. At e.g. z=1 (where time flow is 1/2), the distance scale may be constrained by the reduced time flow plus saddle-space distortion in such a way that, like the harmonic series, a balanced expansion may be seen by our Friedmannite observers. A bit of a ramble, as I'm feeling my way through all this. Greetings to all. :-) Eric Flesch From: J. Scott Miller (jsmill01@homer.louisville.edu) Message 2 in thread Subject: Re: Reflections on a 1/z Universe Newsgroups: sci.physics, sci.astro Date: 1997/11/13 Eric Flesch wrote: > > In observing the most distant reaches of the universe, a strong linear > inverse correlation is seen between z (redshift) and theta (angular > size). Current understanding points to theta decreasing more slowly > than z increases, indeed even that theta should increase at > sufficiently large z. However, all that is actually observed is that > when z doubles, theta is halved. No theory addresses this > strongly-observed correlation. Maybe I am missing the point here. But, it seems to me that if you take and object, and move it farther away, it will span a smaller angle in the sky. I just did a quick ink scale drawing and found that the same length line moved to twice an original distance spans half the original angle. > > Cosmological redshift is widely assumed to represent recession, to > such a degree that cosmologists routinely describe redshift in terms > of km/sec. However, all that is actually incontestible about the > redshift is that it represents a slowing of time, as redshifted > processes are observed to progress in a suitably retarded way. I would be careful here. For Doppler measurements, a redshift corresponds to an increase in wavelength/decrease in frequency as measured by an observer. It does not represent a slowing of time for that observer. For gravitational redshifts, the observed shift is due to the loss of energy of the photons (energy = hc/wavelength) climbing out of a gravitational well. For cosmlogical redshifts, we are dealing with photons stretched out by the expansion of space-time. To claim that any of these represents a slowing of time, without reference to who is doing the measurement and whose time is slowed and what type of redshift we are talking about seems a bit careless, and weakens your arguement. By this same arguement, one could claim blueshifts represent a speeding up of time, which one could extrapolate to mean that one would see a sequence of events coming from a body moving toward one at a rate faster than they are occurring on the object itself. > This > means, in the normal view, that if the time-lag between us and some > distant object (at z=1) is precisely 10^9 years, that 24 hours from > now the time lag will be 10^9 years + 12 hours. This changing time > differential implies some dynamic agent such as expansion, if > space-time is viewed in the standard way. A steady-state cosmology > must, in some way, compensate for the apparent changing time-lag. > This is not the only problem a steady-state cosmology would have to deal with. The presence of hydrogen and helium, the observed abundance of the ration of helium to hydrogen recently announced, the cosmological background radiation and in particular its current value.... > An amusing dichotomy exists where space is often described as the (36 more lines) From: Eric Flesch (eric@flesch.org) Message 3 in thread Subject: Re: Reflections on a 1/z Universe Newsgroups: sci.physics, sci.astro Date: 1997/11/13 On Thu, 13 Nov 1997 15:51:17 GMT, Martin Hardcastle wrote: >Eric's claim is that this behaviour is never observed. He's wrong: he >should read Kellermann (1993), Nature 361 134, where the author claims >consistency with what's expected in a critical-density universe. Kellermann's results aren't widely accepted. An article by Nilsson et all (1993) ApJ,413,453 treats the impact of selection effects on observed cosmological models. Kellermann's study suffers from this deficiency -- basically, his assumptions yield results consistent with that assumption. A modest paper by Crawford (astro-ph 11 Jul 1994) notes about the 1993 Kellerman paper that "a problem with (Kellerman's) sources is that their size is not unambiguously defined". Much as you go on to say here, Martin: >The difficulty with all this sort of analysis is that there are no >`standard rulers' or objects of a known, fixed physical size which >isn't _expected_ to vary with redshift for other reasons. Eric glosses >over this difficulty as well as ignoring experimental results that >don't suit him. You mean "observational results". However, I use Occam's razor as a guide. If the standard model starts requiring too many epicycles, then it's time to look for a new model. I am looking, and I am using the theta-z correlation as a guide. Most cosmologists are so bound by notions of cosmological evolution that they do not even see the theta-z correlation although it stares them in the face. Eric Flesch From: Martin Hardcastle (M.Hardcastle@xxx.xxx.xxx) Message 4 in thread Subject: Re: Reflections on a 1/z Universe Newsgroups: sci.physics, sci.astro Date: 1997/11/14 In article <34764c27.605054@news.nn.iconz.co.nz>, Eric Flesch wrote: >Kellermann's results aren't widely accepted. An article by Nilsson et >all (1993) ApJ,413,453 treats the impact of selection effects on >observed cosmological models. Kellermann's study suffers from this >deficiency -- basically, his assumptions yield results consistent with >that assumption. Er, by whom are they not widely accepted? I think most people in the astronomical community who take an interest in this stuff are happy enough with Kellerman's measurements. What they mean is a different matter. Kellerman's results do _not_ suffer from the selection effects discussed by Nilsson et al, though they may suffer from different selection effects, of course. In any case, you have missed the point; which was that there is at least one result to disprove your erroneous claim that a Euclidean geometry is always the most consistent with observation. >A modest paper by Crawford (astro-ph 11 Jul 1994) notes about the 1993 >Kellerman paper that "a problem with (Kellerman's) sources is that >their size is not unambiguously defined". Kellerman actually notes this himself in the Nature paper! >You mean "observational results". No, I don't. Observation is experiment. > However, I use Occam's razor as a >guide. If the standard model starts requiring too many epicycles, >then it's time to look for a new model. I am looking, and I am using >the theta-z correlation as a guide. But if there are no standard rulers, those results are simply meaningless. Do you accept that there are no standard rulers? If so, then you have no reason to believe in a Euclidean universe (given that it is contrary to the predictions of GR and given that GR is so far a successful theory). Other than prejudice, of course. > Most cosmologists are so bound by >notions of cosmological evolution that they do not even see the >theta-z correlation although it stares them in the face. If we understand anything about radio galaxies at all, evolution of the population is a _required_ process; hardly an `epicycle'. I would be more worried if studies based on total radio source size _were_ most consistent with q_0 = 0.1..0.5, because it would imply either no change in the properties of the ICM over time (which is inconsistent with observation) or that our understanding of the basic fluid dynamics of radio sources is totally erroneous (which I hope we have reason to doubt). But I approach this from the point of view of someone primarily interested in radio sources rather than cosmology. Static Euclidean tired light models, of course, _are_ inconsistent with experimental data. Martin -- Martin Hardcastle Department of Physics, University of Bristol Be not solitary, be not idle Please replace the xxx.xxx.xxx in the header with bristol.ac.uk to mail me From: Eric Flesch (eric@flesch.org) Message 5 in thread Subject: Re: Reflections on a 1/z Universe Newsgroups: sci.physics, sci.astro Date: 1997/11/14 On Fri, 14 Nov 1997 10:23:13 GMT, Martin Hardcastle wrote: >Eric Flesch wrote: >>Kellermann's results aren't widely accepted. > >Er, by whom are they not widely accepted? I think most people in the >astronomical community who take an interest in this stuff are happy >enough with Kellerman's measurements. His conclusions are agreed with happily enough, true, but the methodology used to derive conclusion from observation is not widely accepted, because, as you yourself have said, there is an absence of standard yardsticks. >In any case, you have missed the point; which was that there is at >least one result to disprove your erroneous claim that a Euclidean >geometry is always the most consistent with observation. Whoa! An inverse theta-z relationship is not a Euclidean geometry. Professor Edward Wright has pointed out that such a geometry is consistent with no known models. That's the challenge -- to make sense out of it, and I think the harmonic series is the key. >>You mean "observational results". > >No, I don't. Observation is experiment. Spoken like a true astronomer, and yet you are a physicist. Hmmm..... >>....it's time to look for a new model. I am looking, and I am using >>the theta-z correlation as a guide. > >But if there are no standard rulers, those results are simply >meaningless. Do you accept that there are no standard rulers? You have demonstrated my point, Martin, that... (I wrote:) Most cosmologists are so bound by notions of cosmological evolution that they do not even see the theta-z correlation although it stares them in the face. You see, the standard ruler that I use is simply the angular size of optical images. The size of blotches on photographic plates. I'm not talking about evolution, or interpretation. Just angular size. Theta-z graphs appear in the literature frequently enough (the most recent one including the HDF images), usually with a few Friedmannian curves futiley overlaid -- futile because although the Friedmann curves taper upwards at high z, the actual observations never do. Occasionally these graphs kindly display a theta-z overlay line, which (24 more lines) From: Martin Hardcastle (M.Hardcastle@xxx.xxx.xxx) Message 6 in thread Subject: Re: Reflections on a 1/z Universe Newsgroups: sci.physics, sci.astro Date: 1997/11/17 In article <346fb3fd.4366686@news.uni-stuttgart.de>, Eric Flesch wrote: >On Fri, 14 Nov 1997 10:23:13 GMT, Martin Hardcastle wrote: >>Eric Flesch wrote: >>>Kellermann's results aren't widely accepted. >> >>Er, by whom are they not widely accepted? I think most people in the >>astronomical community who take an interest in this stuff are happy >>enough with Kellerman's measurements. > >His conclusions are agreed with happily enough, true, but the >methodology used to derive conclusion from observation is not widely >accepted, because, as you yourself have said, there is an absence of >standard yardsticks. I was discussing his measurements. I want to know what you mean by `not widely accepted'. In so far as doing this is meaningful at all -- which, in my view, it's not, particularly -- Kellerman's data are widely accepted as as good as any, and considerably better than some such studies. So, by whom do you assert they're not widely accepted? What you mean is that they disagree with your preconceptions. >>In any case, you have missed the point; which was that there is at >>least one result to disprove your erroneous claim that a Euclidean >>geometry is always the most consistent with observation. > >Whoa! An inverse theta-z relationship is not a Euclidean geometry. >Professor Edward Wright has pointed out that such a geometry is >consistent with no known models. A static Euclidean universe with tired light gives theta going as 1/z. Ned Wright has pointed out, correctly, that such a universe is inconsistent with observation, but you don't seem to be worried by such details. You claimed that "all that is actually observed is that when z doubles, theta is halved" so let me rephrase what I wrote: there's at least one result to disprove your erroneous claim that there is a straightforward inverse proportionality between 1/z and theta (where theta is the angle subtended by some supposed standard ruler). >>No, I don't. Observation is experiment. > >Spoken like a true astronomer, and yet you are a physicist. Hmmm..... First degree in physics, PhD in astrophysics carried out in a physics (62 more lines) From: Eric Flesch (eric@flesch.org) Message 7 in thread Subject: Re: Reflections on a 1/z Universe Newsgroups: sci.physics, sci.astro Date: 1997/11/20 On Mon, 17 Nov 1997 12:42:01 GMT, Martin Hardcastle wrote: >Eric Flesch wrote: >>...the >>methodology used to derive conclusion from observation is not widely >>accepted, because, as you yourself have said, there is an absence of >>standard yardsticks. > >I was discussing his measurements. I want to know what you mean by >`not widely accepted'. In so far as doing this is meaningful at all -- >which, in my view, it's not, particularly -- Kellerman's data are >widely accepted as as good as any, and considerably better than some >such studies. So, by whom do you assert they're not widely accepted? I've already mentioned names in previous postings in this thread (Nilsson, Crawford). To these I can add the names of Hardcastle (who said: "Do you accept that there are no standard rulers?" when these are essential to Kellerman's article) and Kellerman himself in his own paper who also qualified his standard rulers. Kellerman's paper has little value-added, that is, you're no wiser at the end than at the beginning. So what is there to accept? >What you mean is that they disagree with your preconceptions. When is a conception a preconception? I used to believe in the big bang. I stopped believing when I learned about the "scientific process" which incubated it. Such a stream of mediocrity does not give birth to truth. Now I look for the truth about a universe which is "queerer than we *can* suppose". Who has preconceptions, and who is calling the kettle black? >A static Euclidean universe with tired light gives theta going as >1/z. Ned Wright has pointed out, correctly, that such a universe is >inconsistent with observation, but you don't seem to be worried by >such details. Sorry, Martin, you've got it wrong. A static Euclidean universe with tired light gives z doubling every standard distance while theta goes as 1/n. Thus z increases faster than theta decreases. Also, I am no exponent of tired light so kindly do not tar me with that brush. >so let me rephrase what I wrote: there's at least one result to >disprove your erroneous claim that there is a straightforward inverse >proportionality between 1/z and theta (where theta is the angle >subtended by some supposed standard ruler). Kellerman's article disproves nothing. It is a shot in the dark without a standard ruler. (91 more lines) From: Martin Hardcastle (M.Hardcastle@xxx.xxx.xxx) Message 8 in thread Subject: Re: Reflections on a 1/z Universe Newsgroups: sci.physics, sci.astro Date: 1997/11/20 In article <34790058.32471462@news.uni-stuttgart.de>, Eric Flesch wrote: >I've already mentioned names in previous postings in this thread >(Nilsson, Crawford). To these I can add the names of Hardcastle (who >said: "Do you accept that there are no standard rulers?" when these >are essential to Kellerman's article) and Kellerman himself in his >own paper who also qualified his standard rulers. Kellerman's paper >has little value-added, that is, you're no wiser at the end than at >the beginning. So what is there to accept? That the measurements are there, and that they have as much validity, in the absence of any information about standard rulers, as the measurements you prefer to mention. To say that Kellermann's results are not widely accepted and to imply that the data of others _are_ widely accepted as giving the right answer is simply a lie -- when the truth is that the widely accepted viewpoint is that we don't know enough about the evolutionary properties of the objects to give an answer. If you are going to believe that we do, then Kellermann's data are just as valid as any other, and you are deliberately falsifying the situation to claim otherwise. Either way you don't come out looking good. >When is a conception a preconception? I used to believe in the big >bang. I stopped believing when I learned about the "scientific >process" which incubated it. Such a stream of mediocrity does not >give birth to truth. Now I look for the truth about a universe which >is "queerer than we *can* suppose". Who has preconceptions, and who >is calling the kettle black? You have preconceptions if you (a) believe in standard rulers (a preconception in itself) and (b) refuse to believe data which disagree with you. But since you don't believe in the scientific method, you presumably are happy to discard any data that don't suit you. >Sorry, Martin, you've got it wrong. A static Euclidean universe with >tired light gives z doubling every standard distance while theta goes >as 1/n. It seems to me that this depends entirely on the preferred tired light mechanism. Since we know that no such mechanism is consistent with observation, it's not a particularly profitable point to argue (though I'm quite willing to believe that there is some `standard' tired light model that has a different z-distance dependence). The 1/z model is frequently referred to as a static-Euclidean model in the literature, so I'll stick to calling it that. I think that's what we were arguing about in the first place. (92 more lines) From: Garret Cotter (garret@ast.cam.ac.uk) Message 9 in thread Subject: Re: Reflections on a 1/z Universe Newsgroups: sci.physics, sci.astro Date: 1997/11/14 In article <34764c27.605054@news.nn.iconz.co.nz>, Eric Flesch wrote: > >You mean "observational results". However, I use Occam's razor as a >guide. If the standard model starts requiring too many epicycles, >then it's time to look for a new model. This implies that you do not understand Occam's razor correctly. >I am looking, and I am using >the theta-z correlation as a guide. Most cosmologists are so bound by >notions of cosmological evolution that they do not even see the >theta-z correlation although it stares them in the face. Well if you can come up with a model in which the universe is not evolving but still produces the observed number counts of radiosources and faint galaxies and the observed properties of the CMBR, you'll be very famous. But do try to get it published in one of the journals. If the page charges of the ApJ seem daunting, MNRAS will publish for free. . . From: Martin Hardcastle (M.Hardcastle@xxx.xxx.xxx) Message 10 in thread Subject: Re: Reflections on a 1/z Universe Newsgroups: sci.physics, sci.astro Date: 1997/11/14 In article <346ec3a7.15315799@news.nn.iconz.co.nz>, Eric Flesch wrote: >Also, Martin Hardcastle's reply that space is not Euclidian is not the >right reply to this query, so here is... It was, actually. >Of course, the >*actual* correlation is inverse linear, even to the highest observable >z. Rubbish. Most observations can't distinguish between the models; see the conclusions of the Nilsson paper you cited. Kellerman's observations do, according to him. The balance of evidence is therefore that your 1/z model is dead, not the other way around. Martin -- Martin Hardcastle Department of Physics, University of Bristol Be not solitary, be not idle Please replace the xxx.xxx.xxx in the header with bristol.ac.uk to mail me From: Richard A. Schumacher (schumach@convex.com) Message 11 in thread Subject: Re: Reflections on a 1/z Universe Newsgroups: sci.physics, sci.astro Date: 1997/11/15 >Imagine that the universe was very small and expanding rapidly at some >distant epoch, say 10^10 years ago. Let's say there was, at that >time, a nearby structure just 10^6 LY away. The space between "us" >and "it" expands at such a rate that it takes light 10^10 years to >cross over to us. What image do we see today? A structure with a >red-shift suggesting a distance of 10^10 LY, but with an angular size >suggesting a distance of only 10^6 LY !! You see, we see the image >as it was when light left it, and at that time it was only 10^6 LY >away. >Such images are known as "macrostructures", and are the holy grail of >Friedmannian cosmologists, but try as they might they cannot find any. COBE found structure in the form of microKelvin variations in background temperature. That's the only "macrostucture" which could have existed back then. Surely you don't expect any cohesive structures such as galaxies or whatever to have existed in such an early epoch? We see no galaxies or whatever at extreme z because (ta-da) they didn't yet exist back then. >Kellermann's 1993 paper was a desperate attempt to find these >illusions, but it failed as all other attempts have failed in a >universe which in fact displays only the inverse theta-z correlation. >Such is the "standard model" and its adherents in action. The state of the art hsa advanced since 1993. -- I do not speak in any capacity for the High Performance Systems Division of the Hewlett Packard Company. From: Eric Flesch (eric@flesch.org) Message 13 in thread Subject: Re: Reflections on a 1/z Universe Newsgroups: sci.physics, sci.astro Date: 1997/11/16 On 15 Nov 1997 14:13:52 -0600, Richard A. Schumacher wrote: > Surely you don't >expect any cohesive structures such as galaxies or whatever >to have existed in such an early epoch? We see no galaxies >or whatever at extreme z because (ta-da) they didn't yet >exist back then. It is the expectation of the Friedmannites to find galaxy-like structures from the early epoch, whether they are protogalaxies, or radio galaxies. Thus their search. Your statement that we "see no galaxies or whatever at extreme z" is sheer flummery as we do see these to the limits of our instruments to the present day, witness the HDF. Tell the HDF team that they do not see galaxies. >>Kellermann's 1993 paper was a desperate attempt to find these >>illusions, but it failed as all other attempts have failed in a >>universe which in fact displays only the inverse theta-z correlation. >>Such is the "standard model" and its adherents in action. > >The state of the art hsa advanced since 1993. But not yet the state of the artists, it seems. :-) cheers, Eric Flesch From: Martin Hardcastle (M.Hardcastle@xxx.xxx.xxx) Message 14 in thread Subject: Re: Reflections on a 1/z Universe Newsgroups: sci.physics, sci.astro Date: 1997/11/21 In article <3478c9dc.3450102@news.uni-stuttgart.de>, Eric Flesch wrote: >OK, but I'm holding out the other possibility that there is no >evolution. That's the pure steady-state view. That's irrelevant to the question of what's widely accepted. The steady-state model is not at all widely accepted, and for good reason. >I do believe in the scientific method, but feel it was not adhered to >in the development of the standard theory. As for discarding data, >one must discern between good and bad data, I'm sure you will agree. >In an earlier thread I mentioned a paper by Charles Cagle which used >clearly bad data. Over the past 20 years I've bet on the horses on & >off, and have been repeatedly punished by ignoring good data or >placing credence on bad data. When your wallet is riding on it, one >learns to distinguish between good & bad data. For whatever your >exemplary credentials as a scientist, I think I'm probably a better >judge of good & bad data than you are. You're welcome to think that, and obviously I can't convince you otherwise. But I believe the whole argument is bogus. Ability to tell bad from good data doesn't translate from field to field. I'd be happy to take your advice on betting on the horses, but when it comes to astrophysics I'm going to put more weight on my own ability to tell good data from bad, and on the ability of the experts in the field, than I am on yours -- just because I and the experts have had more experience in reading and assessing astrophysical work. I'm happy to acknowledge that knowing a lot about a small area of astrophysics doesn't make me better at anything else; examples abound of scientists who've made the same mistake that you're making and have tried to translate their expertise in one small field into, say, exposing mediums or doing philosophy. >And so it would be, if I started with this belief. As I said in the >quote above, standard rulers are a part of the steady-state cosmology. >If you hold open the possibility of S-S, then you countenance the >possibility that there are standard rulers. This is the sum totality >of my belief, that IF the one THEN the other. But it's obviously circular to claim that experiments which need standard rulers support a steady-state cosmology if you need to assume steady-state to start with. You can't use such an argument as any kind of evidence to allow you to prefer one model over another. And this sets aside the points that (1) the evidence doesn't in fact uniformly support steady-state, 1/z models and (2) that evolution is an observed process, so that steady state is broken without epicycles of its own. >I do not sneer at the scientific method, only at some practitioners (32 more lines) From: Eric Flesch (eric@flesch.org) Message 15 in thread Subject: Re: Reflections on a 1/z Universe Newsgroups: sci.physics, sci.astro Date: 1997/11/22 On Fri, 21 Nov 1997 19:06:50 GMT, Martin Hardcastle wrote: >...it's obviously circular to claim that experiments which need >standard rulers support a steady-state cosmology if you need to assume >steady-state to start with. You can't use such an argument as any kind >of evidence to allow you to prefer one model over another. And this >sets aside the points that (1) the evidence doesn't in fact uniformly >support steady-state, 1/z models and (2) that evolution is an observed >process, so that steady state is broken without epicycles of its own. OK, back to basics. First of all, the standard steady-state and tired-light universes are not 1/z ones. You previously stated that the "static Euclidean model" is a 1/z one, Martin, but you were mistaken. *All* such models follow the prescription that (z+1) doubles for every standard n while theta goes as 1/n, irregardless of tired-light mechanism. The 1/z universe differs fundamentally from these precursors. A Riemannian geometry is required which substantially increases the size of distant space. I note that this accomodates the faint-body surplus better than expansion. Now, you say my use of the 1/z measurements is circular because standard rulers are required. It may be circular, but it works. Therefore it is a possibility. Kellermann's article is not a disproof as other studies differ from his. I am as entitled to rely on other studies as you are entitled to rely on Kellermann's. >>I'm on my bike, and will post a reply when ready. > >Don't forget to explain the microwave background radiation, too. I'll try. One of your queries, about number counts and luminosity function, will, I think, be answered quite satisfactorily by the Riemannian geometry required. I'll work that out. >But I think there you're saying that almost everyone working in >cosmology is wrong. Isn't that just a tiny bit arrogant? No, unless anybody with a new idea is therefore, by definition, a tiny bit arrogant. Thus, progress comes only from arrogant people. :-) > A tiny bit crank-like? Isn't it possible, in fact, that these people who've >devoted their lives to trying to work this stuff out are right, and >that *you* are wrong? It's a distinct possibility. But if I simply go along with the standard idea, then it's a *certainty* that my contribution will be a net zero. You see, there's another reason the Big Bang feels wrong. It's that "time" is an unchallenged aspect of it. Although relativity shows that time varies according to conditions, the BB still supposes that time has a starting point and has advanced linearly since then. I think that's wrong. Just as Einstein found that c is not just a speed, but a constraining definer of our universe, so I feel that time is bound also by a larger definer. Time might be linear to us, but not in a larger scheme. That's the big picture. And that's why the Big Bang is too simple, too anthropocentric, to be right. I'll endeavour to get the geometry of the 1/z universe down to some solid numbers. I've done a survey of the literature, and this doesn't seem to have been done before. Someone like you, Martin, could steal my thunder in a moment, but I know that won't happen. So I don't need to be in a hurry. :-) best regards, Eric From: Martin Hardcastle (M.Hardcastle@xxx.xxx.xxx) Message 16 in thread Subject: Re: Reflections on a 1/z Universe Newsgroups: sci.physics, sci.astro Date: 1997/11/24 In article <3477ad5f.53643689@news.uni-stuttgart.de>, Eric Flesch wrote: >On Fri, 21 Nov 1997 19:06:50 GMT, Martin Hardcastle wrote: >OK, back to basics. First of all, the standard steady-state and >tired-light universes are not 1/z ones. You previously stated that >the "static Euclidean model" is a 1/z one, Martin, but you were >mistaken. *All* such models follow the prescription that (z+1) >doubles for every standard n while theta goes as 1/n, irregardless of >tired-light mechanism. Why? In a Euclidean model, let's have z (apparently redshift, actually produced by some mysterious new physics; hence `static Euclidean') linearly proportional to the distance of an object. (This is true in a Friedmann model in the limit z->0; distance is cz/H_0. So this assumption isn't in and of itself inconsistent with observation.) Then the angle subtended by a standard ruler is proportional to 1/distance and so to 1/z, trivially. The 1/z model is referred to as static Euclidean in the literature, as I said. What name we use for it is immaterial, but mine is as good as any. >Now, you say my use of the 1/z measurements is circular because >standard rulers are required. It may be circular, but it works. So do proofs of the existence of God, if you're allowed to assume he exists to start with. >Therefore it is a possibility. Kellermann's article is not a disproof >as other studies differ from his. What it does is disprove your false claim that all studies show this 1/z dependence. Which is where I came in. > I am as entitled to rely on other >studies as you are entitled to rely on Kellermann's. Unlike you, I don't rely on any of these studies. You, on the other hand, rely on the ones that suit your preconceptions. >No, unless anybody with a new idea is therefore, by definition, a tiny >bit arrogant. Thus, progress comes only from arrogant people. :-) It's entirely possible to have new ideas that _don't_ claim that everyone else, including many of the greatest scientists ever, has been wrong for the last half-century, in fact. >You see, there's another reason the Big Bang feels wrong. It's that >"time" is an unchallenged aspect of it. Although relativity shows >that time varies according to conditions, the BB still supposes that >time has a starting point and has advanced linearly since then. I >think that's wrong. Just as Einstein found that c is not just a >speed, but a constraining definer of our universe, so I feel that time >is bound also by a larger definer. Time might be linear to us, but >not in a larger scheme. I don't begin to see how you can call this science. Again, your preconceptions are talking. Martin -- Martin Hardcastle Department of Physics, University of Bristol Be not solitary, be not idle Please replace the xxx.xxx.xxx in the header with bristol.ac.uk to mail me From: Eric Flesch (eric@flesch.org) Message 17 in thread Subject: Re: Reflections on a 1/z Universe Newsgroups: sci.physics, sci.astro Date: 1997/11/27 On Mon, 24 Nov 1997 13:32:55 GMT, Martin Hardcastle wrote: >Eric Flesch wrote: >> *All* such (tired-light) models follow the prescription that (z+1) >>doubles for every standard n while theta goes as 1/n, irregardless of >>tired-light mechanism. > >Why? In a Euclidean model, let's have z (apparently redshift, actually >produced by some mysterious new physics; hence `static Euclidean') >linearly proportional to the distance of an object. (This is true in a >Friedmann model in the limit z->0; distance is cz/H_0. So this >assumption isn't in and of itself inconsistent with observation.) Then >the angle subtended by a standard ruler is proportional to 1/distance >and so to 1/z, trivially. Tired Light AD = (c/H-0)*ln(1+z). You cannot have AD = cz/H_0 beyond the limit z->0 as z is not a linear measure (nor is z+1). If z=1, the light has lost half its energy. To lose half its energy again, light must reach z=3. To do so again, light must reach z=7. Thus, an observer physically midway between the points where z=1 and z=7 must stand where z=3. This is not linear. So your "trivial" model is impossible, at least in static Euclidean space. An expanding Euclidean space with q=-3 will yield this, I believe. However, this is academic. I do not espouse tired light. >The 1/z model is referred to as static Euclidean in the literature, as >I said. What name we use for it is immaterial, but mine is as good as >any. Nyet. Static Euclidean = 1/ln(1+z). Sorry, read the literature for yourself. >> I am as entitled to rely on other >>studies as you are entitled to rely on Kellermann's. > >Unlike you, I don't rely on any of these studies. You, on the other >hand, rely on the ones that suit your preconceptions. I read & learn from the literature. I find the quality of some works higher than others. I am no different than anyone else in that regard. Since I'm not an active researcher, I must read other peoples' research. You cannot turn that into something negative. >>No, unless anybody with a new idea is therefore, by definition, a tiny >>bit arrogant. Thus, progress comes only from arrogant people. :-) > >It's entirely possible to have new ideas that _don't_ claim that >everyone else, including many of the greatest scientists ever, has >been wrong for the last half-century, in fact. You're just being grumpy, Dr. Hardcastle. I'm posting the summary of the 1/z universe in another thread, and it includes an original assessment of the role of the CMBR in a dynamic steady-state universe, but I doubt you'd be interested, judging from the above tone. C'est la vie. Still, I thank you for your kind and professional advice & comments that you have made. I value them. Eric From: Martin Hardcastle (M.Hardcastle@xxx.xxx.xxx) Message 18 in thread Subject: Re: Reflections on a 1/z Universe Newsgroups: sci.physics, sci.astro Date: 1997/11/27 In article <34852eff.29076169@news.uni-stuttgart.de>, Eric Flesch wrote: >Tired Light AD = (c/H-0)*ln(1+z). You cannot have AD = cz/H_0 beyond >the limit z->0 as z is not a linear measure Er, tautology alert. Of course, if we could measure distances accurately beyond those corresponding to z approx. 0, where all models agree, we wouldn't be having this argument. As it is, we can't (quite), and we don't know that what you say is true. > (nor is z+1). You (and Ray Tomes) both misunderstand. I'm talking about some invented mechanism for making the redshift linearly proportional to distance for all distances, not about tired light. I can propose any mechanism, or lack of mechanism, that I like for doing this. It doesn't have to be consistent with the Cosmological principle; I just made it up. The only point was to show that you are wrong in insisting that no such model gives theta going as 1/z. I don't believe that my invented model describes the universe, and I hope nobody else does either. >Nyet. Static Euclidean = 1/ln(1+z). Sorry, read the literature for >yourself. Da. I have done. For example, look at the Nilsson et al paper we have referred to earlier in the thread. >I read & learn from the literature. I find the quality of some works >higher than others. I am no different than anyone else in that >regard. Since I'm not an active researcher, I must read other >peoples' research. You cannot turn that into something negative. I can when you're using circular arguments to determine what you think the quality of a piece of research is. If you were reading with an open mind, I wouldn't (in fact, I would applaud it). >I'm posting the summary of the 1/z universe in another thread, and it >includes an original assessment of the role of the CMBR in a dynamic >steady-state universe `Original' is one word for it. Since we're not getting very far here, I've only corrected one or two incorrect statements you make about the BB model; I'll leave it to others to deal with the rest. > C'est la vie. Still, I thank you for your kind and >professional advice & comments that you have made. I value them. You're welcome. Martin -- Martin Hardcastle Department of Physics, University of Bristol Be not solitary, be not idle Please replace the xxx.xxx.xxx in the header with bristol.ac.uk to mail me From: Martin Hardcastle (M.Hardcastle@xxx.xxx.xxx) Message 19 in thread Subject: Re: Reflections on a 1/z Universe Newsgroups: sci.physics, sci.astro Date: 1997/11/27 In article , Martin Hardcastle wrote: > For example, look at the Nilsson et al paper we have >referred to earlier in the thread. Oops. On looking again at the Nilsson et al paper in the process of putting it back in my filing cabinet, I find it agrees with you and not me. Sorry about that. I don't know what paper it was I was thinking of, if indeed I wasn't misremembering completely. Ah well. I don't think this alters the point that if you pick an appropriate relation of z to distance you can retrieve theta proportional to 1/z in a static Euclidean universe. Martin -- Martin Hardcastle Department of Physics, University of Bristol Be not solitary, be not idle Please replace the xxx.xxx.xxx in the header with bristol.ac.uk to mail me ©2002 Google