From: eric@flesch.org (Eric Flesch)
Subject: What the  1/z  correlation tells us
Date: 1997/12/18
Message-ID: <349feeb8.31136253@news.nn.iconz.co.nz>#1/1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Organization: Internet Company of New Zealand
Mime-Version: 1.0
Newsgroups: sci.physics,sci.astro



At the frontiers of the observable cosmos, there is an evident inverse
correlation between angular size (theta) and redshift (z).  Many
authorities have mapped this correlation, but it is ignored in today's
theoretical thinking as there is no physical model for such a
relationship.  And yet, this relationship is the cleanest, best-mapped
aspect of the distant cosmos. 

For those who seek to belittle this correlation, I wish to point out
that it is an acknowledged crucial part of any theorizing.  In their
1993 ApJ 413:453-476 article overviewing current cosmological
methodologies, Nilsson et al assembled data from many studies, mapped
these together, noted (p469) that "the line of LAS (theta) - z ... in
fact agrees well with the data", and then, before reviewing other
studies, qualified thusly:  "The crucial assumption here is that the
linear size - redshift correlation, if it exists, can be neglected."
Nilsson et al thus elegantly state this assumption, while most other
studies follow this path silently.

I recently produced a universal model (the "1/z universe") which
attempts to reify this principle, but it falls short in that it shares
with the Big-Bang scenario the problem that while it can be tweaked to
*produce* the theta-z correlation, such a tweak leaves us with the
theta-z correlation as a coincidental outcome.  This is manifestly
wrong.  If we build a cosmos using the theta-z correlation as a
cornerstone, then this correlation must be a mandatory feature.
It is time to turn this correlation into a postulate, just as Einstein
once turned the observed invariance of the speed of light into a
postulate.  If we do this, what model does this postulate produce?

First, a static universe is required.  As an aside, it seems to me
that the steady flow of time is evidence for a static universe, else
how can it flow so steadily?  I reckon time's nature is kept constant
because it is constrained by larger, non-time, principles.   I don't
see how the Big-Bang can stabilize time.

Secondly, to produce the theta-z correlation, distance needs to act as
a sort of polarizing agent, where the light is polarized through a
fifth, orthogonal, dimension.  In other threads I have argued that
photons do not exist between emission and absorption (and this is
demonstrated by the delayed-choice experiment).  Such photons would
redshift as per the above prescription most agreeably, as their
orthogonality manifests when they impinge.

Projecting past the visible terminus of such a universe, you come to
the negative universe of antimatter and, perhaps, negative time.  It
is not abrupt, but the nature of space-time and matter gradually
rotate with the contours of the orthogonal fifth dimension.   Thus the
1/z universe is fully symmetric in every way.

These are my current thoughts.  Greeting to all.

Eric Flesch