Homepage › Forums › Plasma Cosmology and BBNH › Bang or no bang
Hello Israel
came across these links
Shapeshifting towards a
New Cosmology
http://www.ceptualinstitute.com/uiu_…/cosmology.htm
Theoretical cosmology
http://cosmology.uct.ac.za/research/…_cosmology.htm
The standard model
Inhomogeneous cosmologies
The standard model of cosmology assumes a homogeneous and isotropic universe, and as a description of the bulk properties of the universe, it has served us well. But the real universe is distinctly non-homogeneous on all scales except possibly the largest, so it is important to study the behaviour of inhomogeneities. Inhomogeneous cosmology uses exact solutions of the Einstein field equations to explore the full non-linear evolution of inhomogeneous structures.The Metric of the Cosmos. This is the ultimate application of Einstein�s field equations � determining the relation between matter and geometry in the real universe. The idea of reducing observed cosmological data to a metric was first explicitly discussed by Kristian & Sachs in 1966. Though a fair bit of theoretical development has been done, the methods have never been implemented, and therefore key questions such as choosing appropriate numerical methods, anaylysing uncertainties, and how to handle the intricacies of real observational data, etc, have not been addressed. A numerical reduction scheme is being developed and tested with fake data.
The large amounts of cosmological data generated by current and future redshift surveys will make this project practicable in the near future. This data will allow us to move beyond the assumption of homogeneity, and instead quantify the degree of homogeneity or lumpiness on a metric level. More importantly, as the data becomes increasingly accurate, the proper reduction and interpretation of the high redshift data will require knowledge of the cosmic geometry that is traveled through by the light rays we observe.
Our universe in reality has parts that are expanding and parts that are contracting.
In addition we find extremely large voids billions of year across that the big bang cannot explain.
An endless repetitive collision of “branes” is another new prospective generator of universes.
But here’s an interesting article in the general area: there’s an Axis of Evil in our universe!
http://space.newscientist.com/article/mg19425994.000-axis-of-evil-a-cause-for-cosmic-concern.html
G’day
The axis of evil
http://lanl.arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0502237
Local Pancake Defeats Axis of Evil
http://lanl.arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0509039
Is Cosmic Parity Violation Responsible for the Anomalies in the WMAP Data?
http://lanl.arxiv.org/abs/hep-th/0601034
CMB multipole measurements in the presence of foregrounds
http://lanl.arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0603369
http://lanl.arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0604410
Occam’s razor meets WMAP
Authors: Joao Magueijo, Rafael D. Sorkin
(Submitted on 19 Apr 2006)
Abstract: Using a variety of quantitative implementations of Occam’s razor we examine the low quadrupole, the “axis of evil” effect and other detections recently made appealing to the excellent WMAP data. We find that some razors {it fully} demolish the much lauded claims for departures from scale-invariance. They all reduce to pathetic levels the evidence for a low quadrupole (or any other low $ell$ cut-off), both in the first and third year WMAP releases. The “axis of evil” effect is the only anomaly examined here that survives the humiliations of Occam’s razor, and even then in the category of “strong” rather than “decisive” evidence. Statistical considerations aside, differences between the various renditions of the datasets remain worrying.
===========================================================
Recycling Universe
These links that I’m reading through, does not mean that I agree with. At this moment in time, not many people know what is going on out there. There are varies theories, with some people very emotional over their theory. If you wish to read up on these types of links just let me know.
[0806.1245] Ekpyrotic and Cyclic Cosmology
Ekpyrotic and Cyclic Cosmology
[0806.1080] Phantom Energy Accretion onto Black Holes in Cyclic Universe
Phantom Energy Accretion onto Black Holes in Cyclic Universe
[0806.1065] B2FH, the Cosmic Microwave Background and Cosmoloy
B2FH, the Cosmic Microwave Background and Cosmoloy
[0806.0746] The model of dynamo with small number of modes and magnetic activity of T Tauri stars
The model of dynamo with small number of modes and magnetic activity of T Tauri stars
[0805.0413] Oscillating universe with quintom matter
Oscillating universe with quintom matter
[0803.4484] Recollapsing quantum cosmologies and the question of entropy
Recollapsing quantum cosmologies and the question of entropy
[0803.4446] Anti-deSitter universe dynamics in LQC
Anti-deSitter universe dynamics in LQC
[0802.1875] Cyclic Magnetic Universe
Cyclic Magnetic Universe
Do physicists understand physics?
All the sources of physics are created on abstract ideas:
inertial motion, inertial reference system, ideal gas,
absolute black body,
negative four-dimensional ( Minkowski) space,
“a method of renormalization”, etc.
===========================
1.
G. Galileo has shown that natural motion is ‘inertial’
but nobody knows what is ‘ inertial motion’.
2.
G. Maxwell aspired to explain electromagnetic processes from
mechanical point of view, using cogwheels and wheels.
3.
L, Boltzmann admired the equations of Maxwell and he tried
to improve Maxwell
Do physicists understand physics?
Why is QT paradoxical?
The theory which we call Quantum Mechanics is very strange. Because when we are talking about mechanics it means that we can imagine and see this process visually.
But QM came with no visual aids, no model to picture in one’s mind. Now this theory is a purely mathematical formalism, difficult to use and impossible to visualize.
It simply gives the right answers to the most complicated theoretical question. Such situation satisfy maybe 99% of physicists. But there are few physicists who don
G’day from the land of ozzzzzzz
Some issues can be explained via particle theory others by wave theory.
It does no matter which theory is applied at the end of the day MATTER chooses its form.
G’day
Interesting reading
http://arxiv.org/abs/0908.1539
The case for a non-expanding universe
Authors: Antonio Alfonso-Faus
(Submitted on 11 Aug 2009)
Abstract: We present the results of two empirical constancies: the fine structure constant and the Rydberg constant. When the speed of light c is taken away from the fine structure constant, as shown elsewhere, this constancy implies the constancy of the ratio e^2/h, e the charge of the electron and h Planck constant. This forces the charge of the electron e to be constant as long as the action h (an angular momentum) is a true constant too. Then the constancy of the Rydberg expression implies that the momentum mc is also a true constant. This is just the second law of Newton. The Compton wavelength, h/mc, is then a true constant and there is no expansion at the quantum mechanical level. General relativity then predicts that the universe is not expanding. It is the only solution for cosmology. The time variation of the speed of light explains the observed red shift.
G’day
One important paper to add that disproves the expanding model.
http://arxiv.org/abs/0909.5051
Gamma-Ray Bursts as Cosmological Tools
Authors: Vahe Petrosian, Aurelien Bouvier, Felix Ryde
(Submitted on 28 Sep 2009)
Abstract: In recent years there has been considerable activity in using gamma-ray bursts as cosmological probes for determining global cosmological parameters complementing results from type Ia supernovae and other methods. This requires a characteristics of the source to be a standard candle. We show that contrary to earlier indications the accumulated data speak against this possibility. Another method would be to use correlation between a distance dependent and a distance independent variable to measure distance and determine cosmological parameters as is done using Cepheid variables and to some extent Type Ia supernovae. Many papers have dealt with the use of so called Amati relation, first predicted by Lloyd, Petrosian and Mallozzi, or the Ghirlanda relation for this purpose. We have argued that these procedure involve many unjustified assumptions which if not true could invalidate the results. In particular, we point out that many evolutionary effects can affect the final outcome. In particular, we demonstrate that the existing data from Swift and other earlier satellites show that the gamma-ray burst may have undergone luminosity evolution. Similar evolution may be present for other variables such as the peak photon energy of the total radiated energy. Another out come of our analysis is determination of the luminosity function and the comoving rate evolution of gamma-ray bursts which does not seem to agree with the cosmic star formation rate. We caution however, that the above result are preliminary and includes primarily the effect of detection threshold. Other selection effects, perhaps less important than this, are also known to be present and must be accounted for. We intend to address these issues in future publications.
and
3 Sep 2009
http://vixra.org/abs/0909.0009
Discovery of a New Dimming Effect Specific to Supernovae and Gamma-Ray Bursts
Authors: Thomas B. Andrews
Because type Ia supernovae (SNs) are anomalously dimmed with respect to the at (qo = 0.5) Friedman Expanding Universe model, I was surprised to find that the brightest cluster galaxies (BCGs) are not anomalously dimmed. Based on the absence of anomalous dimming in BCGs, the following conclusions were reached:
⋅ Since the light from the SNs and BCGs traverses the same space, the current hypothesis of an accelerated expansion of the universe to explain the anomalous dimming of SNs is disproved.
⋅ The cause of the anomalous dimming must be specific to the SNs.The first conclusion is important since current research in dark energy and the cosmological constant was initiated based on the accelerated expansion hypothesis. The disproof of this hypothesis, therefore, casts serious doubts on the existence of dark energy and the cosmological constant. The second conclusion indicates that the occurrence of anomalous dimming depends on a basic difference between the SNs and BCGs. The only difference besides the obvious – that SNs are exploding stars and the BCGs are galaxies – is that the light curves of the SNs are limited in duration. Due on this difference, I discovered that SNs light curves are broadened at the observer by a new Hubble redshift effect. Since the total energy of the light curve is then spread over a longer time period, the apparent luminosity is reduced at the observer, causing the observed anomalous dimming of SNs. I also show that BCGs are not anomalously dimmed because their absolute luminosity is approximately constant over the time required for the light to reach the observer. The above conclusions also apply to Gamma Ray Bursts (GRBs) since gamma-ray “light” curves are limited in duration. Finally, the light curve broadening effect can be used to determine if the universe is expanding or static. In the expanding universe model, a light curve broadening effect is predicted due to time-dilation for the SNs, GRBs and BCGs. Consequently, if the universe is expanding, two light curve broadening effects should occur for the SNs and GRBs. However, if the universe is static, only one light curve broadening effect will occur for the SNs and GRBs. Fortunately, Golhaber has measured the width’s of SNs light curves and conclusively showed that only one light curve broadening effect occurs. Consequently, the expanding universe model is logically falsified.
pluto wrote: G’day
One important paper to add that disproves the expanding model.
…
3 Sep 2009
http://vixra.org/abs/0909.0009
Discovery of a New Dimming Effect Specific to Supernovae and Gamma-Ray BurstsAuthors: Thomas B. Andrews
…
However, if the universe is static, only one light curve broadening effect will occur for the SNs and GRBs. Fortunately, Golhaber has measured the width’s of SNs light curves and conclusively showed that only one light curve broadening effect occurs. Consequently, the expanding universe model is logically falsified.
And here’s Arp’s suggestion for an alternate “flat” astrophysics:
http://haltonarp.com/articles/the_observational_impetus_for_le_sage_gravity
Hello
Please explain
A critique of Lerner’s “The Big Bang Never Happened”
http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/lerner_errors.html
ETA: Dr. Lerner actually addresses this critique here
http://bigbangneverhappened.org/