Einstein was right!

[beecee]

On 11/16/2016 at 3:56 AM, Butch said:

Happening everywhere does not describe a local event. For all we know Big Bangs could be occurring all over the universe.

If the process is reversed, we find everywhere we are able to observe, packed within a much tinier region, to as far back as that volume defined by Planck units. So yes that would be a local event and logically from the one BB.

Quote

If the Big Bang is the "Birth" of the universe, my hypothesis says it has no beginning. If we were able to go back in time to our perceived beginning of the big bang it would still appear that the universe was about 13.8 billion years old.

The BB was the evolution of the observable universe/space/time ( as we know them) from a hotter, denser state, from t+10-43 seconds. The rest is speculation at this time.

[Butch]

On 10/26/2017 at 2:54 PM, Strange said:

You will need to quantify this. What is the function that relates age to red-shift? Without that, your suggestion is untestable.

Sorry, but you need to do some math.

Nonsense. 

There are multiple independent ways of measuring the distance of objects and the associated red-shift. There are also other ways of measuring the Hubble constant, that have nothing to do with red-shift. The recent gravitational wave detection also confirms the value of the Hubble constant.

Therefore, we can account for the Hubble factor and measure any redshift that is purely due to the age of the photons. There isn't any. 

Your proposal would also violate conservation of energy. 

Can you give me some info on the independent ways of measuring distance and some examples of objects measured by those methods? I would greatly appreciate it, I have not been able to find much info...

Yes it "absolutely" violates conservation of energy in the relative universe, that becomes a very interesting subject for discussion later.

I had an aha moment while working on the math. I am going to have to create some charts, I am working on that presently.

Strange, it seems you have missed the concept of the absolute universe, that is not surprising... It certainly is weird science. I hope however you can grasp the idea, regardless if it proves out, elsewise the math is going to escape you.

I apologise for not responding to your inquiry to space and time, these are the components of the framework of our relative universe. They are absolute, at any "Time" other than T0 "Space" approaches 0 relative to "Space" @ T0. When we use the term time usually it is relative to space, however in the absolute they do not co-exist, Space approaches infinity at a single instant @  T0 (No time) beyond T0 Space approaches 0 (non-existence)

On 10/26/2017 at 3:57 PM, beecee said:

If the process is reversed, we find everywhere we are able to observe, packed within a much tinier region, to as far back as that volume defined by Planck units. So yes that would be a local event and logically from the one BB.

The BB was the evolution of the observable universe/space/time ( as we know them) from a hotter, denser state, from t+10-43 seconds. The rest is speculation at this time.

If my hypothesis is correct it could be that the universe evolves from a cooler absolute state and a steady absolute state, but this is not up for discussion at this point.

Could you elaborate on the t+10-43s? It  might help define a second marker on my curve.

Thank you for your input.

Edited October 29, 2017 by Butch

[Strange]

13 minutes ago, Butch said:

Can you give me some info on the independent ways of measuring distance and some examples of objects measured by those methods?

Good grief. You are claiming to have some sort of expertise. Or do you really think someone totally ignorant of modern cosmology is going to contribute anything to the subject?

Anyway: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cosmic_distance_ladder

And: https://www.quantamagazine.org/colliding-neutron-stars-could-settle-cosmologys-biggest-controversy-20171025/

16 minutes ago, Butch said:

It certainly is weird science.

You haven't shown any science yet.

17 minutes ago, Butch said:

elsewise the math is going to escape you

I am hoping that you can provide some math to make sense of your waffle. But I am not holding my breath.

17 minutes ago, Butch said:

If my hypothesis is correct it could be that the universe evolves from a cooler absolute state and a steady absolute state,

This is contradicted by all the evidence. So good luck with that.

[Butch]

26 minutes ago, Strange said:

Good grief. You are claiming to have some sort of expertise. Or do you really think someone totally ignorant of modern cosmology is going to contribute anything to the subject?

Anyway: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cosmic_distance_ladder

And: https://www.quantamagazine.org/colliding-neutron-stars-could-settle-cosmologys-biggest-controversy-20171025/

You haven't shown any science yet.

I am hoping that you can provide some math to make sense of your waffle. But I am not holding my breath.

This is contradicted by all the evidence. So good luck with that.

Correction, a steady relative state.

I added to my previous post to try to explain the relation of absolute space/time for you, thx for the links...

I am not an academic, I am a commercial fisherman. But I am putting in this effort because I think it will contribute to science, I am 62 years and smoke like a chimney... Would just like to light a candle.

I am familiar with the distance ladder, and the recent observation of the collision of neutron stars, however the test for my hypothesis would have to rely upon direct measurement or maybe luminosity, because of the nature of the test (detecting redshift as a function of the age of the photon) I have found at least one example of discrepancy in the luminosity method, a body that appears to block radiation from another body which luminosity says is much closer than the blocking body... 

How accurately can we measure redshift? 

My problem is how distant will a body need to be for us to measure a red shift? An answer to this will help me to pick a second point of demarcation on my curve, the first being neural delay.

Edited October 29, 2017 by Butch

[Butch]

Can anyone comment on this?

http://www.setterfield.org/redshift.htm#discrepant

[Strange]

17 minutes ago, Butch said:

Can anyone comment on this?

http://www.setterfield.org/redshift.htm#discrepant

"Redshift quantization is a fringe topic with no support from mainstream astronomers in recent times."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Redshift_quantization

The claimed effect was seen in some early studies but was probably due to the selection of galaxies observed. Many more galaxies have been studied since then and the effect is not present.

Also, the author is a young earth creationist. And therefore not to be trusted. His "theories" have even been rejected by other creationists as being too embarrassing.
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/c-decay.html

 

[Butch]

On 10/29/2017 at 6:34 PM, Strange said:

"Redshift quantization is a fringe topic with no support from mainstream astronomers in recent times."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Redshift_quantization

The claimed effect was seen in some early studies but was probably due to the selection of galaxies observed. Many more galaxies have been studied since then and the effect is not present.

Also, the author is a young earth creationist. And therefore not to be trusted. His "theories" have even been rejected by other creationists as being too embarrassing.
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/c-decay.html

 

Thx

[Butch]

In trying to resolve the math for my hypothesis, i realize now that I must allow some assumptions...

1) As I have stated earlier in this discussion, the universe is steady state and the Big Bang is an illusion.

2) Bodies are not receeding and redshift is a result of time.

Please do not allow these assumptions to dissuade you from following this argument.

I will begin by researching bodies that are close enough that their distance can be measured via parallax, but distant enough that redshift can be measured. This method should produce a "smooth" curve defined by y=1/x^2, additionally I suspect the spectrum should expand as described by y= 1/(+-n +x)^2.

If anyone knows offhand off some objects that meet the criteria, I would greatly appreciate the assistance, I will begin with Alpha centauri..

 

[Strange]

45 minutes ago, Butch said:

I will begin by researching bodies that are close enough that their distance can be measured via parallax, but distant enough that redshift can be measured.

There aren't any. Assuming you mean cosmological red-shift.

If you just mean Doppler shift, then that is only going to tell you how fast the star is moving relative to us.

Edited October 31, 2017 by Strange

[Butch]

5 hours ago, Strange said:

There aren't any. Assuming you mean cosmological red-shift.

If you just mean Doppler shift, then that is only going to tell you how fast the star is moving relative to us.

That would be a problem, but I tripped on something while pursuing this... As I have stated previously, since as T approaches infinity, S would approach zero, em  waves would all have  wavelengths approaching zero, photons would have to redshift to maintain their relative energies... I am thinking that the spectrum of light would be compressed in line with the redshift, if so, it can be observed and measured and would provide a test for my hypothesis.

I am just beginning to look at this and will update, in the meantime if anyone has information in this area please share it with me.

Actually cosmological redshift is exactly what I am speaking of! If expanding space affects photons this way, how would it not affect matter?

Edited October 31, 2017 by Butch

[beecee]

22 hours ago, Butch said:

Actually cosmological redshift is exactly what I am speaking of! If expanding space affects photons this way, how would it not affect matter?

Because photons/light are simply part of the EMS and always has the universal maximum "c" momentum, following geodesics in spacetime. 

[Strange]

22 hours ago, Butch said:

Actually cosmological redshift is exactly what I am speaking of! If expanding space affects photons this way, how would it not affect matter?

In that case, there are no objects which exhibit cosmological redshift where the distance can be measured by parallax. They are too far away, by several orders of magnitude.

Secondly, I'm not sure what you mean by how it would affect matter. What does red-shift mean when applied to matter?

But maybe it does affect matter. For example, the time taken for supernovae to reach their maximum brightness and fade is well known and can be related to the maximum brightness. We find that this time is extended at cosmological distance, by exactly the same amount as light is red-shifted. So the physical processes that the matter undergoes is slowed the same way as the frequency of the light.

[Butch]

1 hour ago, Strange said:

In that case, there are no objects which exhibit cosmological redshift where the distance can be measured by parallax. They are too far away, by several orders of magnitude.

Secondly, I'm not sure what you mean by how it would affect matter. What does red-shift mean when applied to matter?

But maybe it does affect matter. For example, the time taken for supernovae to reach their maximum brightness and fade is well known and can be related to the maximum brightness. We find that this time is extended at cosmological distance, by exactly the same amount as light is red-shifted. So the physical processes that the matter undergoes is slowed the same way as the frequency of the light.

Ahh, you are now teetering on the edge of understanding my absolute universe!

If expanding space is accelerating photons, they must be redshifted to maintain relative energies.

I am saying that in the absolute this spacial expansion is infinite and accelerating... We do not experience this directly because we are constantly aware of a universe that is in the past, also we and all that is the universe is affected by this spacial expansion.

I suspect that the Big Bang is an illusion produced because we are observing a point at which the past universe has receeded (relatively) to a point that approaches zero as nearly as our instruments can measure.

I also suspect that the greatest portion of the Hubble redshift is actually cosmological redshift and the relative universe is pretty much steady state.

I also have ideas tied to this pertaining to the CMB, black holes and multi verses... But I will save those for discussion at a later time.

[Strange]

15 minutes ago, Butch said:

If expanding space is accelerating photons, they must be redshifted to maintain relative energies.

It isn't accelerating photons and red-shift reduces the energy, not maintains it.

Quote

I also suspect that the greatest portion of the Hubble redshift is actually cosmological redshift and the relative universe is pretty much steady state.

The Hubble red-shift is entirely cosmological. What else did you think it was?

The steady state model is impossible: http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/stdystat.htm#Tvsz

[Butch]

A note to all, if you do manage to peek outside the box and are able to grasp the concept of the absolute universe, I must warn you that it will endeavor to escape you. Here then is an exercise to help you to be able to retain the understanding.

Our sense of time is an illusion produced purely by neural delay, therefore a fly would have a much different sense of time.

16 minutes ago, Strange said:

It isn't accelerating photons and red-shift reduces the energy, not maintains it.

The Hubble red-shift is entirely cosmological. What else did you think it was?

The steady state model is impossible: http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/stdystat.htm#Tvsz

I thought it was described as the redshift of photons being emitted from a source that is receeding (relatively) from us. In my hypothesis, cosmological redshift is produced by expanding absolute space, that includes matter.

You are thinking relatively again, as I said, I do have information on the CMB as a function of the absolute universe however commenting on it at this point would be skipping far ahead of ourselves.

14 minutes ago, Butch said:

It isn't accelerating photons and red-shift reduces the energy, not maintains it.

As I have stated, in the absolute universe photons would be accelerating with the absolute expansion, hence their energy would increase, their frequency would need to decrease to decrease energies to remain constant in the relative universe.

I know very well how tough it is to grasp this concept, but I think you are doing a great job now.

Edited November 1, 2017 by Butch

[Strange]

19 minutes ago, Butch said:

I thought it was described as the redshift of photons being emitted from a source that is receeding (relatively) from us.

That would be a Doppler shift. It is true that popular science articles sometimes describe it that way, but it is wrong. 

Cosmological red-shift is caused by the difference in scale factor between the source and us.

21 minutes ago, Butch said:

As I have stated, in the absolute universe photons would be accelerating with the absolute expansion, hence their energy would increase, their frequency would need to decrease to decrease energies to remain constant in the relative universe.

This is still wrong. when photons are red-shifted that means they lose energy, not maintain constant energy.

[beecee]

20 minutes ago, Butch said:

A note to all, if you do manage to peek outside the box and are able to grasp the concept of the absolute universe, I must warn you that it will endeavor to escape you. Here then is an exercise to help you to be able to retain the understanding.

Scientists/cosmologists are always working outside the box, that you seem to pride yourself as being the only one.....difference being that most scientists when facing the realization that whatever it is they are researching outside the box, if it fails to align with what is observed, it is confined to the crap heap. All current incumbent theories were at one time, outside the box.

The fact is that the universe/space/time are not absolute and all are variable depending on one's frame of reference. Time is also real...just as real as space. In layman's terms, time stops everything from happening together, and space stops everything from being together; Or a more professional approach can be found here......http://www.preposterousuniverse.com/blog/2013/10/18/is-time-real/

[Butch]

7 minutes ago, beecee said:

Scientists/cosmologists are always working outside the box, that you seem to pride yourself as being the only one.....difference being that most scientists when facing the realization that whatever it is they are researching outside the box, if it fails to align with what is observed, it is confined to the crap heap. All current incumbent theories were at one time, outside the box.

The fact is that the universe/space/time are not absolute and all are variable depending on one's frame of reference. Time is also real...just as real as space. In layman's terms, time stops everything from happening together, and space stops everything from being together; Or a more professional approach can be found here......http://www.preposterousuniverse.com/blog/2013/10/18/is-time-real/

The box I am referring to is relative space time... We are somewhat prisoners of it.

call it a different dimension if you wish... But it isn't, indeed the absolute universe is the true "real" universe, what we witness is only a fading shadow of it, the illusion of reality. It is however the reality we each have, but understanding this absolute universe will help us to understand the relative illusion and will uncover errant assumptions. I will post some charts tomorrow that I believe will help, they will also demonstrate the mathematical task at hand to transcribe the absolute to the relative.

24 minutes ago, Strange said:

 

Cosmological red-shift is caused by the difference in scale factor between the source and us.

Strange, we are two minds approaching one another at tremendous velocity! 

Scale factor? Can you elaborate?

[Strange]

11 minutes ago, Butch said:

Scale factor? Can you elaborate?

The universe is expanding. The scale factor is a measure of how much it has expanded. 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scale_factor_(cosmology)

[Butch]

8 minutes ago, Strange said:

The universe is expanding. The scale factor is a measure of how much it has expanded. 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scale_factor_(cosmology)

And if matter we're a part of this expansion? 

Notjust being carried along with it, but indeed experiencing the same expansion.

Edited November 1, 2017 by Butch

[Strange]

16 minutes ago, Butch said:

And if matter we're a part of this expansion? 

It isn't.

[beecee]

6 hours ago, Butch said:

And if matter we're a part of this expansion? 

Notjust being carried along with it, but indeed experiencing the same expansion.

Expansion is evident only over large scales....smaller scales such as our local group of galaxies and cluster, and gravity overcomes that expansion...even smaller scales such as planets, stars, you and me, the strong and weak force along with gravity, overcome the expansion. Matter is not part of the expansion, period.

[Strange]

9 hours ago, Butch said:

But it isn't, indeed the absolute universe is the true "real" universe, what we witness is only a fading shadow of it, the illusion of reality.

What evidence do you have for this "real" universe?

[MigL]

This is the kind of thread that makes you want to bang your head against the wall.
After 11 pages, Butch still doesn't understand that 'expansion' is NOT achieved by a radial velocity or acceleration.

This is the perfect example of Phi's assertion that, before you venture outside the box, you should familiarize yourself with what's in the box.

[Strange]

It is like someone who has never played golf or even watched golf, doesn't know the rules of the game or even what equipment is used (i.e. me!) who decides to tell golfers they are doing it all wrong.