alternative to Big Bang model

[pantheory]

I believe the standard Big Bang model(s) will be overturned within maybe the next 20 years or so after the James Webb goes up. After this infrared telescope goes up what I believe will happen is that as far back in time that we will be able to see that we will see old appearing galaxies in the same portions that we presently see with the Hubble space telescope and that we can see in the local universe. Galaxies that appear as old as the Milky Way at maybe a few hundred million years old (according to the standard model), I think are a big contradiction to the BB model.

 

In the model that I will be discussing, I believe there are practically no questions that cannot be answered, in deference to the standard model, since I wrote a book on this subject that is online free at Pantheory.com.

 

So I am looking forward to your questions, whatever they may be and whatever comes to mind. Maybe the best questions will be those that you believe may not be adequately answered by the Big Bang model.

 

regards, Forrest Noble

[ajb]

Not that I am an expert in this, but does your model explain the power spectrum of the CMBR? The peaks contain physical information and suggest we live in a (near) flat Universe which went through an inflationary period. Unless your model allows for other interpretations?

[pantheory]

ajb,

I am not an expert on this subject either but I try to follow the related research. According to the model being discussed, the CMBR is asserted to be the temperature of the inter-galactic-medium (IGM) since accordingly there was no big bang or hot, dense beginning. Small differences in the temperature of the IGM due to anisotropy would be expected in this model, depending on the direction and distance we are looking, because the surrounding galaxies and HI distributions will always vary to some extent which would accordingly effect the observed temperature variations of background temperatures/ radiation observed. I would expect some observed variations are due to contamination by foreground HI.

 

My best guess (speculation) as to bipolar anisotropy is related to our inter galactic motion. As to quadrupole anisotropy maybe its related to our relative motion within the local group as well as our inter galactic motion, or not

[ajb]

I am not an expert on this subject either but I try to follow the related research.

 

Hang on a moment. You have written a book about an alternative theory to the standard model of cosmology, yet you now claim not to be an expert on the CMBR? Surely this cannot be right, you must be well acquainted with the CMBR and it's power spectrum.

 

 

According to the model being discussed, the CMBR is asserted to be the temperature of the inter-galactic-medium (IGM) since accordingly there was no big bang or hot, dense beginning. Small differences in the temperature of the IGM due to anisotropy would be expected in this model, depending on the direction and distance we are looking, because the surrounding galaxies and HI distributions will always vary to some extent which would accordingly effect the observed temperature variations of background temperatures/ radiation observed. I would expect some observed variations are due to contamination by foreground HI.

 

So in your model it is due to ionised hydrogen "glowing". Can one produce the near 2.725 K temperature of the Universe in this way?

 

My best guess (speculation) as to bipolar anisotropy is related to our inter galactic motion. As to quadrupole anisotropy maybe its related to our relative motion within the local group as well as our inter galactic motion, or not

 

Now you have to do the mathematics and see if you can reproduce the power spectrum of the CMBR. It should be possible to do this (but I have no idea what your theory is). Calculating the power spectrum and comparing it to the observed power spectrum is what any good cosmologist would do.

Edited July 6, 2011 by ajb

[pantheory]

Hang on a moment. You have written a book about an alternative theory to the standard model of cosmology, yet you now claim not to be an expert on the CMBR? Surely this cannot be right, you must be well acquainted with the CMBR and it's power spectrum.

Yeah, I touch on this subject briefly, only about to the same extent as my last posting. Since my book is entirely theoretical (my own theories) I simply think the standard model theorists are barking up the wrong tree concerning the CMBR and its big-bang-remnant interpretation. I do not have any further insight on this subject (that I can presently think of) other than what I posted

 

So in your model it is due to ionised hydrogen "glowing". Can one produce the near 2.725 K temperature of the Universe in this way?

The subject theory asserts that we are seeing the temperature of the intergalactic medium, which consists of galactic radiation, cosmic rays, dust, dispersed gases, vapors, HI, electrons, molecular matter, stellar remnants, some stellar and planetary rogues, etc. What we are accordingly seeing is the mean temperature of all the matter within the observed volume. The primary question concerns the even distribution of the temperature. Hoyle had his cosmic whiskers (iron dust) which seems like a possible temperature distribution mechanism but in my model I prefer another mechanism which might be called "aether conduction." This being an aether model, the aether would accordingly be omnipresent, with aether flow by fluid dynamics and vortex motions. Accordingly there are also vibrations to it concerning temperatures, as in string theory, which through kinetic vibrations conducts with matter. Temperatures accordingly conduct within the field at speeds lesser than that of light.

 

In time through galactic, and matter radiation along with this aether conduction process, the temperature of space accordingly becomes generally uniform. This aspect of the theory is considered an hypothesis and will remain so until an aether of some kind is discovered. The present front-runners for matter-like entities in the Zero Point Field (ZPF) are dark matter, Higg's particles, gravitons, quantum sand, quantum foam, field strings, etc. Known entities in the ZPF are neutrinos, cosmic radiation of all kinds, electrons, positrons, etc. According to this model, the aether is also made up of particles/ strings of some kind along with the energy of its motions of varying types and causes which can be measured by the radiation of the matter within the field but not the field itself which accordingly does not radiate.

 

Now you have to do the mathematics and see if you can reproduce the power spectrum of the CMBR. It should be possible to do this (but I have no idea what your theory is). Calculating the power spectrum and comparing it to the observed power spectrum is what any good cosmologist would do.

To produce such mathematics/ theoretical physics when the primary mechanism is hypothetical would seem like an exercise in futility since I believe few if any would be interested no matter what the outcome Instead I have reformulated gravity and the Hubble formula to better match reality. The latter is a functional formula without variables, that accordingly explains away dark energy. This is the theoretical physics that is the spear-head of this model since it directly mirrors the model itself.

 

regards, Forrest

Edited July 6, 2011 by pantheory

[ajb]

To produce such mathematics/ theoretical physics when the primary mechanism is hypothetical would seem like an exercise in futility since I believe few if any would be interested no matter what the outcome

 

 

I think I have to be a little insistent on this. If you have a genuinely good model of cosmology you will have to examine details of the CMBR within that model. The CMBR is a powerful thing that can rule in or rule out models. Unless your theory evolves into the standard model fairly quickly or can accommodate the finger print of last scattering then you will never really know if you have a good model.

 

Details of the CMBR cannot be accommodated in the steady state model, this was really the nail in the coffin for the theory.

 

Instead I have reformulated gravity and the Hubble formula to better match reality.

 

You have a model of gravity that is better than general relativity? Now you have placed yourself up against one of the best tested theories we know. I am sure you can accommodate all the classical tests of GR?

[pantheory]

<br>I think I have to be a little insistent  on this. If you have  a genuinely good model of cosmology you will have to examine details of the CMBR within that model. The CMBR is a powerful thing that can rule in or rule out models. Unless your theory evolves into the standard model fairly quickly or can accommodate the finger print of last scattering then you will never really know if you have a good model. <br><br>Details of the CMBR cannot be accommodated in  the steady state model, this was really the nail in the coffin for the theory.

<br>I am presently looking toward primarily two ways that might provide evidence for this model. One  involves future sightings of the James Webb and related distant infra-red observations, to provide strong evidence against the standard model  according to the O.P. assertions. The other method concerns the dissemination and criticisms of my type 1a supernova paper that I  believe explains reality far better than the dark energy hypothesis.  I also have another explanation for redshifts which preclude the expansion of the universe that is not known to many theorists. Within just 10 years I believe one theory will become stronger and the other weaker for the above reasons.  In the interim I may choose "to fool with" highly speculative equations concerning aether conduction to at least suggest possibilities/ hypothesis concerning the uniformity of the microwave background, where presently such musings would be considered by most to be no more than speculation. The main problems with such math is that it might never be validly criticized until/ unless the nature of the aether, at least in part, is "discovered" such as discovering dark matter and its characteristics, for instance. <br><br>I know Maxwell developed the present mathematical theory of magnetism based on the aether, so maybe I should try to develop aether equations concerning "aether conduction" but also know they would lie dormant (no one would look at them) until I could prove the theory in some other way. I have proposed ideas and tests that might do this. <br><br>

You have a model of gravity that is better than general relativity? Now you have placed yourself up against one of the best tested theories we know. I am sure you can accommodate all the classical tests of GR?

<br>It is a MOND type formulation that also incorporates GR for "close" calculations. It accordingly justifies this incorporation in that GR asserts the warping of space while similarly this model incorporates similar aether vortex motions. I personally dislike the use of Riemann geometry in place of vortex/ fluid motions but its hard to argue with success <img src="http://pub.scienceforums.net/public/style_emoticons/default/smile.gif" class="bbc_emoticon" alt=""><br><br>In the scope of galactic scales and the rotation rates of spiral galaxies like the Milky Way, for instance, my equations are functionally no better than the present dark matter hypothesis since there are variables involved, something like throwing dark matter into the mix. It is a vortex type model but it is accompanied by verbal theory that asserts that such variables can never be fully calculated because of fluid dynamic variables that exist within the aether field, so that all calculations would be statistical in nature, involving tolerances. At galaxy scales my expectation is that in time the tolerance range will be narrowed based upon discovered "hidden variables."Note that the same explanation would apply to the ZPF (which accordingly would be the aether) and the motions of quantum particles. Both the dark matter hypothesis and my own model's calculations, have their basis in retrodiction (in my opinion) -- which I am not too fond of but accordingly theorize that gravity involves unpredictable variables at the largest scales. These variables might accordingly become less significant concerning volumes of space as large as multiple super-clusters and voids and the observable universe.<br><br><br>Don't know how I goofed up the posting with the internal script <img class="bbc_emoticon" alt="" src="http://pub.scienceforums.net/public/style_emoticons/default/mellow.gif"><br> Edited July 6, 2011 by pantheory

[killafur]

Hi there,

This is Kyle Smith, from a few discussions down. Lame joke I know. Oh well lol. Anyhow, I just downloaded the pdf off of the website listed above, and am looking forward to studying it. Looks like I have some late nights though. Also, just wanted to say thanks for some direction, and hopefully soon I can be more up to speed enough to participate in this discussion.

[pantheory]

Hi there,

This is Kyle Smith, from a few discussions down. Lame joke I know. Oh well lol. Anyhow, I just downloaded the pdf off of the website listed above, and am looking forward to studying it. Looks like I have some late nights though. Also, just wanted to say thanks for some direction, and hopefully soon I can be more up to speed enough to participate in this discussion.

 

Thanks Kyle. A lot of good questions, in my opinion, are based upon what might trouble someone concerning the standard model or any cosmological model for that matter. It's a long book and the foundation material at the beginning is hypothetical rather than theoretical since the model is aether based. The beginning is a string type theory, aether theory; the math doesn't come in till later. So consider any questions you might ask are valid and that formality is not involved. And your knowledge of the theory may not enable you to ask a better question. It may help me more than you, enabling me to better spot where theory might not be adequately explained Everything that I explain should be found in the book, but when it's not I will try to tell you first since I would consider such answers to be more speculative.

 

While reading the book, it would be better concerning any related questions that you might use wordings that anyone reading this thread might understand the question. I also will try to do the same thing since overly technical material can only entertain the very few

 

Thanks for your interest, best regards, Forrest Noble

 

BTW, I live over here on the west coast of the colonies, Los Angeles in particular

P.S. I like emoticons, happy faces and lol's in particular since I believe lightheartedness and laughing in particular is one of the keys to a happy life, or not

Edited July 7, 2011 by pantheory

[REXITIVITY]

Just a question...to my understanding heat is only expressed when compression occurs. Have you considered if time and space could be compressing? Consider what happens to Energy in Einstein's formula when time compresses? It is not hard math, and you will find extraordinary amounts of energy are released. I too have written a book, but about time; and find the answers you seek are easily explained by introducing the variablility of time. Time and space were much bigger in the past, and compression has created a heated spinning universe...could it be?

[pantheory]

Just a question...to my understanding heat is only expressed when compression occurs. Have you considered if time and space could be compressing? Consider what happens to Energy in Einstein's formula when time compresses? It is not hard math, and you will find extraordinary amounts of energy are released. I too have written a book, but about time; and find the answers you seek are easily explained by introducing the variability of time. Time and space were much bigger in the past, and compression has created a heated spinning universe...could it be?

Sounds like there is logic to your model which is a good thing From one time frame to another space and time might compare to themselves differently, but in my model every time frame would observe space and time exactly in the same manner, measure, count, and proportions as we measure them today.

 

Of course:

 

.....There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio,

than are dreamt of in your philosophy. Shakespeare: Hamlet

 

In this case meaning that in my opinion it's still all up for grabs Just consider all of the proposed variations of the standard model alone

 

But in the non-standard model being discussed, time and space are very simple entities that have no other meanings to them than this: Time is simply an interval of change between two instances. And space is simply the distance between matter or a volume wholly occupied by matter and/ or field (the ZPF).

 

thanks for your question and keep them coming

Edited July 7, 2011 by pantheory

[csmyth3025]

You've obviously devoted a great deal of time, effort, and thought to your Pan Theory. In my estimation this has been a monumental undertaking on your part, for which I congratulate you heartily.

 

I wonder, though, in what way your theory can better explain the orbits of the planets around our sun than the (approximate) formulations of Kepler's laws of planetary motion while, at the same time, provide a sound basis for explaining the anomalous galactic rotation curves observed by Vera Rubin and Kent Ford and the equally anomalous rotational velocities of galaxies in galaxy clusters observed and reported by Fritz Zwicky 40 years earlier (at which time he postulated the existence of "unseen matter").

 

Chris

[ajb]

Hi there,

This is Kyle Smith, from a few discussions down. Lame joke I know. Oh well lol. Anyhow, I just downloaded the pdf off of the website listed above, and am looking forward to studying it. Looks like I have some late nights though. Also, just wanted to say thanks for some direction, and hopefully soon I can be more up to speed enough to participate in this discussion.

 

Please also read Andrew Liddle, An Introduction to Modern Cosmology, 2nd Edition [Paperback], Wiley-Blackwell; 2nd Edition edition (27 Mar 2003). It is a great little book outlining the modern status of cosmology. The book does requires a little familiarity with physics, but does not require any general relativity.

[pantheory]

You've obviously devoted a great deal of time, effort, and thought to your Pan Theory. In my estimation this has been a monumental undertaking on your part, for which I congratulate you heartily.

 

I wonder, though, in what way your theory can better explain the orbits of the planets around our sun than the (approximate) formulations of Kepler's laws of planetary motion while, at the same time, provide a sound basis for explaining the anomalous galactic rotation curves observed by Vera Rubin and Kent Ford and the equally anomalous rotational velocities of galaxies in galaxy clusters observed and reported by Fritz Zwicky 40 years earlier (at which time he postulated the existence of "unseen matter")

Thanks for dropping by Chris. As to gravity I do have my own formulations which have modified Newtonian dynamics, called MOND. This is a unique MOND mathematical and theoretical version that unfortunately has variables which I had to include from my beginning formulation. As to calculations concerning solar system distances, I use Newtonian and Einsteinian calculations where applicable. The forces of gravity are accordingly the inverse square law of Newton but the vector inward toward the source, becomes accordingly non-linear (tangent vectors involved) at stellar and galactic scales. Einstein called it the warping of space, and my description of it is that gravity is a pushing force that works via fluid dynamics and vortex motion. The need for the variables that I use involve observed characteristics of galaxies. Two spiral galaxies, for instance, that seem to have nearly the same mass and appearance, have been shown to have differing rotation curves. In the standard model they throw more dark matter into the mix to enable differing calculations. In my calcs I change two variable to come to a similar conclusion. Neither system is good since you first need to make observations of the rotation curve to enable the calculation of it. This is ugly. It's called retrodiction, predictions after the fact. It is the system that we presently use. Essentially there are no predictions at all, only rough estimations can be initially made with the present system or my equations

 

The problem, according to the proposed model, is that the fluid dynamics/ vortex motions of the aether (or you could call it dark matter if you prefer) moves in unobservable currents that eventually funnel into the galaxy with some variation in time, meaning that gravity in inter-stellar space at the galactic scale is not constant and accordingly varies to a greater extent concerning the outer galaxy independent of the matter within the galaxy. This theory asserts that dark matter is not really matter in the classical sense but its currents and acceleration are the pushing forces of gravity itself. It is omnipresent and we observe it in the lab as the Zero Point Field. These entities will be difficult to recognize because its constituents are maybe 10^-30 m. in length where a proton is about 10^-18 m radius. These strings vary in length but accordingly on average they are roughly a trillion times smaller than a proton but larger than a Plank length ~10^-35 m. According to this model they are string-like in form but this in not classical string theory and there are no extra dimensions. Of course this aspect of the theory I consider to be hypothetical since such string-like entities or particles have not been recognized.

 

That's all for now Chris, keep the questions coming. The O.P. tells where the theoretical and hypothetical reading material is if you wish to peruse it. regards Forrest

 

Please also read Andrew Liddle, An Introduction to Modern Cosmology, 2nd Edition [Paperback], Wiley-Blackwell; 2nd Edition edition (27 Mar 2003). It is a great little book outlining the modern status of cosmology. The book does requires a little familiarity with physics, but does not require any general relativity.

I agree. Before seriously considering the merits of any alternative model one needs to have a fair understanding of the mainstream view/ theory/model. In cosmology maybe 10's of thousands of individuals have worked on the present mainstream model for more than 50 years. From this initial study, perspective, and related understandings, a basis for asking better questions and related critical thinking can better develop, which is needed (in my opinion) to better evaluate the comparative merits of any alternative model in any field of study.

Edited July 7, 2011 by pantheory

[killafur]

Please also read Andrew Liddle, An Introduction to Modern Cosmology, 2nd Edition [Paperback], Wiley-Blackwell; 2nd Edition edition (27 Mar 2003). It is a great little book outlining the modern status of cosmology. The book does requires a little familiarity with physics, but does not require any general relativity.

 

Thanks ajb. I've never been scared to get back to the basics. My formal training is in accounting and business, but space and general science has always been my passion. I remember the first time I 'd ever heard of a black hole. I was in second grade sitting in the daycare my mom worked for, and my friend told me of this other dimension on the other side of this "black hole". He continued on with how nothing could escape one of these things, and lemme tell you, this totally blew my mind lol. Only recently have I reached a point where rational thought can take place. I come from a really religious background, and my search ultimately crossed paths with blasphemy. (Sorry for my rambling, but I think this is important) Tying the back to the basics back in: In life, I had to break everything down into its most fundamental of parts to reach my conclusion (why I like physics ). So the basics may be what I need to put my imagination on paper.

 

Pan, I can assure you that I'm not looking for a theory to follow. More like guidelines. These past couple days of thought, and talking to you guys, has showed me that I'm a little lacking. Have no fear though. I may only be a 26 year old assembly hand at a gas compression unit fab shop in casper, wy, but I have hope. And, an uncanny ability to quickly grasp whatever I take on, but that's beside the point lol. I may not know everything, but I can learn anything.

 

Ok, back to the discussion. Has anyone ever considered that space and gravity is older than the universe? Also, I am starting to believe that time is only a unit of measure that man made up to put an ordered classification to things. So we can keep track. Now for my big question: If I take away time from the equation, but I leave gravity and space there. Just make them there before the start. How do I fit that against any model for comparison? Most of our equations that I would be up against, have space, time, and gravity within them, and that they were made at the point of our creation.

[pantheory]

Killafur,

 

Hi Kyle,

 

.........Has anyone ever considered that space and gravity is older than the universe?

There are models that propose that both pre-existed the present universe. That is not the model that I am presenting however. I believe this is by far the simplest possible model that represents reality in general as it is. In time you can decide if you can think of a simpler model than this one. In this model space is the distance between matter and gravity requires an aether or dark matter in the Zero Point Field if you prefer to think of it that way. The field accordingly was the first thing created and soon thereafter matter. The field acts on matter to push it together which are accordingly the mechanics of gravity.

 

Also, I am starting to believe that time is only a unit of measure that man made up to put an ordered classification to things so we can keep track.

I believe yours is a valid perspective. Time, accordingly is an interval of change between 2 instances -- that's it. All of reality is classified by humans to help them explain reality. The way that we chose to organize it is certainly not the only way it could be logically organized.

 

Now for my big question: If I take away time from the equation, but I leave gravity and space there. Just make them there before the start. How do I fit that against any model for comparison? Most of our equations that I would be up against, have space, time, and gravity within them, and that they were made at the point of our creation.

Think about it. What would be the meaning of gravity and space without matter and field. Gravity also would seem meaningless without matter. In this model space and time cannot exist separately from matter and field. The behavior of gravity requires matter to give meaning to the word gravity. In one way or another everything that has existence is an extension of matter and field, and accordingly matter itself is created from field material. So according to this model all of these words and concepts (space, time, gravity, matter) are man-made concepts that accordingly could not exist without the field to define or create them. Without the field reality could not have existence. Without intelligence to define and organize them, these concepts and related entities would be generally meaningless.

 

It's not that these entities were created in the beginning, it's that they have no meaning separate from substance (matter and field) which had an original creation point in a model finite in time, which this is. To consider the concept of "before the beginning" is a logical contradiction

Edited July 8, 2011 by pantheory

[pantheory]

ajb,

 

....If you have a genuinely good model of cosmology you will have to examine details of the CMBR within that model. The CMBR is a powerful thing that can rule in or rule out models. Unless your theory evolves into the standard model fairly quickly or can accommodate the finger print of last scattering then you will never really know if you have a good model....

Answer continued: Although I may prefer a more hypothetical primary mechanism to evenly "thermalize" the microwave background, there are accordingly facilitating factors and considerations according to this model. which could result in the even temperature distribution of the CMBR. The first factor concerns the consideration that in this model the universe is many times older than the age of the universe according to the BB model. This would allow much more time for this proposed equilibrium process to work. The second consideration is that accordingly the universe is not expanding as in the standard model or Hoyle's models. There instead is another explanation for galactic redshifts. Non-expanding volumes also provide a greater amount of time concerning the continuous proximity of matter to adjacent matter, accordingly enabling it to reach temperature equilibrium.

 

Even though I have suggested this temperature distribution mechanism as possibly being the most important mechanism, this does not discount the possibility according to this model, that Hoyle's mechanism is the most important CMBR temperature distribution and equilibrium mechanism.

 

Here is a link below to a modern analysis of Hoyle's proposal which is enhanced concerning the use of both iron and graphite as the elements of temperature distribution having blackbody absorption characteristics. According to this paper some of this intergalactic matter from supernova would be somewhat extended in form, called needles, which accordingly would have greater absorption characteristics.

 

http://www.sciencefo...9-speculations/

Edited July 8, 2011 by pantheory

[pantheory]

My quote bottom paragraph posting #16:

 

SHB: It's not that these entities (space, time, gravity) must have been created at the beginning of the universe, it's that they would have no meaning in and of themselves, like in another universe for instance, in the absence of matter or field. This is the most common understanding of the standard model as well as this model being presented. The concept of "before the beginning" of the universe (if "universe" means everything that ever has existed) is also a logical contradiction

Edited July 9, 2011 by pantheory

[ajb]

It is not just the fact that the CMBR is almost perfectly thermal and uniform that needs explaining, but also the angular power spectrum. Maybe at a push Hoyle's whiskers of iron could be used to get something resembling the CMBR, but the devil is in the detail. As far as I know, the quasi-steady state model cannot reproduce the details of the CMBR. If you know of a source that shows me wrong than please point it out.

 

Other problems of the steady state include explaining the abundances of the light elements. Big bang models do this very well.

[pantheory]

It is not just the fact that the CMBR is almost perfectly thermal and uniform that needs explaining, but also the angular power spectrum. Maybe at a push Hoyle's whiskers of iron could be used to get something resembling the CMBR, but the devil is in the detail. As far as I know, the quasi-steady state model cannot reproduce the details of the CMBR. If you know of a source that shows me wrong than please point it out.

 

Other problems of the steady state include explaining the abundances of the light elements. Big bang models do this very well.

Thanks for your comments since I realize that all of them well-represent mainstream consensus. I was quite impressed with the paper I presented concerning the CMBR and how it might be produced by "cosmic needles."

 

I too do not favor Steady State models in general. First of all I dislike them philosophically concerning an infinite universe in time, space, and matter. To me infinity is far from simple and difficult to logically justify. Being finite is difficult enough for many people to understand concerning the universe as a whole and in particular its beginning. Logic is different between individuals but for me a "finite" universe in all respects is the only possibility. The other problem I have with both models is the asserted expansion of the universe, since I believe there is a far better and simpler explanation for the observed redshifts than the recession of galaxies from each other.

 

The best that I presently can do concerning explaining the observed background radiation is by presenting this link (copied wrong above ) http://iopscience.io...f/56860.web.pdf because it is very well documented, with much supporting maths involving the related theoretical physics and I can see no fault of explanation. As I said before, I think justification for such a proposal would be even easier with the inclusion of physical entities in the ZPF such as dark-matter-like constituents, for instance, which this model requires. It would be interesting to me to see the mainstream responses to that paper. I think this paper is preferable to Hoyle's final version in that two elements are used instead of just one: iron and graphite (carbon). and that it includes many other studies and supporting papers since Hoyle's last paper. This model being presented has only a few things in common with the "older" SS models. The proposal that the universe in a general steady state condition, is one similarity of the models, and another is the continuous creation of new matter from the background field (ZPF), as first proposed by Dirac. How this model differs from Hoyle's models is that the Universe in this model is finite in all respects, and secondly that there is no expansion of the universe. So I do not favor Hoyle's models as being preferable to the standard model since my own model, first written in 1959, differs greatly from both models.

 

How the redshift is explained in this model is by a diminution of matter process. Matter must accordingly decrease in size ~1/000 part every 5 million years. In my opinion this explains the observed redshifts with equivalent merit as the expanding space model. Larger atomic/ molecular matter in the past would have accordingly produced longer wavelengths of radiation. The reason for this diminution would accordingly be that matter of all types must unwind/ rewind for its existence, according to this model. Its internal potential energy and externally expressed kinetic energy can accordingly be observed as particle spin. When such strings (since this is also a 3 dimensional string theory plus time) of field material deform to loop and self engage, we observe their spin (angular momentum) but in this model spin really means spinning. There is no other explanation for particle spin (angular momentum) that I know of concerning the standard model, so I consider particle spin as evidence that supports this model concerning the diminution of matter. The model also "requires" an additional theory of relativity in that everything in its own time frame would appear and measure exactly the same as everything comparable would in any other time frame. This is also explained mathematically.

 

respectfully, Forrest Noble

Edited July 9, 2011 by pantheory

[ajb]

You will be interested in the paper by E. L. Wright [2]. He re-examines the results of [1] and shows how the quasi-steady state model does not fit the power spectrum of the CMBR well. I do not know how Aigen Li's work fit in. I expect, but don't know that it will be a stretch to find a good fit with the power spectrum. We will have to chase up papers that cite Aigen Li.

 

 

References

[1] J.V. Narlikar, R.G. Vishwakarma, Amir Hajian, Tarun Souradeep, G. Burbidge and F. Hoyle. Inhomogeneities in the microwave background radiation interpreted within the framework of the quasi-steady state cosmology. The Astrophysical Journal, 585, 1.

 

[2]E. L. Wright. The WMAP1 Data and Results. 2003.

[pantheory]

You will be interested in the paper by E. L. Wright [2]. He re-examines the results of [1] and shows how the quasi-steady state model does not fit the power spectrum of the CMBR well. I do not know how Aigen Li's work fit in. I expect, but don't know that it will be a stretch to find a good fit with the power spectrum. We will have to chase up papers that cite Aigen Li.

 

References

[1] J.V. Narlikar, R.G. Vishwakarma, Amir Hajian, Tarun Souradeep, G. Burbidge and F. Hoyle. Inhomogeneities in the microwave background radiation interpreted within the framework of the quasi-steady state cosmology. The Astrophysical Journal, 585, 1.

 

[2]E. L. Wright. The WMAP1 Data and Results. 2003.

Thanks, I have looked for Wright's related paper and found this on-line version which is quite interesting. http://www.astro.ucl...ht/stdystat.htm If this is not the paper you had in mind, do you have a link to it? He has published a great number of related papers. As you said, such a proposal as Li's might be considered to be a stretch. But I believe that complete thermalization by this process would not be a stretch with the inclusion of a particulate aether, continuous proximity, and a great deal more time to thermalize, as in this proposed model.

 

I have read Wright's material on 1a supernova's, comparing his (student prepared) binned data with my own, and have perused his tutorials. The standard model chart that I use for comparison with my own model explaining away dark energy, is very similar to the one that Wright published concerning dark energy interpretations since I generally used (redrew) his graphic version which I thought was the best to explain standard model interpretations. I only live maybe 30 miles south of UCLA which I attended, and where Wright still teaches (as far as I know) since he is younger than I am

 

From your previous posting:

 

....Other problems of the steady state include explaining the abundances of the light elements. Big bang models do this very well....

In this model I generally rely on the same equations and physics as the standard model concerning the abundances of light elements although I suspect there are different physics involved. According to the standard model, hydrogen along with the light elements "condensed out" of the original very hot, dense "primordial energy," being the starting material of the universe. In the subject model, such a similar state accordingly continues to exist concerning galactic jets from active galactic nuclei (AGN's), excepting instead of pure energy it is accordingly newly created protons, electrons, mixed with disintegrated (fissioned) matter that surrounded black holes within their toruses. Also many positrons were created but few anti-protons, which in this model are relatively short-lived particles. This model also proposes fusion processes surrounding black holes and within the base of the galactic jets, as well as fission processes. The jets however could also be looked at as mostly reduced to pure energy as in the standard model version of creation, justifying the use of the same equations. Black holes in this model, are a form of condensed matter that would be the same as the concept of highly condensed field material, which you could call compressed dark matter. Being another form of matter, accordingly it would look like a compressed ball of tiny strings, if we could see the details -- with no particulate matter within it since original matter would accordingly be broken down to its elementary string constituents.

Edited July 10, 2011 by pantheory

[pantheory]

The Pan Theory: Brief Summary

 

This cosmological model being discussed here might be classified under the cosmology category called "Scaling Theory" (also called scale changing theory, rescaling theory etc.) The idea of scaling theory in general is that the scale(s) of reality in general changes over time whether uniformly or otherwise. Such models in general seemingly cannot be disproved based upon their scale changing proposal alone. The first such proposal was made by Paul Dirac in the late 1920's when galactic redshifts were first discovered. His proposal was that both matter and space expand over time. The second generally known Scaling theory was proposed by Hoyle/ Narlikar in the mid 1960's whereby atomic diameters were proposed to be reducing over time (electrons moving closer to the nucleus). If atomic diameters were larger in the past then the resulting EM radiation that they would have produced would have been longer, explaining the observed galactic redshifts. The subject Scaling Theory model could also be called a Diminution of Matter theory. If matter was very slowly becoming smaller, as in this model, space would only appear to be expanding like it is now proposed, but instead the universe as a whole would generally not be expanding, instead matter would be getting smaller. This model being presented here is unique among scaling theories in that it explains why scales slowly but steadily change over time as briefly discussed below.

 

The universe accordingly started as a single simple particle and very slowly divided into strings of exactly the same particles excepting smaller. For this reason it might also be called a simple (3 dimension + time) string theory. The minimum age of the observable universe accordingly would be at least a trillion years old via this process. According to this model there is only one particle which forms strings of particles which are the foundation for all of reality. This proposed particle is presently unknown (something like dark matter, Higgs particles etc. but greatly smaller) and makes up all of reality. In this model there are no forces of nature/ pulling forces, and no pure energy. Instead Gravity, the Strong Force, the Weak force, the Strong Interaction, and the Electromagnetic force, are explained as either field interactions of these particles, or physical connections within nuclei with no a priori forces involved. There would only be one internal mechanical a priori force within these particles. This force causes them to unwind/ re-wind and slowly form strings of like particles (while becoming smaller), which can eventually be looped by self interacting forces into atomic particles (spinning loops). In their few stable looped forms they spin as fermions, perpetuating changes which define time. Space accordingly is the volume which matter and field occupies, being an extension of matter and nothing more. This theory also could be called an aether model in general, explaining both EM radiation and gravity as being simply aether field internal motions. Since according to this model there is just one single entity that makes up all of reality, called a "pan," I believe it is by far the simplest possible cosmological model that can be justified by observation. The Pan Theory is not an unknown theory. It's been around for 50 years and has been published for more than 20 years.

Edited July 11, 2011 by pantheory

[pantheory]

.

The above model proposes that only one thing exists in the entire universe, which everything else is either comprised of, or can be defined by,

 

and the following would apply.

 

Things that Do Not Exist.

 

-- dark matter

 

-- dark energy

 

-- pure energy

 

-- the forces of nature

 

-- warped space

 

-- a hot dense past

 

 

Things that have a different explanation

 

-- galactic redshifts

 

-- the microwave background

 

-- the beginning of the universe

 

-- the beginnings of galaxies

 

-- black holes

 

-- the cause of gravity

 

-- the cause of magnetism

 

-- the cause of the Strong force, Weak force, Strong interaction

 

-- reason for the speed of light

 

-- EM radiation

 

-- the double slit experiment

 

-- the Michelson Morly experiment

 

Things that are required by this model, but not by the standard model

 

-- an aether of fundamental particulates

 

-- that particle spin is real spin, not just "angular momentum"

 

-- that the force that causes particle spin is the single fundamental force in the universe

 

-- that the observable universe generally does not change over time, as to its general appearance, average age, or density.

 

-- that black holes are a compressed forms of "field material" and are a form of matter

 

-- that the Michelson Morly experiment was wrong; the speed of light on Earth is not constant but varies to a small extent

 

-- that the forces of black holes, in combination with the ZPF, create protons, electrons, and their anti-particles

 

-- that galactic jets create the observed "abundance" of light elements

 

-- that the universe is many times older than the standard model

 

-- that the speed of light here on Earth and elsewhere, is not constant

 

 

Things that are implied by this model

 

-- field material as well as matter are made up of a string of fundamental particles that extend to a spring-like appearance

 

-- atomic particles vary in mass to a yet undetectable extent

.

Edited July 11, 2011 by pantheory

[killafur]

Hello everyone,

 

I wanted to have a post that includes these general questions and speculations about to be presented. Before that though, I just wanted to say that I hope I'm not agitating or angering anyone by questioning your work. My goal is only to help.

 

Ok here's where I may differ a little from you guys. Though science may be my "life blood", the advancement of humanity also weighs heavy. I believe if we can answer what has been boggling the scientific community for the last sixty or so years, we can finally break free of our binds that have held us down for so long now, roughly 13,000 years. I know this is way off topic, but I really like explaining myself lol. Also, I'm staying fairly general to avoid bashing anyones beliefs. I should prolly stop there for now. I can start a diff discussion on that if you don't want anything like this on yours. Or reveal more if so needed or asked for.

 

Pan, I can't add your quote to this (on a droid haven't figured out how to paste multiple quotes once the reply has been started), but you say that, "Without intelligence to define and organize them, these concepts and related entities would be generally meaningless.". Ok lol, I've spent atleast fifteen minutes trying to decide on how to write these next few sentences. Oh well, I'm going to go for it. Eccentricities and all. If a tree falls in the woods, does it make a sound? Or, what if another intelligent species, that is way older than us, or even in another "universe" orbiting right next to us, has beat us by a million years defining it? I know it sounds crazy, but maybe that's what we need. Outside the box. Ah ha, maybe this says it better: have you ever tried to ponder these things as an animal, and not a human. I know it sounds crazy, but its amazing the limitations in perception that it can cause.

 

New paragraph because this question is for everyone. What would you say was your biggest hole to your theories? Is there anything that just bothers the $#!* out of you? I would really like you to be open too. You're safe lol. I'm just curious. Mine is that if gravity is basically something that occurs to something with "mass", and space is is only a classification to an area in which our matter resides, then where did our energy come from? Is there ancient nebular type clouds? My mind can run rampant with the possibilities, but the problem is still there.

 

Though I can ramble forever, I'll end this one for now. Happy posting people