From: Eric Flesch (eric@flesch.org) Message 1 in thread Subject: The 1/z Steady-State Universe -- summary description Newsgroups: sci.physics, sci.astro Date: 1997/11/27 In observing the most distant reaches of the cosmos, most studies find an inverse linear correlation between maximum angular size (largest angular size for double radio sources) and redshift. This is unexplained by the Big Bang model. Other discrepancies between observation and the Big Bang model are: 2) number counts of faint background objects are about 2x too high. 3) the Hubble "constant" is usually found to have a lower value, the further away you measure. Steady-state theories have been advanced since Hoyle et al 1948 model, but have not fit all the available observations as well as the Big Bang theory. Notably, the CMBR is not well handled. Here, in this brief treatise, I summarize a new pure Standard-State theory which has very little in common with its precursors, and requires the CMBR as an essential part of its dynamic equilibrium. A fuller description will be forthcoming at a later date when I have worked out all the math. The geometry of the 1/z universe is Lobachevskian saddle-spacetime. This means that the shells of space have greater volumes than in Euclidean space, and objects therein look correspondingly smaller to us. Our 4D spacetime sits on the surface of an orthogonal 5th dimensional hypersaddle. Visible time and space are affected by this orthogonal dimension in a manner analogous to polarization, so time is seen to be slowed at a distance. The resultant redshift is thus an accurate measure of the comparative curvature between the observer and the observed. Spatially, as mentioned, space is larger and so objects look smaller. The first effect to be noted is that space at z=1 is closer by a factor 1/sqrt(2). That is, if we measure the distance of objects at z=1 by using static Euclidean angular size methods, call it D_1, then the 1/z universe's true distance to z=1 is D_1/sqrt(2). Moreover, this point is half the distance to the visible terminus where z=infinity. However, the *volume* of space is much increased by the Lobachevskian curvature. Some quick calculations show that static Euclidean space volume between z=1 and z=3 is (28/3)*pi*D_1^3 (with z=1 at D_1 and z=3 at 2*D_1). By contrast, the Lobachevskian space volume between z=1 and z=3 is about 20*pi*D_1^3 (with z=1 at D_1/sqrt(2) and z=3 at about 1.1245*D_1). Thus, even though the shells of space are quite a bit closer in the 1/z universe, the volume of space is about doubled in the "faint objects" range, and so the number counts cosmological problem is solved. Since the theta/z correlation is also well-handled, this geometry neatly solves two problems. The "Hubble constant" is also seen to decrease with distance, if space is thought of as Euclidean. THE CMBR. The standard model does not well-handle the question of what happens to black holes after they catastrophically implode. Although space-time is obviated, these objects are somehow supposed to retain their mass and position. Also, "worm holes" are supposedly made possible under these conditions. How silly. The key to the solution, and how the CMBR fits into it, comes when one appreciates that black holes are essentially pure entropy. Pure entropy is devoid of information or signal. As discerned by the Bell's experiments, superluminal activity is possible where there is no signal conveyed. This is the key. In the 1/z universe, when black holes finally collapse completely, they vanish. When passing through the singularity, spacetime is obviated and the energy is perfectly radiated back into the universe from without. You could say the black hole goes from somewhere to nowhere to everywhere. This is what the obviation of spacetime entails. This perfect radiation back into the universe feeds the CMBR, which then serves as a reservoir for the creation of atoms in deep space (along the normal lines of energy + virtual particle = real particle). Thus, the CMBR is analogous to Earth's oceans, from whence comes the rain. The collapsing black holes feed the CMBR which serves as the source of new matter. Thus the 1/z universe is seen to be like a living pumping universe, constantly being replenished. Lastly, what happens to the entropy? Note that the black holes were pure entropy, but the matter condensing out from the CMBR is as close to entropy=0 as you'll get. The entropy has been lost to the universe. Simply put, the entropy has been emitted to Without. And this is the first evidence that there is a realm beyond the universe, that the universe is some kind of entropy-exuding system. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Problems with the model: 1) If distant objects see eachother as slowed in time, then the total time difference between them is seen to increase, in conflict with the requirements of a "steady state" universe. There are ways around this, notably relativity-type treatments (since a similar situation exists in passing objects in relativity), but none elegant. The most elegant out would be if distant objects were not seen as slowed, but I believe observations have showed that they *are* slowed. If I am mistaken in this, please correct me. 2) The darkening of the visible disk goes as 1/(1+z)^4. I think the slower-time of this model caters for that. I'm not sure. However, I've read that the darkening of the visible disk has been observed only for a certain range of disk sizes, thus throwing doubt on the general principle. Does anyone know more about this? Eric Flesch Nelson, New Zealand 27 November 1997 From: Martin Hardcastle (M.Hardcastle@xxx.xxx.xxx) Message 2 in thread Subject: Re: The 1/z Steady-State Universe -- summary description Newsgroups: sci.physics, sci.astro Date: 1997/11/27 In article <348c47ac.35394199@news.nn.iconz.co.nz>, Eric Flesch wrote: >In observing the most distant reaches of the cosmos, most studies find >an inverse linear correlation between maximum angular size (largest >angular size for double radio sources) and redshift. This is >unexplained by the Big Bang model. No it's not; evolution is a required feature of the BB. > Other discrepancies between >observation and the Big Bang model are: >2) number counts of faint background objects are about 2x too high. Evolution again. Something has to form the galaxies we see today. This is an argument _for_ the BB and against simple steady-state models. With great restraint, I'm not even going to comment on the rest. 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 3 in thread Subject: Re: The 1/z Steady-State Universe -- summary description Newsgroups: sci.physics, sci.astro Date: 1997/11/27 On Thu, 27 Nov 1997 12:27:40 GMT, Martin Hardcastle wrote: >Eric Flesch wrote: >>...most studies find an inverse linear correlation between maximum >>angular size and redshift. This is unexplained by the Big Bang model. > >No it's not; evolution is a required feature of the BB. But there is no need for evolution to have yielded the theta-z correlation. It could have ended up any other way. You just treat it like a coincidence to be ignored. Remember your words about honesty. >> Other discrepancies between observation and the Big Bang model are: >>2) number counts of faint background objects are about 2x too high. > >Evolution again. Something has to form the galaxies we see today. "Evolution" is a mantra for the Big Bangers every time something is observed which varied from the model. It explains nothing, it's just an excuse. The significant difference between a Steady-State theory and the Big Bang is that Steady-State has no adjustable parameters, no degrees of freedom. A Steady-State theory must explain everything elegantly. The Big Bang is made to be as sloppy as required, with lots of adjustable parameters, to maximize the fit between observation and theory, at least until the next set of observations come along which require further revision. This was nobody's ideal of science, so why do you defend it (the method) so unyieldingly now? Eric Flesch From: Martin Hardcastle (M.Hardcastle@xxx.xxx.xxx) Message 4 in thread Subject: Re: The 1/z Steady-State Universe -- summary description Newsgroups: sci.physics, sci.astro Date: 1997/11/28 In article <347db7c5.2891609@news.uni-stuttgart.de>, Eric Flesch wrote: >But there is no need for evolution to have yielded the theta-z >correlation. It could have ended up any other way. Not really. It seems very likely that at earlier times environments were denser, and so radio sources of a given power were shorter. We _observe_ an evolution in the environments of the most powerful radio sources, in the sense that nearby powerful radio galaxies tend not to lie in clusters, while more distant ones do (e.g. Yates, Miller & Peacock 1989 MNRAS 240 129). Conversely, it's entirely consistent with what we know about radio sources that they should be brighter when they're smaller. Effects of the CMB energy density, higher at earlier times (there was a paper a little while ago providing direct evidence for this) also have a significant effect (see e.g. Kaiser et al 1997 astro-ph/9710104). The effect is to push down the high-redshift end of the angular size-redshift diagram, rendering it more like a 1/z plot. Remember that where the analysis is done carefully, taking into account some of these effects, (e.g. in Nilsson et al 1993 ApJ 413 453) the results end up being consistent with _any_ of the cosmological models. So I don't agree that there is (as yet) a case to answer. But evolution more or less guarantees that what you see is not what you would expect to see if there were standard rulers. >"Evolution" is a mantra for the Big Bangers every time something is >observed which varied from the model. If you think this is the case, you've misunderstood what it means. > The significant difference between a Steady-State theory >and the Big Bang is that Steady-State has no adjustable parameters, no >degrees of freedom. Apart from the other significant difference -- that Steady State is inconsistent with observation. 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: Garret Cotter (garret@ast.cam.ac.uk) Message 5 in thread Subject: Re: The 1/z Steady-State Universe -- summary description Newsgroups: sci.physics, sci.astro Date: 1997/11/27 In article <348c47ac.35394199@news.nn.iconz.co.nz>, Eric Flesch wrote: [something about a Steady State model] Two problems with this model stand out as being the most obviously at odds with observation. First, if the shape of the number counts is caused by a change in the volume element with redshift, why is the shape different for different photometric bands / radio frequencies? Second, how can you get isotropic radiation with a 3K blackbody spectrum perfect to better than 1 part in 10^5 from _discrete_ sources? The universe was different in the past. End of story. (Unless you want to throw away the Cosmological Principle. In which case you're not doing science, so it's off-topic for sci.astro.) From: Eric Flesch (eric@flesch.org) Message 6 in thread Subject: Re: The 1/z Steady-State Universe -- summary description Newsgroups: sci.physics, sci.astro Date: 1997/11/27 On 27 Nov 1997 18:47:47 -0000, Garret Cotter wrote: >Two problems with this model stand out as being the most obviously at odds >with observation. First, if the shape of the number counts is caused by a >change in the volume element with redshift, why is the shape different for >different photometric bands / radio frequencies? Right, I wasn't aware of this. I will find a paper(s) on this issue and see if the model stands up to this. I'll reply further then. >Second, how can you get >isotropic radiation with a 3K blackbody spectrum perfect to better than 1 >part in 10^5 from _discrete_ sources? This isn't an issue because spacetime ends where black holes collapse into the singularities. This is standard model, except that the standard model refuses to take the final step, that being the disappearance of the black holes. When the black hole disappears it is re-emitted into the universe from the "outside", so to speak. It is like inversion, where the black hole sees itself as containing the universe once it has passed through the singularity. Thus the energy is perfectly radiated back into the universe from Without, without constraints of time or space. Again, the fact that black holes are 100% entropy makes this possible, as the lack of signal/information means that locality is not violated, similar to the Bell's experiments. >The universe was different in the past. End of story. (Unless you want to >throw away the Cosmological Principle. In which case you're not doing >science, so it's off-topic for sci.astro.) The 1/z universe is perfectly homogeneous and isotropic, sir. Cheers! Eric Flesch From: Eric Flesch (eric@flesch.org) Message 7 in thread Subject: Re: The 1/z Steady-State Universe -- summary description Newsgroups: sci.physics, sci.astro Date: 1997/11/30 On 27 Nov 1997 18:47:47 -0000, Garret Cotter wrote: >First, if the shape of the number counts is caused by a >change in the volume element with redshift, why is the shape different for >different photometric bands / radio frequencies? I have before me 1991 MNRAS 249.498 Metcalfe et al, where R and B galaxy counts are compared with various models. On page 517 Metcalfe comments "Previously the R-band counts have been said to be less quickly evolving than the B counts. However, in the current comparison... the R-band count seems to be evolving only a little slower than the B galaxy count." Metcalfe notes that the counts go up at higher z beyond that predicted by the tired-light model, but of course that model differs from this 1/z Lobachevskian variety. Metcalfe's team has put out a 1995 paper that I can't seem to get, but the abstract suggests no departure from the 1991 paper. So I don't see that your point is supported regards photometric bands. As for radio frequencies, I can't find a germane paper. Perhaps you can suggest one? I think that a more powerful distinctor between the B-B & S-S models would be the cosmological time dilation. If cosmological time dilation is demonstrated to exist, that should, I think, disprove any and all S-S models. Conversely, if cosmological time dilation is demonstrated *not* to exist, that would terminate the Big Bang model at once, without chance of reprieve. I think you will agree with me on this. Prior to 1995 the only attempt at finding cosmological time dilation was with gamma-ray burst profiles, but such analysis is speculative and the profiles can simply be modelled with a burst luminosity function. In 1995 Goldhaber et al presented the first results of analysis of the light curves of type Ia supernovae at various distances to z=0.4. These results have been publicized as the first demonstration of cosmological time dilation. Upon reading this paper, however, I am disappointed at the quality of the data. The best data was for SN1994H and is graphed on page 4. The first thing one sees is that the curves separating time dilation from non-dilation are quite close. Thus the data should be reasonably precise to differentiate which curve is fit. This data comes in four clusters of observations (inclement weather is mentioned). The first cluster of three observations is set at the commencement of brightening and shows up-down zig-zag instability, so the actual time of flux "blastoff" is unclear. The second cluster of five observations near the maximum flux is similarly zig-zag (up-down-up-down). The third cluster of observations is at the flux descent, and shows steady decrease. This appears to be the only (56 more lines) From: T. Joseph W. Lazio (lazio@spacenet.tn.cornell.edu) Message 9 in thread Subject: Re: The 1/z Steady-State Universe -- summary description Newsgroups: sci.physics, sci.astro Date: 1997/11/29 >>>>> "jm" == joe mama writes: jm> A very intriguing argument, but a little above me. Could you, and jm> Martin Hardcastle, debate each other, but explain in a little more jm> detail expanding upon your points, so we less educated can jm> understand. [...] As an (occasional) observer to Eric and Martin's discussion, here is a brief introduction to some of the topics they are debating. What is the angle subtended by a distant galaxy? Intuitively, you might expect that more distant galaxies subtend smaller angles. After all, this describes what happens when a friend walks away from us. As the friend walks away or becomes more distant, she appears shorter or she subtends a smaller angle. With respect to the Universe, there are two fairly severe complicating factors, though. First, depending upon the geometry of the Universe, more distant objects may actually appear *larger*. By geometry, I mean, does the matter in the Universe cause spacetime to be curved? and, if so, is it curved so that the Universe will recollapse upon itself or expand forever? The second problem is that when your friend walks away from you, she appears smaller *provided* that her height doesn't change. This is a reasonable assumption for human beings, but it may not be a reasonable assumption for galaxies. The essence of the Big Bang model is that the Universe was hotter and denser in the past. If it were denser in the past, maybe galaxies were smaller. Therefore, more distant galaxies might subtend a smaller angle *both* because they are more distant and because they were intrinsically smaller. Of course, these complicating factors can also be the source of interesting science. *If* you believe you know the geometry of the Universe, then you can predict how large distant galaxies should be. Any deviation from the prediction would be a measure of how much galaxy sizes have changed in the past. Conversely, if you had "standard rulers" (objects with the same *intrinsic* size at all times in the Universe's history) or if you could predict how galaxy sizes should change over the history of the Universe, then you could use the observed galaxy sizes to determine the geometry of the Universe. I haven't been following the discussion completely, but I gather that Eric has made the second assumption. He believes he knows how galaxy sizes have changed in the past. More precisely, he believes that galaxy sizes have not changed in the past. With this assumption, he ends up finding a spacetime geometry inconsistent with that predicted by the Big Bang. He has failed to convince Martin, however, that this (36 more lines) ©2002 Google