The geometry of global universe and red- shift. /by Socratus /

[socratus]

* The geometry of global universe and red- shift. /by Socratus /
===============
* a)* the global geometry of the universe* ( which is the curvature of the universe)
depends on its density ( the Cosmological Constant)
Today the* average density of the universe as whole is* about* 9.9 x 10-30 g/cm3.
Such small value of the average density cannot ''close'' the universe into sphere
and therefore it is an infinite ''open'' continuum.

b) but in some local places the picture of universe is different.
*
By some reason, in some local places the masses, and the density is much bigger
than in the infinite ''open'' universe.
* In these places we can see Gravity effect.
It means, that in the infinite ''open'' universe the Gravity effect* can ''close''
a part of ''open'' universe into*local spherical space , and create stars, planets, . . . . etc.
The states of stars, planets depend on their gravity-masses and their speed.
Gravity is*an effect of local masses - density and their speed.
Gravity is* the local ( curved into sphere ) geometrical part of infinite ''open'' universe.
Therefore local Gravity effect cannot be used to the* global* universe as whole.

The right question must be:* ''Where the Gravity come from?''.
''Where the Gravity - masses come from?''.

c) Today in every scientific book is written about ''the age of the universe'',
and it* is about 14 billion years old.
If it so, then light / quantum of light also must have an age.

d)*Then* the cosmological red-shift (which is assumed to be a result
* of the expansion)* can have an another interpretation.

For example: cosmological red-shift is the conditions of light quanta.
The* cosmological red-shift directly relates to the age of the quantum of light.
The quantum of light can have different age:
* * the more distance quantum of light travels the older it is.
========================================
Best wishes.
Israel* Sadovnik* Socratus.
======================================….

 

[Curious Cdn]

Publish or perish, Izzy!

 

[socratus]

The theory ( Hubble's law ) says:

a) the spectra from distant galaxy has red-shift, that means the galaxy
goes away from us.

b) the amount of red-shift is proportional to the distance.

c) the farthest galaxies are moving even faster than the close ones.

But there is an exception: Andromeda galaxy.
Andromeda, is the closest spiral galaxy which emits the ultraviolet wavelength.
That must mean: the Andromeda galaxy moves in direction towards us
( Earth - Sun - Milky Way galaxy)

Some theorists try to explain this exception saying that
by cosmological scale the distance between these two galaxies is short and
therefore the gravity forces can attract them.
Then i thought:

a)* the distance is short, time travel is short, the light quanta are young )

b) the far galaxies don't obey gravity laws.

c) even in one single galaxy the gravity laws don't work,
and therefore was invented ''dark matter'' and ''dark energy''.
( dark matter and dark energy make up more than 90%* of
all the matter / energy of the universe.
This can mean that all visible matter was make up from
dark matter / energy substance.
Nobody knows what hypothetical dark matter / energy substance is.)

When the basis of physics is wrong the amount of abstractions grow* infinitely.

I* say that all galaxies don't run anyway.
All galaxies have own reference frame for existence and only
light / quantum of light can travel between them.
Solar system has its reference frame,
Earth has its reference frame.
all animals have their reference frame on the Earth.
Everything and everybody has its reference frame for existence. *

Why quantum of light is a privileged particle?
Why quantum of light can travel with absolute constant speed?
Einstein:
‘' All these fifty years of conscious brooding have brought me
no nearer to the answer to the question, 'What are light quanta?'
Nowadays every Tom, Dick and Harry thinks he knows it, but he is mistaken '‘

'What are light quanta?' The question still waits an answer.
==================================.

Everything and everybody has its own time of life:
an universe, stars, planets, atoms, quantum particles.
So is with a quantum of light:
It was born, it lives, it will die as everything and everybody.
========================

 

[socratus]

** It is interesting situation:
Many believe that* all* galaxies started (14 billion year ago) from one singular point
and had equal energy, and then ''the farthest galaxies are moving even faster than
the close ones '' , but don't believe that* quantum of light can have age and say: this*
theme '' does not qualify as a science discussion.''

Alice's Wonderland
===

 

[darkbeaver]

​

Redshifts, Cosmology and Academic Science
Author: Halton Arp, 6"x9" paperback, 314 pages, ISBN:0-9683689-0-5
A wonderful book, Seeing Red is a must read since it is both educational and hard-hitting while being readable and entertaining. Arp dismantles conventional astrophysics, based on redshift being proportional to distance, by sharing his observations on quasars, some of which are highly redshifted yet connected to low redshifted galaxies by material bridges. Writing eye-opening material in more than one arena, Arp takes on the corruption of good science in academia, government and publishing after giving us great material concerning red shift, the Big Bang, and cosmology. Seeing Red can be ordered via the link below.
Order Link $25.00


(quackademics are the disease ruining science)


Hubble qualified his suggestion

A common belief today is that Edwin Hubble discovered in 1929 that the universe was expanding and that the Big Bang theory is the unavoidable conclusion from that fact. But what did Hubble actually say?​

"If the redshifts are a Doppler shift...the observations as they stand lead to the anomaly of a closed universe, curiously small and dense, and, it may be added, suspiciously young. On the other hand, if redshifts are not Doppler effects, these anomalies disappear and the region observed appears as a small, homogeneous, but insignificant portion of a universe extended indefinitely in both space and time." (MNRAS, 17, 506, 1937)

Material bridges HAVE BEEN CONFIRMED!

But science is not about accepting what is familiar. Science is about asking further questions: How could the familiar explanation be disproved? What else could it be? Hubble was referring to these further questions with his words "if" and "on the other hand." Until his death in 1953, Hubble continued to argue against an expanding universe/big bang interpretation of the data from his 1929 observations.​

It took 40 years to discover the evidence that disproved the argument from familiarity: Beginning in the late 1960's, Halton Arp photographed high-redshift objects (QSOs) clustered around and connected to low- redshift galaxies. His observations contradicted the "redshift equals distance" assumption and suggested that "smaller and fainter" meant merely smaller and fainter. But by then the Big Bang had become an object of faith, institutionalized in the astronomical hierarchy and in the professional journals. Asking further questions had become heretical. Arp was ostracized. He lost his access to publishing in the astronomical journals, his prestige and his telescope time because he continued to make observations that contradicted the Big Bang.​

"If astronomy were a science," a famous astronomer has said, the Big Bang would have been discarded decades ago instead of having become the touchstone of faith and funding.​

[See Arp's lecture video, "Intrinsic Redshift," for more details of this new picture of the universe.] Available from Mikamar Publishing​

​

 

[coldstream]

*

d)*Then* the cosmological red-shift (which is assumed to be a result
* of the expansion)* can have an another interpretation.

I've always thought this was questionable. I don't think we've really figured out structure of the universe in the dueling relativity and quantum mechanics theories. We don't understand light and gravity and their interconnectnedness. So if the red shift isn't reliable then the whole structure of modern cosmology based on the Big Bang isn't either.

I read book years ago called the Big Bang Never Happened by Eric Lerner. I'm not sure its in print anymore but i'd recommend it highly. It provides some speculative but well thought out alternatives.

He argues the apprehension of the infinite universe, an anathema to the Big Bang, is directly related to an era's technological vigour.

The pervasive current in modern cosmology is that of its growing alienation from observable experiment. 'Experiments' conducted at the limits of conjectural horizons can produce only attributed results. Every 'finding' or anomaly must be insinuated into the grand master plan, geometrically complicating its conceptual foundation. By necessity, then, the test of validity becomes credulity, consonant with the scientist's rank in the priestly hierarchy, rather than by scientific method.

A spectral edifice is the result, integrated into an understanding which relies on symbolic consistency rather than physical verification. Lerner notes that forces of electromagnetism and plasma physics provide a much more accessible explanation for the universe's large scale structure, using the pioneering theories of Hannes Alfven's filamentary universe. This takes the altogether reasonable route of explaining events of the past in terms of processes visible today.

These, however, are so much less portentous and profound than a primal mythical singularity.

 

[darkbeaver]

Einstiens mission was to deny Tesla a foothold on the twentiith century. Einstien was a banker invention and agent who,s only job was to ensure that virtual free energy did not become the norm and that arrangment still obtains

If ever there was a statue to be torn down it is Einstien.

The Scientific Method

Posted on August 18, 2017 by Louis Hissink
This is becoming repetitious but it’s worth doing because it seems clear that what we call science isn’t, and has, instead, started to become a religion or issue of faith.
In mineral exploration searching for buried mineral deposits involves using indirect techniques such as geophysics and geochemistry . Where a mineral deposit is suspected to exist, buried deep underground, it is assumed that this deposit has one or other physical property that can be measured at the Earth’s surface. So let’s assume that the target is a buried iron ore deposit, more dense than the surrounding rocks and hence producing a ‘gravitational field’ that can be measured by a surface survey using gravimeters. This is done and some assumptions made concerning iron-ore body density, volume and depth. Ignoring the technical aspects, a gravity anomaly map is produced that everyone agrees is the correct interpretation. This is the stage in the scientific method when consensus occurs.
The next stage is to test the model by drilling or digging. The drilling is completed but the expected target is not found. The hypothesis, that the gravity anomaly is caused by a buried more dense body, is falsified. The interpreted model is thus found to be wrong, for whatever technical reasons.
We do not adopt the policy that the model is actually correct and that the data, the drilling, was wrong, that the hole was drilled in the wrong spot. This procedure is the prospector’s faith problem, that the prospector knows there is iron-ore under the ground, and we have simply drilled in the wrong place.
Now consider the approach taken by the surveying team surveying the Andes or Himalayas 100 years ago and discovering their survey plumb-bob and line did not deflect as expected by the adjacent mountain.
Instead of concluding that their model or assumption was wrong, the surveyors instead concluded there was a lack of mass in the mountain and thus fabricated or imagined the existence of a low density root to the mountain to explain the lack of deflection.
Instead they should have concluded the belief that mass attracts mass, the geophysical model, had to be wrong. But they didn’t. They assumed it had to be right, and that the data were in error.
This is pseudoscience which is alive and well to this very day.

 

[socratus]

He argues the apprehension of the infinite universe, an anathema to the Big Bang,
is directly related to an era's technological vigour.

The technological problems have great influence on scientific ideas.
For example:
a) in Maxwell's time, technology was mechanical and therefore
* Maxwell explained his EM theory using mechanical toys:
* balls, hooks, springs . . .* etc.

b) in the last years of* the19 century many physicists were busy with
problem of simultaneous measurement* of time.
Therefore Einstein's SRT was begun with this simultaneous problem,
and this way ( until today) lead to many speculations about SRT.
( one train / rocket -* other train / rocket )

c) in the time where the big bang was entered in cosmology scientists
were amazed by great nuclear forces therefore using high pressure / density
* ( which was created by gravity masses - the weakest in nature)
they invented big bang which says nothing about
where did masses come from
( big bang created singularity,* singularity created big bang )
This theory is from the Alice's Wonderland.
==============================