Theos-Talk Archives (July 2009 Message tt00532)

Thought this might interest you Leon
Cass
According to the big bang theory, a galaxy's redshift is proportional to its recession velocity, which increases with its distance from earth. In the tired-light model, too, we would expect redshift to be proportional to distance. The fact that this is not always the case shows that other factors must be involved. Numerous examples of galaxies at the same distance having very different redshifts are given in the landmark book Seeing Red by Halton Arp, who works at the Max Planck Institut f?rophysik in Germany. He also gives many examples of how, for over 30 years, establishment astronomers and cosmologists have systematically tried to ignore, dismiss, ridicule, and suppress this evidence -- for it is fatal to the hypothesis of an expanding universe. Like other opponents of the big bang, he has encountered great difficulties getting articles published in mainstream journals, and his requests for time on ground-based and space telescopes are frequently
 rejected. 
    Arp argues that redshift is primarily a function of age, and that tired light plays no more than a secondary role. He presents abundant observational evidence to show that low-redshift galaxies sometimes eject high-redshift quasars in opposite directions, which then evolve into progressively lower-redshift objects and finally into normal galaxies. Ejected galaxies can, in turn, eject or fission into smaller objects, in a cascading process. Within galaxies, the youngest, brightest stars also have excess redshifts. The reason all distant galaxies are redshifted is because we see them as they were when light left them, i.e. when they were much younger. About seven local galaxies are blueshifted. The orthodox view is that they must be moving towards us even faster than the universe is expanding, but in Arp's theory, they are simply older than our own galaxy as we see them. 
 
To explain how redshift might be related to age, Arp and Jayant Narlikar suggest that instead of elementary particles having constant mass, as orthodox science assumes, they come into being with zero mass, which then increases, in steps, as they age. When electrons in younger atoms jump from one orbit to another, the light they emit is weaker, and therefore more highly redshifted, than the light emitted by electrons in older atoms. To put it another way: as particle mass grows, frequency (clock rate) increases and therefore redshift decreases.
 
Paul Marmet 
This work was supported by the  
National Science and Engineering Research Council and  
The Herzberg Institute of Astrophysics of  
the National Research Council of Canada 
<><><><><><><><><><>
 
Abstract 
          We discuss how the cosmological constant that is used in Einstein's model has an equivalent in the Big Bang model.  That model requires a critical density of matter that leads to the problem of dark matter.  We show that data on new cosmological structure and on a non-Doppler redshift mechanism lead to an unlimited and ageless universe.  We also explain why quasars appear to be unusual objects and have a large redshift while being physically much closer to us than usually claimed.  One can see that their luminosity is about the same as standard galaxies and not as millions of galaxies as believed previously.  One can also explain why the luminosity distance relationship observed in galaxies is not observed in quasars. 
I. Introduction 
          There is a serious controversy about the Big Bang model because it shows an increasing number of deficiencies.  This is illustrated by Flam, who states [1]"As doubts built about the once-favored model explaining how structures are formed in the Universe, new theories are jockeying in a cosmological free-for-all". 
          Let us compare some models.  The steady-state model uses "the perfect cosmological principle," in which the universe presents the same large-scale view to all fundamental observers at all times.  We will also consider Einstein's model, which adds a cosmological constant Lto balance the attraction of matter.  An important point, common to those models, is of course the universal law of gravitation.  All matter is attracted with a force proportional to the Cavendish constant GC, and inversely proportional to the square of the distance.  It did not seem possible in the past to observe gravitational forces at very large cosmological distances.  Therefore, gravitational forces were not tested at cosmological distances.  Recent observations of gravitational interaction at cosmological distances now suggest a solution based on these new observations. 
          The use of the universal law of gravitation in the Big Bang model leads to a prediction of the critical density r, of the universe that differs from observations by about two orders of magnitude.  This difference is interpreted to be caused by some "missing mass". 
          We will see that the problem of critical density of matter in the universe (and missing mass) is related to a common problem for which all popular models (the Big Bang, Einstein's and steady state model) require an equivalent correction (the cosmological constant L) related to a common phenomenon: The range of gravitational forces.
II. Reason that Led to the Big Bang Model. 
          An important reason that led astrophysicists to prefer the Big Bang model (of Friedmann cosmology of a close universe) is because the first Einstein model (the geometrodynamical model) is clearly unstable without the cosmological constant.  This instability is a consequence of the use of the standard universal law of gravitation.  Two suggestions have been given in order to try to solve this problem.  Einstein suggested adding a cosmological constant Lto his field equations.  That constant adds a repulsive force at large distances [2].  This second Einstein model with L?0 has another problem of stability.  It is stable only for a critical value of LC.  For any increase in size, the universe expands forever.  For any decrease, it will recontract forever.  This Einstein universe has therefore another kind of instability.
          An equivalent of Einstein's cosmological constant has been presented in various forms by different authors, but most cosmologists have rejected it.  George Gamow and many astronomers refer to the cosmological term as the biggest blunder of Einstein's life.  Even very recently, Hawking states [3]that the addition of a cosmological constant Lis: ". . . the biggest mistake of his (Einstein's) life." In 1917, de Sitter suggested [4]another model that includes a cosmological repulsion term of the Einstein type to balance the attraction of gravity at large distances. Another hypothesis considers that L=0.  This is the Big Bang model, a model that is unstable in time, since it starts with a Big Bang and ends with the Big Crunch. 
          Following those considerations, many astrophysicists have preferred the Big Bang model because it was hoped that this alternative would lead to predictions compatible with the universal law of gravitation without being obliged to add any gravitational repulsive constant as was suggested by Einstein.
          After more than 60 years of development of this theory and decades of observation, it is calculated that an equivalent of the cosmological constant is still necessary.  There is no way to avoid it. 
III. A Force Equivalent to the Cosmological Constant 
          We have seen that an arbitrary constant Lis required in Einstein's static universe.  However, it is not always realized that an equivalent cosmological constant is now necessary in the Big Bang model.
          Hawking recently stated [3]: "In order to find a model of the universe in which many different initial configurations could have evolved to something like the present universe, a scientist at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Alan Guth, suggested that the early universe might have gone through a period of vey rapid expansion. This expansion is said to be inflationary."
          Hawking goes on writing [3]that the inflationary model requires special extra energy and writes:
"This special extra energy can be shown to have an antigravitational effect: it would have acted just like the cosmological constant that Einstein introduced into general gravity when he was trying to construct a static model of the universe". 
          Hawking then discusses that force, and writes: ".. . the repulsion of (matter due to) the effective cosmological constant".  This clearly shows that a repulsive force, acting just like the cosmological constant L, is absolutely necessary in the Big Bang model.
          The Big Bang model also leads to a critical density of matter r, in the universe.  Since that density is not observed, one has assumed that there is some unobserved dark matter.  Some dark matter may also be necessary to explain the recently discovered huge structure called "The Great Attractor".  Lindley [5]concludes: ". . . that the Cold Dark Matter can be saved at least in modified form, if a non-zero cosmological constant is resurrected." 
          How can so many astrophysics reject Einstein's model so easily because of the cosmological constant, and then later use an equivalent constant of repulsion "just like the Einstein's cosmological constant" [3]to try to save the Big Bang model?  How can cosmologists repeat that a cosmological constant was "the biggest mistake of his (Einstein's) life" [3]when the equivalent of such a constant is now copied by the new cosmologists?
IV.  Main Unsolvable Difficulties of the Big Bang Model. 
 
http://www.bigbangexposed.bravehost.com


      ____________________________________________________________________________________
Access Yahoo!7 Mail on your mobile. Anytime. Anywhere.
Show me how: http://au.mobile.yahoo.com/mail