Re-Inventing The Universe

[DaCuBaN]

It is time for a new look at astronomy and our universe!

The Expanding Universe theory, and its counterpart, the Big Bang theory, have been the foundations of astronomy for over seventy years. But what if they are wrong? In the following I will present some new information that raises serious questions about these theories.

In 1926, astronomer Edwin Hubble, while investigating the spectrum of some faint distant galaxies, discovered an unusual relationship. The spectrum of each of the galaxies he investigated was shifted toward the red end of the spectrum (called redshift). Even more interestingly, the fainter the galaxy, the larger the redshift. Hubble reasoned that the fainter a galaxy was, the more distant it was. But if that were true, then the more distant a galaxy, the larger its redshift. This distance-redshift relationship eventually became known as Hubble’s law.

Astronomers sought an explanation for this strange relationship. There were three possibilities that were believed to cause a redshift in light from a distant object. These were:

Tired Light

As light rays from a distant object such as a galaxy pass through the empty space of the universe, they could interact with something to cause a loss of energy in their passage toward the Earth. Such lost energy would be seen as a redshift in the received light. Since light from distant galaxies passes through space for millions of years before it reaches Earth, there is ample time for such interactions to take place. But scientists believe that such interactions would cause a scattering of the light, resulting in a broadening of the images of distant objects, much like observing the beam of a flashlight through a fog bank. But such broadening is not observed, so astronomers do not think this is the cause of the redshift. It appears that light can travel for millions of years through empty space without encountering any significant matter.

The Gravitational Redshift

In his famous General Theory of Relativity, Albert Einstein showed that the pull of gravity on a beam of light as it leaves the surface of an object such as the Sun causes the light to lose a small amount of energy, manifested as a redshift. This effect is similar to the effect of the pull of gravity on a rocket as it is fired from the Earth’s surface.

Einstein’s effect is called the Gravitational Redshift, and it has been experimentally verified here on Earth (the Mössbauer effect), the Vessot rocket clock experiment, for light from the Sun, and for several other objects in the heavens. The problem is that it is far too small to account for the redshifts measured from distant galaxies, and so is not thought to be the cause of the redshift. In addition, this effect is strictly a function of the mass and diameter of an object, and would not vary with distance.

The Doppler Effect

The simplest analogy of the Doppler effect is the sound made by a train whistle as it first approaches, and then recedes from us. As the train approaches, we hear the whistle at a higher pitch than normal. Then after the train has passed the whistle suddenly sounds lower. What has happened is that as the train approaches us, the speed of the train causes the frequency of the sound waves to be higher, and a higher pitch to the whistle. Conversely, as the train recedes the frequency of the whistle is less, so whistle sounds lower.

A similar effect happens with light. If an object such as a star is approaching Earth, the frequency of the light received from the star increases slightly, shifting slightly toward the blue end of the spectrum. This is called a blue shift, and has been observed in a large number of nearby stars and some nearby galaxies.

Conversely, if the star is moving away from Earth, the frequency of light received from the star decreases, and the light is shifted slightly toward the red end of the spectrum. This is called a redshift, and is also observed in many nearby stars.

Since redshifts and blueshifts had already been observed in nearby stars, astronomers were predisposed to accept the Doppler effect as the cause of the redshift of distant galaxies, as discovered by Hubble. Thus, in the early part of this century, it was decided that the Doppler effect was the cause of Hubble's redshift, and that all distant galaxies were receding from us. This explanation, which was really just an assumption because no other explanation could be found, has been the foundation of astronomy for the last 70 years.

---------------------------------------

Suffice to say it's interesting reading... Much of what has been penned here led me to believe in the time-parabola theory of the universe.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

Wouldn't this be more appropriate in Science?

As light rays from a distant object such as a galaxy pass through the empty space of the universe, they could interact with something to cause a loss of energy in their passage toward the Earth. Such lost energy would be seen as a redshift in the received light. Since light from distant galaxies passes through space for millions of years before it reaches Earth, there is ample time for such interactions to take place. But scientists believe that such interactions would cause a scattering of the light, resulting in a broadening of the images of distant objects, much like observing the beam of a flashlight through a fog bank. But such broadening is not observed, so astronomers do not think this is the cause of the redshift. It appears that light can travel for millions of years through empty space without encountering any significant matter.

Isn't this how we detect dark matter?

You see dark matter surrounding galaxies causes light to bend and multiple images of the object behind the galaxy to form.

ahhh... it also happens to be a geocities site. I don't really trust it.

[DaCuBaN]

it also happens to be a geocities site. I don't really trust it.

Somewhat prejudiced, no? Just because someone can't afford to buy a domain name? or expensive hosting with this included?

Geocities is free - that's why so much - and of course so much crap - ends up on there. This site may be in the equivelant of the internet slums, but that doesn't make it any less reputable.

Read the entire page... there's a LOT of information in there regarding currently accepted theory. I'll post some choice links from it when I get a few minutes, but I'm supposed to be working at the moment h34r:

[gaf]

well good topic.
but i've got my self a little thought over relativiity.question from a candide:
if the way to calculate the univers is about light that we can see ,transpose in time that we can feel .Is it not apropriate to say that what i can see is then relative to what i feel.And not to really what it is ?,but since everybody could see something else ,is it then not appropriate to say that what we see is only a distortion of what we feel. time is an illusion,to feel what we can not see.because nobody say,i feel the same things than you ,when we see it,since it could be relative. (and i think it is)...like everythings we talk about is relative to what we saw and experienced.....just a thought.remember,just a thought.

[redstar2000]

Verbally, it sounds quite appealing...especially to one such as myself who always had a distaste for the "big bang" theory (after all, it was first advanced by a Jesuit astronomer and has been endorsed by the Vatican! ).

But the real test in this kind of thing is to "plug in the numbers" and see what pops out.

That is, after all, how general relativity was verified. It predicted measurable outcomes. The measurements were made and the outcomes matched up.

This is tricky stuff...the equations would be very complicated indeed and the super-computer time would be measured in weeks, months, possibly years.

Also dark matter (if it truly exists) and dark energy (if that truly exists) would have to be taken into account...both would exert a gravitational influence on light.

I think whoever wants to investigate this potential paradigm will have grave difficulties getting funding; radicals in science don't have a much higher reputation than radicals in politics. Both are correctly perceived as threatening to existing status and even jobs.

But I like it...I hope someone can pull it off, if only to watch the godsuckers get hammered again!



The Redstar2000 Papers
A site about communist ideas

[DaCuBaN]

Let us look in more detail at each section. I'll start with Dark Matter

The Cosmological Search for Missing Mass

For many years, cosmologists have been trying to determine some very obscure (to the layman) information about the universe—whether the apparent expansion will continue, stop and begin contracting, and various other types of speculations on the nature of the universe that I choose not to get into. Many of these investigations involve the so-called ‘inflationary’ model of the universe originally put forth by astronomer Alan Guth[1]. This theory was developed to overcome some very knotty problems with the Big Bang theory. Guth’s theory, which I will not go into, provides for a very rapid inflationary phase in the early stages of the universe, shortly after the big bang, to explain away some observational problems. The inflationary model is very important to those astronomers who have based their careers on the big bang, since it is the only model they have which accounts for many observations.

One of the main problems with Guth’s inflationary universe theory is that it is extremely mass-sensitive. If the big bang occurred as currently believed, the total mass of the expanding universe should have a very precise relationship with the outward velocities and distances of all galaxies and other matter. This mass must not deviate from this amount by even one part in 1055, an extremely small tolerance. Unfortunately the estimated mass of the visible universe is less than 1/10 of this critical value. Therefore the Big Bang concept and the inflationary universe model is in very serious difficulty. Only by believing that a vast amount of invisible, unmeasurable mass is hidden somewhere, can the big bang theory be saved.

But as we have seen in other pages of this web site, it is very likely that the universe is not expanding and there never was a big bang, so this reason to believe there is missing mass in the universe simply disappears, along with the inflationary universe model. It was never a driving force behind the missing mass problem for the observational astronomer, anyway, so causing it to go away does not eliminate the missing mass problem, as we shall see. Of course, astronomers who still hold to the big bang theory would probably not agree!

Missing Mass in the Milky Way

In 1932, a young Dutch astronomer named Jan Oort provided evidence that there was about twice as much matter in the disk of the Milky Way (our local galaxy) than could be seen in the stars and gas observed nearby. He had earlier demonstrated that the Milky Way galaxy rotates about its center—roughly one turn every quarter of a billion years.

In his research, he had been measuring the speed and direction of many stars moving within our galactic disk. His studies indicated that stars tend to bob up and down, like merry-go-round horses, as they slowly circle our galaxy. A star first moves down toward the galactic disk because it is gravitationally attracted by the disk’s immense mass, but then the star overshoots and passes on through the plane of the Milky Way. Yet, like a swinging pendulum, the star eventually slows down and is pulled back up by those same gravitational forces. Such bobbing goes on and on, like the horses in a circus carousel. The speed with which the stars are pulled back and forth appeared to require more gravitational force than could be predicted from the amount of visible material within our galaxy. His observations led to the idea that there was missing mass in our galaxy, although what was really missing was light which could be counted as mass, or even more succinctly, there seemed to be excess gravity present in the disk of the Milky Way.

Not all astronomers agree that Oort’s results prove that there is missing matter in our galaxy. The presence of dust, gas or various other dim objects could just as well provide the needed gravitational forces. In addition, as we have seen, the presence of a few SuperStars with tremendous gravitational force could easily skew the results of his studies and provide the missing gravitational forces. And since Oort’s estimate of missing mass is only about half the mass of our galaxy, while other estimates of missing matter are 90% or more, this one study does not provide a compelling justification for missing mass. We attribute the observations to the presence of SuperStars.

Excess Gravitational Forces in Clusters of Galaxies

In 1933, astronomer Fritz Zwicky announced that the Coma cluster of galaxies appeared to be missing as much as 90% of the mass required to keep this cluster from breaking apart. The Coma cluster is a rich group of hundreds of associated galaxies some 300 million light years away. The various galaxies are thought to be slowly rotating about a common center of gravity.

Zwicky arrived at his conclusion by first estimating the total mass of the cluster using a method called the virial technique. Then he measured the velocities of some of the galaxies using their spectra and the Doppler effect. He found that their velocities were higher than they should have been if the galaxies were gravitationally bound and in rotation around the center. If the cluster were to keep from breaking up (and it did not appear to be), then the total mass of the cluster would have to be at least ten times that he had calculated. This would be satisfied if 90% of the matter contained within the cluster was dark matter—matter which could not be seen and did not give off light.

Zwicky’s calculations were relatively crude by today’s standards. However, a similar situation has now been found in numerous other clusters by other investigators. Thus here is a missing mass situation which appears to be experimentally verified, and needs further investigation.

Our suggestion is very simple. The clusters are not real—they are optical illusions caused by the gravity lens effect.

Somewhere near the center of the clusters is a SuperStar with enormous gravitational force, causing us to see false images of distant galaxies by the gravity lens effect. The apparent motion of the images around the SuperStar is due in part to the intrinsic motion of the distant lensed galaxies. Probably the largest cause of apparent motion is the rotation of the SuperStar, which causes the gravitational field surrounding the SuperStar to rotate as well. An analogy is the mirrored ball found in many dance halls and saloons. When the ball is put in motion and a spotlight is directed toward it we see spots of light traveling around the room—a myriad images of the spotlight emanating from a rotating, inert mirrored ball.

In deep space the effect of a rotating SuperStar is similar. We see false images of distant galaxies, focused by the gravitational lens effect of the SuperStar and set in apparent motion by the rotating gravitational field surrounding the SuperStar.

If the suggestion that galactic clusters are optical illusions is unsettling, just take a look at a few of these clusters, as shown in the following figures. I personally find the idea that they are optical illusions very compelling. And of course if clusters of galaxies are not real, then is no reason to believe that there is any missing mass in them.

It may seem absurd to suggest that these galactic images seen in clusters are optical illusions. But in fact that would solve a very serious problem with them which is seldom raised, but which is very revealing. Astronomers estimate the age of the universe to be around 15 billion years, give or take a few billion years. These same astronomers do not have any idea how a galaxy could have formed in this relatively short time. In this time span, for example, our own galaxy would have made perhaps just 40 complete revolutions, if as astronomers believe it is in rotation around a common center of gravity. That is, our galaxy is only 40 years old (if one rotation about the center is considered a year). How could galaxies have formed in just 15 billion years? Astronomers have absolutely no explanation.

But then you look at the clusters of galaxies, apparently consisting of hundreds of related galaxies, and ask how, if we can’t explain how a single galaxy could have formed in the short lifetime of the universe, then how in heaven’s name could a huge cluster of galaxies have been formed!

To twist the knife just a little more into the heart of astronomy-land, it is known that there are super clusters—clusters of galactic clusters, containing hundreds of clusters of galaxies, each containing hundreds of clusters. And long strings of clusters have been found as well. There is absolutely no way to explain this in the short 15 billion year lifespan of the universe, or even with much longer time frames. Astronomers shy away from these facts, because they cannot explain them, and it means they are studying objects which logic compels cannot exist. (Maybe if we don’t talk about it, it will go away). It is the ostrich with the head in the sand syndrome.

So they probably don’t exist. Galactic clusters such as the Coma and Virgo clusters are the signatures of the gravity lens effect of some super-gravitational SuperStars off in the distance. How far away I can’t say, but I’ll wager they are not very far away at all. And bottom line, there is no missing mass problem here.

Rotation Curves of Elliptical Galaxies

The most compelling reason to believe there is missing matter in the universe is found in the rotation curves of elliptical galaxies

As we know from our solar system, Kepler’s law, coupled with Newton’s laws of gravity, provide a very accurate account of the motion of planets in orbit around the sun. These laws provide that planets closest to the sun have the highest orbital velocity, while that velocity drops as planets further from the sun are studied. For example, the planet Mercury is speeding around the sun with a velocity of 48,000 meters per second, while the earth plods along in its orbit at only 30,000 meters per second. Pluto, the planet furthest from the sun, has an orbital velocity of less than 5,000 meters per second.

If the stars that make up an elliptical galaxy are in orbit around a common center of gravity, then we would expect that the outer stars are traveling at a lower velocity than the inner stars, and this velocity should decrease the further out you look. But when astronomers measure the redshift of stars at various points across the surface, they find that the velocity indicated by their redshift is nearly constant with distance from the center, as illustrated below. Such a velocity curve is completely inconsistent with what was expected, and occurs for most elliptical galaxies.

Astronomers have found that they can duplicate the type of rotation curves seen if they hypothesize a spherical halo of invisible matter surrounding the galaxy, with a mass ten times the mass of the galaxy as computed from the masses of the visible stars. In other words, it appears as if 90% of the mass of galaxies is invisible, and contained in a halo surrounding the galaxy. In effect, astronomers made something up that made the answer come out right (an ad hoc solution&#33. The problem, of course, is that so far they have failed to find out what this missing mass is.

But let us take a different approach, based on what we have learned so far. Suppose that the image of a galaxy is really an optical illusion caused by the gravity lens effect of a SuperStar. We have already seen how galactic images are just what we would expect from the gravity lens effect.

Now let us suppose that the SuperStar is rotating, as well might be expected (our own sun rotates). Scientists know that the rotation of an object with a large gravitational field results in distortions in the gravitational field in its vicinity. In effect this gravitational field rotates along with the source of gravity. As a result of this distortion of the gravitational field, light passing on one side of the SuperStar is given a boost (accelerated by the moving gravitational field), causing a blueshift. Light passing on the opposite side loses some of its energy fighting the rotating gravitational field, and is redshifted.

Suppose now that the velocity of the rotating gravitational field decreases linearly as the distance r from the SuperStar increases, so that redshift influence = constant1 / r. In a similar manner the length of time that a ray of light passing at a distance r passes through this rotating gravitational field is proportional to the circumference of a circle of radius r, or time of influence = constant2 × r. Then for any beam of light being deflected by the rotating SuperStar at a distance r we would have:

redshift (or blueshift) = (redshift influence) × (time of influence).

This would then result in :

redshift (or blueshift) = (constant1 / r) × (constant2 × r) = constant.

The distance term r cancels out, and we would expect the redshift or blueshift to be independent of the distance that a light ray passed from the surface of the SuperStar. If the math is confusing, don’t worry. The result is unmistakable. This is exactly the effect found in elliptical galaxies, attributed up to now to missing matter in an invisible halo! It has nothing to do with missing mass. It has to do with the gravity lens effect and rotation of SuperStars.

So now we are on the horns of a super dilemma. We can eliminate once and for all the problem of missing mass in the universe (which has defied all efforts at finding it), but in the process we must give up the idea that most of the galaxies that have been studied are real. Instead it seems that the velocity curves which have been measured provide very strong evidence that most galactic images are optical illusions caused by the gravity lens effect.

The End of the Missing Mass Problem

So we have faced the enemy and conquered it. The enemy is the missing mass problem. The conquering has, as in most battles, left us in disarray. The gravity lens effect of SuperStars can very easily explain the astronomical observations which originally led to the concept of missing mass, so we no longer need look for something conjured up to explain these observations. But the battlefield is strewn with the corpses of billions and billions of galaxies—exposed as being optical illusions. But this is not really a loss, since they never really existed in the first place. To solve the missing mass problem, we must now believe that most images of galaxies are optical illusions!

This observation is both unsettling and relieving. Unsettling because, through a telescope or on a photographic plate, galaxies are beautiful! There is such a diversity of shape, size, distance, and even personality that we feel drawn to each as if it were an old friend. Galaxies make our visible heavens interesting. They provide fuel for the imagination of generations of observers and researchers. But unfortunately most of them don’t really exist!

And relieving because maybe we are important in the universe after all. The seemingly infinite numbers of galaxies which can be seen through our most powerful telescopes, each containing billions of stars, has brought us to believe that we are an insignificant speck of intelligent life among an infinity of God’s creations. But maybe this is not so! Certainly there are other stars out there, and probably we are in a galaxy, and perhaps there are even a galaxy or two that are real, but we should now seriously question if the universe is even remotely as huge as has been believed for the past century. Most images of galaxies are optical illusions. Most galaxies don’t really exist. We must forget almost everything we ever learned, or heard, about the universe and begin to form a new, more accurate understanding of heavens.

I hope this site has opened your eyes to the possibility that almost everything that astronomers currently believe must be questioned, and it is time to start a completely new astronomy.

Conclusions

There is no missing mass. The effects observed in the heavens which have led to the conclusion that 90-99% of the mass in the universe are false. These effects are caused by the gravity lens effect of SuperStars.

Nearly all elliptical galaxies studied so far do not really exist. They are optical illusions caused by the gravity lens effect of SuperStars.

----------------------------------------

I think this is great stuff to be honest... I'm no master physicist or astronomer, but a lot of what he's asserting seems to make sense... I'll get onto some more as soon as possible.

you can contact him at [email protected] - he's also a published author if you are interested.

[DaCuBaN]

On Quasars

Quasars were first discovered over 30 years ago. Even after all this time, they remain one of the greatest mysteries in the universe. In astronomical photographs of the heavens they appear to be ordinary stars. Yet their spectra are greatly different from normal stars. They have been found to have very large redshifts -- far larger than that found for galaxies. But this large redshift creates big problems.

The only cause of such a redshift accepted by the astronomical community is the Doppler effect due to recessional velocity, which in turn was caused by the assumed expansion of the universe (the Big Bang). When the distance to these objects is estimated using the ‘Hubble Law’, they appear to be as much as 15 billion light years away. For them to be visible from such a distance they must generate energy many millions of times greater than anything known, and yet because many are variable over a period of just months, they must be quite small. The source of this extreme energy is a complete mystery.

There are several other problems with quasars. For one thing, if their redshift is due to the Doppler effect and velocity of recession, many appear to be moving away from us at speeds very near the speed of light! In fact, a redshift greater than z = 1 implies a velocity greater than the speed of light, and only by applying corrections from Einstein’s General Theory of Relativity can a velocity less than the speed of light be deduced

There are hundreds of known quasars with redshifts greater than z = 3, presumably moving away from us at over 90% of the speed of light. The energy needed to accelerate such objects to nearly light such speeds staggers the imagination. After 30 years of study, quasars are still as much a mystery as when they were first discovered.

Even more telling is that a number of quasars have been found with proper motion. That is, they are seen to move slowly across the sky over the span of a few years. If they were truly at the distances computed from Hubble’s Law, they could not possibly be seen to move in our lifetime! And yet numerous studies by highly respected astronomers have confirmed proper motion in quasars. Cosmological distances and proper motion are totally incompatible. The validity of using the Hubble Law to determine the distance, and therefore the energy, of quasars is very much suspect.

A few astronomers have argued that quasars are not really that far away, and that the Hubble Law does not apply to them. Astronomer Halton Arp, for example, has spent much of his long and successful career providing evidence of associations between quasars and galaxies, suggesting that they may be at similar distances. He has also amassed a large number of photographs of galaxies with widely different redshifts which appear to be interacting, as if they were near each other. His discoveries, which have taken him out of mainstream astronomy, raise serious questions about the redshifts of galaxies being caused by recessional velocity.

Another persistent voice against cosmological distances for quasars is astronomer Tom Van Flandern , formerly of the U.S. Naval Observatory.

The problem with quasars is that using the Hubble Law to compute their distance leads to extreme distance estimates -- to the edge of the universe, in fact. If quasars were not at the distances currently ascribed to them there would be no need to for them to have extraordinary energy. Non-cosmological distances would also be consistent with the observed proper motion of many quasars.

The following chart illustrates the relationship between the Hubble Law and some quasars. It is apparent that Hubble's Law does not apply to quasars, and therefore they are probably much nearer than present estimates!

Even though it does not seem to make sense, astronomers still use the Hubble Law to estimate distances for quasars because the Doppler effect is the only accepted explanation they have for the high redshifts

[ComradeChris]

This is a little off-topic, but kind of funny if you believe the theory that the universe is not infinite. In an early science class, one of the questions on our astronomy tests was calculate the number of grains of sand that it would take to fill the current size of the universe. It was very gruelling to say the least

[Adamore]

Originally posted by ComradeChris@Jul 15 2004, 10:25 PM
This is a little off-topic

how the hell is this off topic man the topic of this part of the fourm is science and environment thic is classified as science and the universe no mater how big or small is your environment so explain your self h34r:

[ComradeChris]

Originally posted by Adamore@Jul 16 2004, 06:59 AM
how the hell is this off topic man the topic of this part of the fourm is science and environment thic is classified as science and the universe no mater how big or small is your environment so explain your self h34r:

Sorry. I wasn't sure if scientific humour was condemned or not. As my point really wasn't proving or disproving anything, or made an attempt to.

[Misodoctakleidist]

Originally posted by NoXion@Jun 16 2004, 01:56 PM
ahhh... it also happens to be a geocities site. I don't really trust it.

Well the information on the Doppler effect and red shift is correct, I don't know much about the other stuff.

The guy certainly has a good understanding of physics.