Quantized redshift anomaly

More
15 years 5 months ago #22939 by Tommy
Replied by Tommy on topic Reply from Thomas Mandel
It seems that if one questions the validity
of the big bang theory
he or she is
removed.
tom



The June 2009 issue of the Alternative Cosmology Group Newsletter has been posted at:

www.cosmology.info/newsletter/2009.06.pdf



To view past issues or unsubscribe, please visit www.cosmology.info/newsletter .



Sincerely,

ACG Webmaster

webmaster@cosmology.info

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

More
15 years 5 months ago #22940 by Tommy
Replied by Tommy on topic Reply from Thomas Mandel
Hi Tommy,

If you want to say something here, then say it HERE.

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

More
15 years 5 months ago #23618 by Tommy
Replied by Tommy on topic Reply from Thomas Mandel
antwrp.gsfc.nasa.gov/diamond_jubilee/1996/sandage_hubble.html
THE JOURNAL OF THE ROYAL
ASTRONOMICAL SOCIETY OF CANADA


JOURNAL DE LA SOCIT ROYALE

D ASTRONOMIE DU CANADA



Vol. 83, No.6 December 1989 Whole No. 621



EDWIN HUBBLE 1889-1953



By Allan Sandage

"Hubble concluded that his observed log N(m) distribution showed a large departure from Euclidean geometry, provided that the effect of redshifts on the apparent magnitudes was calculated as if the redshifts were due to a real expansion. A different correction is required if no motion exists, the redshifts then being due to an unknown cause. Hubble believed that his count data gave a more reasonable result concerning spatial curvature if the redshift correction was made assuming no recession. To the very end of his writings he maintained this position, favouring (or at the very least keeping open) the model where no true expansion exists, and therefore that the redshift "represents a hitherto unrecognized principle of nature". This viewpoint is emphasized (a) in The Realm of the Nebulae, (b) in his reply (Hubble 1937a) to the criticisms of the 1936 papers by Eddington and by McVittie, and (c) in his 1937 Rhodes Lectures published as The Observational Approach to Cosmology (Hubble 1937b). It also persists in his last published scientific paper which is an account of his Darwin Lecture (Hubble 1953).

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

More
15 years 5 months ago #22943 by Pluto
Replied by Pluto on topic Reply from
G'day from the land of ozz

Tommy said

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Personally I believe in plasma where the energy of the universe comes from inside a star and is radiated outward in what is normally called a black hole that appears very bright because of the reflected energy.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">

Looking at the evolution of galaxies and star formation and considering the hubble tuning fork sequence of evolution.

Matter is ejected from galaxies reforming their form. This matter is slowly pulled back and the cycle starts again. For this to occur matter must change phase to be able to be transported in the jet formed from magnetic fields or else the extreme gravity of the ultra densed condensed matter would pull the normal matter back.

There is a direct relation between form and the activity and size of the active Nucelon (AGN).
Bose-Einstein Condensation of Dark Matter Axions
Jan-09
adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2009arXiv0901.1106S


Smile and live another day

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

More
15 years 5 months ago #23423 by Pluto
Replied by Pluto on topic Reply from
G'day from the land of of ozzzzz

I came across this link that maybe of interest.

I'm reading through it.

Understanding Ly emitters
Jun-09

adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2009NewAR..53...37N

adsabs.harvard.edu/cgi-bin/nph-data_quer...=PREPRINT&db_key=AST

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">This publication contains the conference summary of the Understanding Lyman-alpha Emitters conference held at the Max Planck Institute for Astronomy in Heidelberg October 6 - 10, 2008. The scope of the conference was to bring together most of the scientists working in the field of Lyman-alpha emitters, whether at low or high redshift, or on observational or theoretical aspects, and to summarise how far the field of study of galaxies with Lyman-alpha emission has come. An outlook towards the future of the field was also desired. As part of the conference, two days were dedicated to in total six discussion sessions. The topics were i) new methods and selection methods, ii) morphology, iii) what can the local Universe observations tell us about the high redshift Universe?, iv) clustering, v) SED fitting and vi) Ly-alpha blobs. The chairs of those sessions were asked to summarise the discussions, as presented in these proceedings.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">

Am I reading papers that are not crank pot.


Smile and live another day

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

More
15 years 4 months ago #23527 by Tommy
Replied by Tommy on topic Reply from Thomas Mandel
About the Alternative Cosmology Group

The Alternative Cosmology Group (ACG) was initiated with the Open Letter on Cosmology written to the scientific community and published in New Scientist, May 22, 2004. The text of the letter is as follows:

"The big bang today relies on a growing number of hypothetical entities, things that we have never observed -- inflation, dark matter and dark energy are the most prominent examples. Without them, there would be a fatal contradiction between the observations made by astronomers and the predictions of the big bang theory. In no other field of physics would this continual recourse to new hypothetical objects be accepted as a way of bridging the gap between theory and observation. It would, at the least, raise serious questions about the validity of the underlying theory.

But the big bang theory can't survive without these fudge factors. Without the hypothetical inflation field, the big bang does not predict the smooth, isotropic cosmic background radiation that is observed, because there would be no way for parts of the universe that are now more than a few degrees away in the sky to come to the same temperature and thus emit the same amount of microwave radiation.

Without some kind of dark matter, unlike any that we have observed on Earth despite 20 years of experiments, big-bang theory makes contradictory predictions for the density of matter in the universe. Inflation requires a density 20 times larger than that implied by big bang nucleosynthesis, the theory's explanation of the origin of the light elements. And without dark energy, the theory predicts that the universe is only about 8 billion years old, which is billions of years younger than the age of many stars in our galaxy.
What is more, the big bang theory can boast of no quantitative predictions that have subsequently been validated by observation. The successes claimed by the theory's supporters consist of its ability to retrospectively fit observations with a steadily increasing array of adjustable parameters, just as the old Earth-centered cosmology of Ptolemy needed layer upon layer of epicycles.

Yet the big bang is not the only framework available for understanding the history of the universe. Plasma cosmology and the steady-state model both hypothesize an evolving universe without beginning or end. These and other alternative approaches can also explain the basic phenomena of the cosmos, including the abundances of light elements, the generation of large-scale structure, the cosmic background radiation, and how the redshift of far-away galaxies increases with distance. They have even predicted new phenomena that were subsequently observed, something the big bang has failed to do.

Supporters of the big bang theory may retort that these theories do not explain every cosmological observation. But that is scarcely surprising, as their development has been severely hampered by a complete lack of funding. Indeed, such questions and alternatives cannot even now be freely discussed and examined. An open exchange of ideas is lacking in most mainstream conferences. Whereas Richard Feynman could say that "science is the culture of doubt", in cosmology today doubt and dissent are not tolerated, and young scientists learn to remain silent if they have something negative to say about the standard big bang model. Those who doubt the big bang fear that saying so will cost them their funding.

Even observations are now interpreted through this biased filter, judged right or wrong depending on whether or not they support the big bang. So discordant data on red shifts, lithium and helium abundances, and galaxy distribution, among other topics, are ignored or ridiculed. This reflects a growing dogmatic mindset that is alien to the spirit of free scientific inquiry.

Today, virtually all financial and experimental resources in cosmology are devoted to big bang studies. Funding comes from only a few sources, and all the peer-review committees that control them are dominated by supporters of the big bang. As a result, the dominance of the big bang within the field has become self-sustaining, irrespective of the scientific validity of the theory.

Giving support only to projects within the big bang framework undermines a fundamental element of the scientific method -- the constant testing of theory against observation. Such a restriction makes unbiased discussion and research impossible. To redress this, we urge those agencies that fund work in cosmology to set aside a significant fraction of their funding for investigations into alternative theories and observational contradictions of the big bang. To avoid bias, the peer review committee that allocates such funds could be composed of astronomers and physicists from outside the field of cosmology.

Allocating funding to investigations into the big bang's validity, and its alternatives, would allow the scientific process to determine our most accurate model of the history of the universe."

The goals of the ACG are:

To facilitate the communication between scientists whose experimental and/or theoretical research will lead to better understanding of the universe

To generate research proposals

To create and publish a peer reviewed journal

To convene conferences on hot topics in Cosmology

To maintain permanent web site www.Cosmology.info , which will be a beacon of progress in the understanding of the universe


The ACG is an open society of scientists from all over the world, dedicated to the advance in cosmology and basic research. Any scientist in agreement with the Open Letter ( cosmologystatement.org ) is invited to join.

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

Time to create page: 0.297 seconds
Powered by Kunena Forum