A couple of logic issues regarding red shift.

I propose the use of elementary optics to explain the redshifts. The experiments known under the acronym ISRS, which use laser pulses may work with ordinary ligh (Name: CREIL) and redshift the light.
A lot of applications (spectra of quasars, periodicities of the redshifts of quasars and galaxies, proximity effects, anomalous "accelerations" of the Pioneer probes, pearl necklace of supernova SN1987A, ... are described in papers. See arXiv:physics/050370, 0507141, 0607105.

"A second property is a change in the character of the inverse square law to inverse linear over ranges greater than 1-2 kpc. That would eliminate the need for "dark matter" as an invisible crutch for the Big Bang, and in that sense has already been partially verified."

In a spiral galaxy (Milky Way)the bulge shows solid body rotation out to 2-3 kpc, then differential rotation (falt rotational curves) out to the visible disk. MOND (and TeVes and BTVS) proposes a change in the inverse square law (by varying Newtonian potential) that predicts the rotational velocity that is observed in any spiral galaxy, however the theory is ad hoc.

In the Milky Way, Mond predicts a disk radius of 49,730 ly with a galaxy mass of 200exp9 solar masses and follows with a rotational velocity at the disk of 235km/s. The MOND acceleration ao at the disk is the MOND constant 1.2exp-10m/s. Then MOND gives that the galaxy is Newtonian (perhaps one should say Keplerian)and there is no reason to consider CDM. At the 2-3 kiloparsec level, given a mass of the bulge of 10% of the visible disk mass (per M/L ratios), the rotational velocity at the bulge is on the order of 200km/s, which is observed. Two bis problems.

Past the disk, we have the LMC which shows nearly a perfectly flat rotational velocity relative the disk rotational velocity. From M/L ratio's we have a good handle of the mass of the LMC and the irregulars in between the disk and the LMC. Plus we have a good handle on the mass of all the gas and dust in between. The net effect is that any MOND type scheme can't account for the missing mass required, by a factor of two to three less than can be accounted for and this same problem occurs in galaxy clusters. Sanders (BTVS) has simply admitted that some form of CDM is required and he suggests that the scalar field acts as CDM.

The second problem is LSB galaxies, which provide the bulk of numbers of galaxies in the close universe. These LSB galaxies do not have any form of bulge (therefore any 2-3 kpc scheme is void)and theses galaxies perfectly follow MOND and thus T/F via M/L ratios.

MOND fails as a theory because it produces a quasi-static continuum which can only expand if you add CDM (acts as negative pressure). So MOND should show the redshifts from some other venue other than space/time expansion. Any theory can have only three conditions, i.e., it expands, it contracts, it is staic. GR covers all three, but the static case has been ruled out (by no other than Einstein).

If the continuum expands, you have the standard model and the redshift implications therein. If it contracts, the blueshifts would all be gravitationally credited. If it is static, a very difficult time would be encountered giving a competent description of the redshifts.

paul gibson





paul gibson

Paul,

You have fallen behind in your reading. Most of us on this MB give no credit to the possibility that the Big Bang, or even an expanding universe, is anything like reality. For example, in my book "Dark Matter, Missing Planets and New Comets", and in the 20-author book "Pushing Gravity", you will see why the range of gravity must be finite, so something like MOND must exist in nature at some scale. And the Meta Model in my book provides a physical basis for MOND that has yet to be falsified. But even MOND by itself has yet to be falsified because the reason you give has been artfully disposed of by Milgrom.

As in your other post, you seem to be cherry-picking experts and theories, not paying attention to arguments on both sides and judging which are better by scientific criteria versus which are influenced by biases. If you read some of the material on this web site (e.g., metaresearch.org/cosmology/BB-top-30.asp ) and some of the books and technical papers we recommend, whether or not you find them convincing, you will be better armed to judge the arguments and spot the fallacies of others and have a better perspective on all theories astronomical. -|Tom|-

Tom and Larry,

Being a new viewer of this board and just starting to read ‘Dark Matter ...’ I am not current on your development. But getting current is where I am heading, specifically to see where your model differs from mine. Studying your model should help me to determine shortcomings or areas needing further consideration within my model. As with the meta model, my model is my attempt is to seek insight Thus I believe my model numerical descriptions would merely duplicate mainstream theories. I was not cherry picking theories but simply mentioning that my model differs with yours in regards to ideas such as 5 dimensions and finite gravity. I partly indicated why I differ with the 5 dimensions philosophy, and could add that I see some continuums such as scale as being spectrums contained within 3 spatial dimensions. Perhaps I was too early mentioning differences. I do recognize that calling scale a dimension is an interesting alternative.

Now that I have read a bit more in ‘Dark matter’, I could further discuss some differences, though, again, it’s early. You have such a thorough development of your model starting from nothing that I clearly should begin with an initial universe as you do to ultimately suggest my differences. I am not into spotting fallacies of others regarding their theories, nor judging which side is better by scientific criteria, anymore than you are into judging details of the expanding universe or big bang theory. I am simply interested in how arguments and ideas of others relate to my model. I initially posted simply to mention my view of the non reality of the big bang. I find now that you have previously dismissed it, possibly with a slightly different approach from mine. So we are in general agreement here.

My astronomical interest is focused almost exclusively on the good and bad of my theory. This means there are subjects I have not thought to address. Galaxial rotation, dark matter and the MOND solution is one of those subjects, and I thank you for bringing it up. I must review it, hoping that, my rejecting of dark matter, does not invalidate my, essentially static universe, theory.

Paul Schroeder




paul schroeder

[pshroder to tvf] "You have such a thorough development of your model starting from nothing that I clearly should begin with an initial universe as you do to ultimately suggest my differences."

I've often wondered if another brain would reach the same conclusions, given the same starting point. I've thought about making the atempt myself, but just have not been able to assemble the time and other resources.

I encourage you to do this, and let us know what the result is.

Good luck,
LB

Larry and Tom

Revolution Rates Within Galaxies

I mentioned my intention of considering the constant rotation rates observed for galaxies vs the slower revolution of outer vs inner planets in the solar system. I have reviewed it and find that the answer seems to lie in simple logic. For one thing the rotation pattern of individual bodies has to do with relative size. What we see in galaxies is stars that are thus similar to each other while in the solar system we have the large sun and small planets. So, the challenge is to investigate galaxial revolution at it’s circumference vs internally. It would help if readers had been indoctrinated into my model in which central bodies push other bodies gravitationally. But just consider that 2 adjacent bodies in space must orbit relative to each other or they will crash together due to gravitation. I think people can follow this analysis.

Consider 2 equal sized bodies, call them stars. For them to coexist near each other they must be moving or revolving relative to each other. Revolution and rotation here will always be assumed counterclockwise. The bodies then orbit each other The speed of revolution would necessarily be constant, so an outside observer would observe their motion along the circumference of the circle of their joint orbiting as having a continuous velocity.

Next consider 3 equal sized bodies along a line with 1 and 3 equidistant from 2. So, 1 and 2 would try to orbit each other and while 1 would pretty much succeed, 2 would be affected by the outside influence of 3. In fact 2 and 3 try to orbit each other and while 3 pretty much succeeds, 2 is interfered with by 1. Essentially 1 and 3 motivate 2 to orbit in exactly opposite directions. So, 2 is stationary while 1 and 3 revolve around it. The lesser influence of 1 and 3 on each other motivate them to revolve around each other essentially enhancing their joint revolutions around 2. This coincides with my model where bodies cause both revolution and rotation in others via gravitation. As such, body 2 gains rotation/spin, which now is double the rotation of the other two bodies. This rotation defines an increased density for body 2, so conveniently it acts a bit like a central body. The appearance of this system to an outside observer is very much the same as the 2 body system above.

As an aside, the galaxy picture is somewhat like the sun, earth. moon system where we recognize significant mutual gravitation. At the same time it differs from the solar system which essentially pictures one central body causing the gravitating.

The four equal sized bodies system gets much more complex. With 2 bodies there was 1 interaction. With 3 bodies there are 3 interactions. With 4 bodies there are 6 interactions.
For analysis, place the 4 bodies along a line at distance marks 1,2,3, and 4 with 1 at the top end of the line. It isn’t clear which interaction to look at first, so I chose 1 vs 2 and 3 vs 4. Consider them to represent 2 clocks, where 1 is 12 o’clock and 2 is 6 o’clock on clock 1, while 3 is 12 o’clock and 4 is 6 o’clock on clock 2. Then 1 is being pushed left by 2 while 4 is pushed right by 3. Bodies 2 and 3 are influenced from both sides and their motion is less clear. When 1 reaches a point I’ll call 11 o’clock, 4 reaches 5 o’clock on his clock. Because 2 and 3 influence each other while being influenced by their clock mates. They move less than 1 digit on their clock, so little that now 2 might be at 5:50 while 3 is at 11:50. Complicating is that having moved so little from the line, their lack of revolution relative to each other might cause gravity to pull them together a bit. But we need not fear as somehow the original speeds, distances and sizes are just right to prohibit a catastrophic collapse, or else the galaxy would never have existed in the first place..

Following the revolutions onward, I suggest next time locations might be 10 o’clock, 5:30, 11:30, and 4 o’clock. Then comes 9,5,11, and 3 o’clock. The bodies are far off the original line with the 1,2 clock to the left of the line while the 3,4 clock is right of the line. Note, there is always an equal balance relative to the original center point. Given approximately another time period and the 4 spheres now serve as the corners of a rectangle. The distances and motions now allow the clocks to reseparate a bit.

This is incomplete because we have only inspected the originally stronger interactions. We have not considered 1 acting with 3, 2 acting with 4 nor 1 acting with 4. One thing we can say relative to size of the system is that at first 2 and 3 remain static and pull together relative to the line while 1 and 4 lengthen their separation vs the line due to their movement perpendicular to the line. Finally the flow of separations should keep the average size of the system unchanged. Also the system shows a relatively consistent velocity along it’s circumference to outside observers. Any suggestion of extra gravitation effects near the inner system are absorbed by an increase in the spin/rotation of the inner spheres.

The 5 body system has 10 interactions. A quick inspection seems to imply it is similar to the 4 body system with body 3 now acquiring the features of a central body. Body 3 replaces the space that was between 2 and 4 and was at distance 2.5. It gains spin as did body 2 in the 3 body example. In speculating forward, I conclude any odd number system has a central body around which all other bodies rotate.

The 6 body system presents complications similar to the 4 body system, but here, the 7 body problem is more interesting. In that system, body 2 acts partly as a center to 1 and 3 while 6 acts partly as a center to 5 and 7. We can denote them as subsystems and then analyze the other function of 2 and 6 which is to orbit around 4. In this process, body 2 brings 1 and 3 with it, however in inconsistent patterns of forward and backward central orbital motions.

As we add more bodies, the back and forth motions are less distinguishable than is the overall forward orbiting of all the bodies around the center. But, if we could look closely enough at galaxies we could detect second and maybe third levels of subordinate orbiting around points somewhat distant, say ½ distance, from the galaxy center.

The motivation for providing these constructions is the theoretical violation of Newton’s law by the orbiting in constellations. Newton said that bodies further from the central body will orbit more slowly than those closer to the center. The structure shown above does not violate that law The law is visibly apparent in our solar system where planet 1 and planet 2 both orbit the sun and the more distant one takes longer to complete an orbit. These planets essentially do not coincidentally orbit each other.

Now if you contemplate the buildup above long enough, you will realize that every body/star over the long term is the same ‘average’ distance from the galaxial center. Most will move in and out and back and forth in suborbits, but their average distance must all be the same. Thus over the long term they will all take the same average time to orbit the center. Newton’s law accepts the objects at the same ‘average’ distance taking same average time to orbit.
If present calculations for the time we take to revolve around the galaxial center have accounted for the suborbiting we will do, then that is the orbit time for all Milky Way galaxy stars. Speaking of suborbiting, we have to be orbiting around other star groups within the galaxy besides the .center itself. We should maybe find those centers. Also, since the environment within the galaxy may differ depending on distance from center, it is possible the most likely regions for other civilizations is out on galaxial arms the same distance from center as we are.


Paul Schroeder








paul schroeder