Re: cosmology
The TimeLord
98e162d3-b332-4e64...@b1g2000hsg.googlegroups.com in
sci.physics.relativity:
> CONCLUSIONS REGARDING IaSNe OBSERVATIONS
> by Dwain W. Higginbotham 16 Aug 2008
>
> Ia type supernovae are the best “standard candles” ever discovered.
> When a IaSne explodes in a non red-shifted environment, it reaches
> maximum brightness in 21 Earth days. This is called the rise time of the
Actually it's about 19.5 +- 0.2 days, but that's not important for what
follows. Ref =
http://arxiv.org/pdf/astro-ph/9907037v1
> light curve. When a IaSNe occurs in a red-shifted galaxy, you can tell
> how fast it is moving, relative to us, by how long its’ rise time
> appears to take to reach maximum brightness. By the science of simple
Actually that's not true. The rise time of a type Ia supernova depends on
the energy involved and not the relative movement. Note that observations
clearly show that the rise time is related to the peak luminosity, not
the red-shift of the spectrum.
> optics, the rise time, from our vantage point, increases exactly by the
> same percentage of the speed of light that it is moving away from us.
> 10.5 days longer at 50% l/s and 42 days at the speed of light. A short
You really ought to post the derivation of this since it seems like
nonsense.
> time before 1998, astronomers found a way to locate and observe IaSNe
> explosions all over the universe at sub-luminal speeds and two teams of
> them erroneously concluded that the rate of expansion of the Universe
> was accelerating because they appeared DIMMER than they were expecting
> them to be. By 2003 thousands of IaSNE had been discovered up to 170% of
> light speed, but the ones above light speed were BRIGHTER than expected,
Huh? Cite references. I know of none that support your claim.
> and they were nonplussed. The consensus written by Robert Kirshner in
> “Science” magazine on 20 June 2003, was that the Universe had shifted
> from deceleration to acceleration about 7 billion light years ago. A
> month earlier I had already copyrighted the idea that the “Milky Way”
> and “local group” orbited the now quiescent center of the Universe and
> these new observations cinched it. The ONLY POSSIBLE explanation of how
How did these observations cinch your claim? As far as we know, there is
no center of the universe. Unless you claim that the Great Attractor is
the center of the universe (it is not), your claim is silly.
> more distant “perfect candle” IaSNe could be brighter than sub-luminal
> ones was that since they were moving away from us and the center of the
> Universe in excess of light speed, they could no longer radiate in the
It is not possible for those supernovae to move through the universe at
faster than light speed, since they would require more energy than exists
in the universe to accomplish the feat.
> direction they were traveling, and the radiation had to go somewhere, so
> it slid around to the back side, facing us, making them brighter and
> brighter the further and faster they went. This
> phenomenon
> POSITIVELY PROVES the existence of an Aether, which HAS to have a
How does it "positively prove" the aether? Post the details. You are
making no sense.
> reference frame, which has to be the center of the Universe which is the
> ABSOLUTE reference frame.
> My interpretation of the above observational evidence, imho, is
> the greatest discovery in the history of cosmology. I have been
Until it makes sense, it is just nonsense.
> extolling this belief for over five years now, and have gotten
> absolutely no recognition. I have sent these ideas to “Science” for
Science doesn't give recognition to fools.
> publication and been turned down. Ned Wright and Kirshner won’t even
If you wrote those papers the way you wrote this post, no wonder.
> acknowledge receipt. The monitored forum of Sci Physics says “too
Uh-huh. I throw snail-mail spam away too.
> speculative”.
They were being nice.
> Since our local group orbits the center, it stands to reason all
Prove that. Prove the existence of the center. Once you do that you will
have proven that the Great Attractor is the center of the universe.
However, it is near impossible that it is.
> the red-shifted galaxies came out of that center and orbit it as well,
> only at speeds exceeding escape velocity, using simple centrifugal force
> to power the expansion, instead of “dark energy”. Since the center is
A couple of things here. If the center of the universe is the Great
Attractor, then how do you explain that the red shifts all seem to be
relative to Earth rather than the Great Attractor? Also, if there were a
universal centrifugal force, then why is there no bias toward the poles
of the rotation that you claim? The evidence seems to disprove your claim.
> quiet now and a one time “big bang” would have precluded our gently
> orbiting local group, it must erupt periodically, much like “Old
> Faithful”, I won’t hazard a guess about how long the eruptions last, but
> if any credence can be given to the 13.7 billion year age of our local
> group, (all the other galaxies are older, the further they are from us),
Mmmmmm. The 13.7 Ga age comes from the Big-Bang Theory and applies to all
galaxies, not just our local group. If you accept that age, then
implicitly you accept the Big-Bang Theory and your claim is voided.
> that is when the last eruption ceased. petering out at the end with the
> creation of only enough matter, out of whatever “stuff” Mother Nature
> uses, to form the 40 or so galaxies of the local group. I don’t see the
> necessity for any more heat being generated during the eruption, other
> than enough to keep the newly formed matter in a gaseous state until it
> can form itself into Hydrogen etc. and then stars and galaxies. This, of
> course, means that the CMBR is not relict radiation from a big bang. I
The CMBR (Cosmic Background Radiation) is a blackbody curve. The way such
radiation curves come about, as evidenced by experiment, is energy
confined in a bounded vessel. The idea is that the the bounding vessel is
our universe. As the universe expands, it cools. The observations fit the
model, so if you have another idea, you need to show how you can explain
things that the Big-Bang Theory can't. Just coming up with bogus stuff to
try to invalidate Big-Bang is like trying to prove the existence of
Bigfoot with hoaxes.
> believe it is caused by gravitational energy in groups of galaxies
> causing the Aether to radiate at various wavelengths as they pass
How? Post details.
> through it. 2.7k in our own group and x-ray wavelengths in “Coma”, which
The 2.7 degK number applies to the whole universe. If it were to apply
only to the local group, then you would have to explain how the CMBR
blackbody radiation curve results from phenomena that don't give rise to
a blackbody radiation curve in our local group.
> has over 1,000 galaxies in about the same amount of space as our group.
> The non-radiating phenomenon also explains Quasars since they are
> all at super-luminal distances, but because there are only 100,000 of
Super-luminal distances? I assume you mean like Z>3, which conforms to
the Big-Bang model as evidenced by their measurements in association with
the ICRF. By the way, if they are non-radiating, how do you see them?
> them, they can’t be individual galaxies. The best bet is that they are
You are really diverting from making any sense here.
> tightly bound, x-ray emitting, clusters like Coma that once they pass
[ROTFL] X-ray emitting, non-radiating....
> light speed, the background radiation and the sliding back radiation
...having more energy than the entire universe...
> homogenize, so that individual galaxies cannot be resolved and the
...pasteurize (?)...
> entire cluster appears point-like as one of the brightest objects in the
> Universe.
Take a science class.
> Since we have no evidence of there being other Universes, I see
Wow, I (and science) agree with that. Hope springs eternal.
> no reason not to conclude that it is the only one, and therefore cannot
And there is no reason to conclude other universes as well. We just don't
know.
> react with any other, adiabatically or otherwise. Net entropy in such a
> system must be zero, and since there is evidence of entropy, the
Net entropy equalling zero means that there are no net thermodynamic
states available in the universe. Think about the implication of such a
claim.
> Universe MUST recycle, and is therefore the only perpetual motion
No. It means that there must be negative entropy, since the sum (net) has
to equal zero (under your claim) and there are positive entropy systems
right here on Earth. Since negative entropy systems are ruled out by the
Second Law of Thermodynamics, your claim is busted.
> machine of the second kind, and always was and always will be!
Perpetual motion machines require the curl of the underlying forces to be
non-zero. Since all the fundamental forces of the universe have curl
equal to zero, there are no perpetual motion machines.
> I have been publishing and copyrighting these ideas which are my
> original intellectual property since 1990. The above is hereby
> copyrighted by me this date of 10 July 2008, all rights reserved.
Non Sequitur.
> Dwain W. Higginbotham,
> Miami, Fla. USA
--
// The TimeLord says:
// Pogo 2.0 = We have met the aliens, and they are us!