Re: Bubble universe for Aunty Kreist and Kevin. (long) - bubble.doc (0/1)

From: Aunty Kreist (Aunty_Kreist_at_satanickittens.net)
Date: 02/04/05 

Date: Thu, 3 Feb 2005 20:29:18 -0500

"John Fields" <jfields@austininstruments.com> wrote in message
news:r17iv0dkij7fqlo44c7jco4hhsu4u9sp3e@4ax.com...
> On Thu, 27 Jan 2005 09:49:44 -0600, John Fields
> <jfields@austininstruments.com> wrote:
>
> >On Thu, 27 Jan 2005 00:26:07 -0500, "Aunty Kreist"
> ><Aunty_Kreist@satanickittens.net> wrote:
> >
> >
> >>There is factual evidence that shows how the big bang theory is
improbable.
> >
> >---
> >Yes.
> >
> >Attached is a discussion, arranged chronologically, originally held
> >on vortexl@eskimo.com about a work in progress, my hypothesis that
> >our universe is like a bubble in a block of swiss cheese.
>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Robert Brady:
>
> *Hi all,*
>
> *The WMAP study conducted by NASA concluded with startling revelations
> which should give ZPE supporters support. 23 percent of the universe
> is
> unknown dark matter and another 73 percent is mysterious dark energy.
> That leaves only 4 percent we know about.*
>
> *NASA also announced that the universe was expanding at an expanding
> rate. That would seem to make the universe "flat" and expanding
> forever.*
>
> <>*To test this, I developed a simulator of the Big Bang. I created a
> computer model that simply produces an energy field and drops matter
> into it. The object was to see what happens. Here is what I got:
> *
>
> *1. **Matter self organizes in an energy field. Gravity,
> centripetal, and acceleration forces all appear naturally
> but you need to look closely.*
>
> *2. **As matter approaches the edge of the field, it expands
> faster
> away from the center.*
>
> *3. **Local groups tend to hold together longer, but eventually as
> the field diminishes, the matter loses integrity.
> I would believe that matter would turn into quarks or
> something
> similar later in the expansion phase as energy is cooled or
> fades.
> (not shown in the simulator).*
>
> *In my mind, these results are physics-shaking.*
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------
-
>
>
> John Fields:
>
> NASA'a announcement and your results seem to add credence to my
> hypothesis that there was no big bang but, instead, a "big bubble"
> which sprang into being much like a bubble in a cavitating fluid.
>
> All of the matter in our universe would have "outgassed" from the
> other side of the wall of the bubble as it expanded, and has been
> being attracted back ever since the beginning of the expansion.
>
> Assuming the bubble is nonspherical and that what lies behind it is
> massive, the matter on our side of the wall being attracted to it will
> be attracted to it more strongly the closer it gets, so it will
> accelerate and its doppler signature will be increasingly red shifted
> from any viewpoint in the bubble. That would seem to explain the
> increase of red shift with distance and the apparent expansion of the
> bubble.
>
> Next, assume that the bubble is not expanding at a rate faster than
> that which would allow the matter on this side of the wall to collide
> with the wall, and that's where the missing matter went; it's been
> absorbed! Or, perhaps, the matter accelerated to the point where it
> went superluminal and got added to the ZPE pool. In either case, it
> would seem to be missing.
> --------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>
> Jones Beene:
>
> Much as I like the basic idea, it is clear from observation
> that there are numerous "loci" or centers of attraction,
> spread uniformly throughout the universe, but no "common"
> center-of-attraction (or repulsion) for all of them. It also
> glosses over the most important basic starting point - the
> distinction between an "open" and "closed" universe.
>
> The real beauty of your idea (is it original?) on the other
> hand, is that the bubble "wall" may itself be a
> "dimensional" wall, instead of a "physical" wall.
>
> To expound on this a little. Almost all the mass in our
> visible sky (that being the mass which is blue-shifted wrt
> to our solar system) is moving towards our "great
> attractor," located in the night sky at about Sagittarius,
> 14 degrees and two minutes. This "local" or blue-shifted
> mass (wrt to our solar system) consists of our "local group"
> and a few thousand other galaxies - all in the Virgo
> supercluster. This is one factor that must be explained by
> any larger scale model.
>
> No galaxy which is red-shifted to our local group, which is
> "supposedly" over 99% of the rest of the universe, is moving
> towards our great attractor. All those other galaxies have
> their own superclusters (about 10,000 supposedly) and
> therefore they all have their own individual "great
> attractors." It is really a two-tier system,
> gravitationally.
>
> The only way to salvage your main point is to say that all
> of those individual "great attractors" are themselves moving
> outward towards the bubble wall, BUT not for the normal
> reason. The normal "reason" is also what is to be expected
> in the "open universe" of the standard model, and it is
> indeed what the bulk of observation now tends to show -
> which is that the 10,000 or so superclusters are all moving
> away from each other.
>
> The "open" universe model cannot be disproven yet, however,
> despite the apparent "continuity logic" of a closed universe
> model (which many of us "prefer" if only because of our
> meager brains needing the same kind of psychological
> "closure," so that we are dealing to some extent with
> transference). Without some evidence of a closed universe,
> then, what is there to distinguish a "bubble" from a
> "big-bang"? IOW they become just two similar ways of
> expressing the same thing ... without the factor of
> gravitational closure, that is ...
>
> The factor which would bolster your theory would be to find
> both
> 1) evidence that the universe is indeed "closed"
> (gravitationally) and not open
>
> AND also
>
> 2) evidence that despite (1. above) that the individual
> "great attractors" are nevertheless all still moving away
> from a common center, as if the universe was "open"
>
> Note that 1.) is incompatible with the current standard
> cosmological model (which to be honest is based mostly on
> 2). But both 1) and 2) are necessary for your hypothesis to
> be valid.
>
> Do you see the subtle distinction, or am I not clear on the
> details of your hypothesis ?
> -----------------------------------------------------------
>
>
> John Fields:
> > ---
> > NASA'a announcement and your results seem to add credence to my
> > hypothesis that there was no big bang but, instead, a "big bubble"
> > which sprang into being much like a bubble in a cavitating fluid.
> >
> > All of the matter in our universe would have "outgassed" from the
> > other side of the wall of the bubble as it expanded, and has been
> > being attracted back ever since the beginning of the expansion.
> >
> > Assuming the bubble is nonspherical and that what lies behind it is
> > massive, the matter on our side of the wall being attracted to it will
> > be attracted to it more strongly the closer it gets, so it will
> > accelerate and its doppler signature will be increasingly red shifted
> > from any viewpoint in the bubble. That would seem to explain the
> > increase of red shift with distance and the apparent expansion of the
> > bubble.
>
> Steven A. Lawrence:
>
> There may be a problem with this. _IF_ the attractive force directed
> toward whatever is on the other side of the wall diverges in 3
> dimensions (like an electric field or Newtonian gravity), and _IF_ the
> stuff on the other side of the wall is "ignorably thick" (so we can
> assume we're stuck inside an absolutely enormous sphere), then the
> force
> seems very unlikely to be generally directed toward the wall.
>
> If the cavity were spherical there would either be no force at all or
> it
> would point uniformly in one direction, depending on whether the mass
> around us is symmetric or not. (A spherical cavity centered in a
> sphere
> has no field in it; a spherical cavity off-center in a sphere has a
> perfectly uniform field in it.)
>
> But you specified a non-spherical cavity, which makes it more complex,
> and I don't know what a general solution would look like. But to take
> one simple example, suppose the cavity is lozenge-shaped, like the
> intersection of two spheres. For simplicity assume it's centered
> inside
> a spherical mass. Then in the "middle" of the lozenge, where it's
> thickest, the force will be directed toward the walls. But out toward
> the thin edges, if I've pictured this correctly, the force would
> actually be _away_ from the walls. At some point in between the force
> would be tangential to the walls.
>
> The point is that the force which results from such a situation seems
> likely to be either too uniform (such that there's a global "down"
> direction) or too nonuniform (such that things are flying apart in
> some
> places and flying together in others).
>
> > Next, assume that the bubble is not expanding at a rate faster than
> > that which would allow the matter on this side of the wall to collide
> > with the wall, and that's where the missing matter went; it's been
> > absorbed! Or, perhaps, the matter accelerated to the point where it
> > went superluminal and got added to the ZPE pool. In either case, it
> > would seem to be missing.
> >
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>
>
> >John Fields:
> >
> >> [snip] my hypothesis that there was no big bang but,
> >instead, a "big bubble" which sprang into being much like a
> >bubble in a cavitating fluid.
> >
> >> All of the matter in our universe would have "outgassed"
> >from the
> >> other side of the wall of the bubble as it expanded, and
> >has been
> >> being attracted back ever since the beginning of the
> >expansion.
>
> Jones Beene:
>
> >Much as I like the basic idea, it is clear from observation
> >that there are numerous "loci" or centers of attraction,
> >spread uniformly throughout the universe, but no "common"
> >center-of-attraction (or repulsion) for all of them.
>
> ---
> I don't believe that presents a problem as long as the bubble isn't
> spherical and as long as the loci aren't distributed symmetrically
> throughout the volume of the bubble.
> ---
>
> >It also glosses over the most important basic starting point - the
> >distinction between an "open" and "closed" universe.
>
> ---
> It seems to, but I believe that by virtue of its undetectability, the
> distiction is irrelevant because it can never be determined.
>
> Consider: If the universe is open, and the bubble expands forever,
> mass will continue to accelerate toward the wall and the universe will
> seem to be expanding because it is.
>
> On the other hand, if the universe is closed the bubble will one day
> begin to collapse. However, the mass on our side of the wall will
> still continue to be accelerated toward the wall, we will still see
> the rate of red shift increase, and we will conclude that because of
> the increase in rate the universe is expanding, when exactly the
> opposite will be the case!
>
> On the third hand, if the bubble has ceased to either expand or
> contract, the mass on this side will still be accelerated more and
> more as it heads for the wall, but we will still see the increase in
> the shift with distance and conclude that the universe is expanding.
>
> Consequently, the only thing we will ever be able to detect is the
> shift, and since its rate of change will increase with distance, we
> will always perceive the universe as being open.
>
> There is one exception I can think of, however, that being that if
> stars start disappearing, that may be because they're colliding with
> the wall. If they go nova when the collision occurs, and all of a
> sudden we start seeing a LOT of novas, then maybe the bubble will be
> collapsing...
> ---
>
> >The real beauty of your idea (is it original?)
>
> ---
> As far as I know, it is. The lightbulb going off was due to something
> of Fred Sparber's or Frank Znidarsik's (sp?) that I read a few years
> ago on vortex, and since then I've been looking but haven't been able
> to find anything quite like it. A month or so ago I talked to Hal
> Puthoff about it and he also thought it was novel, so maybe it is.
> ---
>
> >on the other hand, is that the bubble "wall" may itself be a
> >"dimensional" wall, instead of a "physical" wall.
> >
> >To expound on this a little. Almost all the mass in our
> >visible sky (that being the mass which is blue-shifted wrt
> >to our solar system) is moving towards our "great
> >attractor," located in the night sky at about Sagittarius,
> >14 degrees and two minutes. This "local" or blue-shifted
> >mass (wrt to our solar system) consists of our "local group"
> >and a few thousand other galaxies - all in the Virgo
> >supercluster. This is one factor that must be explained by
> >any larger scale model.
> >
> >No galaxy which is red-shifted to our local group, which is
> >"supposedly" over 99% of the rest of the universe, is moving
> >towards our great attractor. All those other galaxies have
> >their own superclusters (about 10,000 supposedly) and
> >therefore they all have their own individual "great
> >attractors." It is really a two-tier system,
> >gravitationally.
>
> ---
> Assuming that superclusters formed because the distribution of mass in
> the universe wasn't isotropic and that the gravitational attraction
> between some "clumps" of mass caused them to aggregate to the
> exlusion of other clumps, and that the resulting superclusters are
> being drawn toward a location on the wall which they find attractive,
> then the two-tiered system seems to work. That is, if all the members
> of a supercluster are bound gravitationally and are attracting each
> other they will all be more or less blue shifted toward each other and
> to a gravitational center (their "great attractor") common to the
> supercluster, while the entire assemblage hurtles toward a location on
> the wall which is attracting them. If we call the local attraction
> within the supercluster tier 1, and the attraction between the
> supercluster and the wall tier 2, then one supercuster will be red
> shifted WRT any other supercluster because they will all be being
> pulled away from each other by different attractors in the wall; tier
> 2 attractors. So the tier 1 attractors will cause mass to clump into
> superclusters, while tier 2 attractors will pull superclusters away
> from each other.
> ---
>
> >The only way to salvage your main point is to say that all
> >of those individual "great attractors" are themselves moving
> >outward towards the bubble wall, BUT not for the normal
> >reason. The normal "reason" is also what is to be expected
> >in the "open universe" of the standard model, and it is
> >indeed what the bulk of observation now tends to show -
> >which is that the 10,000 or so superclusters are all moving
> >away from each other.
>
> ---
> Yes, they're all being separately attracted to the wall and,
> therefore, away from each other.
> ---
>
> >The "open" universe model cannot be disproven yet, however,
> >despite the apparent "continuity logic" of a closed universe
> >model (which many of us "prefer" if only because of our
> >meager brains needing the same kind of psychological
> >"closure," so that we are dealing to some extent with
> >transference). Without some evidence of a closed universe,
> >then, what is there to distinguish a "bubble" from a
> >"big-bang"? IOW they become just two similar ways of
> >expressing the same thing ... without the factor of
> >gravitational closure, that is ...
> >
> >The factor which would bolster your theory would be to find
> >both
> >1) evidence that the universe is indeed "closed"
> >(gravitationally) and not open
> >
> > AND also
> >
> >2) evidence that despite (1. above) that the individual
> >"great attractors" are nevertheless all still moving away
> >from a common center, as if the universe was "open"
> >
> >Note that 1.) is incompatible with the current standard
> >cosmological model (which to be honest is based mostly on
> >2). But both 1) and 2) are necessary for your hypothesis to
> >be valid.
> >
> >Do you see the subtle distinction, or am I not clear on the
> >details of your hypothesis ?
>
> Yes, I understand. Thank you for your comments, they're certainly
> appreciated!
> -------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>
> John Fields:
>
> > As far as I know, it is. The lightbulb going off was due to something
> > of Fred Sparber's or Frank Znidarsik's (sp?) that I read a few years
> > ago on vortex, and since then I've been looking but haven't been able
> > to find anything quite like it. A month or so ago I talked to Hal
> > Puthoff about it and he also thought it was novel, so maybe it is.
> Frank Znidarsic:
>
> Thanks for the comment. Here is what I had to say on the subject.
>
> http://www.angelfire.com/scifi2/zpt/chapter5.html
>
> -------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Jones Beene:
>
> >>The real beauty of your idea (is it original?)
> >
>
> John Fields:
> >---
> >As far as I know, it is. The lightbulb going off was due to something
> >of Fred Sparber's or Frank Znidarsik's (sp?) that I read a few years
> >ago on vortex, and since then I've been looking but haven't been able
> >to find anything quite like it. A month or so ago I talked to Hal
> >Puthoff about it and he also thought it was novel, so maybe it is.
>
> Horace Heffner:
>
> You may want to check out the thread: "Qball: Electrostatic Sphere
> Field
> Evaluator". A sample post late in the thread follows below. I wrote
> (and
> posted) a basic program to integrate the effects of a spherical
> distribution of charge, and sample data. We learned a few things from
> the
> exercise if you recall...
>
> - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
> -
> At 10:27 AM 6/19/3, Horace Heffner wrote:
> >At 9:58 AM 6/19/3, John Fields wrote:
> >
> >>Yes, I agree. However, the equipotential surfaces look like infinitely
> >>thin nested spherical shells surrounding an undisturbed charged
> >>particle, and my analogy merely picked a balloon to represent a
> >>particular potential. Bringing two otherwise undisturbed charged
> >>particles together, then, should create a region between them (a plane
> >>perpendicular to a line drawn between the charges and extending to
> >>infinity) where the potential between them is equal and diminishes as
> >>the distance from the line drawn between their centers increases. Place
> >>a third charged particle on this plane where the line intersects it and
> >>it should stay there; place it anywhere else on the plane and it will go
> >>zooming off, but will be confined to the plane.
> >
> >
> >Note, however, that the force outward in the plane lying between them is
> >smaller than if both charges were located at their midpoint. Their
> >effectiveness is in effect diluted by their separation 2*r. Their
> >effectiveness will be further diluted if we place two more charges in the
> >central plain in another axis. At any point outside the central plain,
> >these extra charges lying on the plain *repel* the test charge away from
> >the plain to some degree. The centering force is reduced. There are
> >still channels of confinement, but the field magnitudes in every channel
> >is reduced with the increasing adding of charges. As the number of
> >channels is increased, the field strength in each channel is reduced.
> >However, understanding this slight reduction is only half the intuition
> >problem. The fact that the channel strengh is reduced does not in itself
> >guarantee that it goes to zero. In fact, I think as long as the number
of
> >points if finite, as you add more charge points, each with fixed charge
Q,
> >there will always exist channels of confinement and repelling channels.
> >What was surprising to me was the comparatively large magnitude of the
> >fields in these channels when the uniformity of the distribution is only
> >fraction of a percent off. This was not intuitive to me. But let's get
> >on with finding out why this analogy fails in the limit ...
> >
> >
> >>
> >>Why? Construct two planes parallel to the plane centered between the
> >>charges and cutting the centers of the charges, and insert a charge
> >>anywhere in the region bounded by the outer planes. What do you think
> >>will happen? I think the inserted charge will be repelled by the charge
> >>closest to it until it crosses the central plane, then be repelled by
> >>the particle now closest to it and will thereafter be shepherded by both
> >>charges until its oscillations are damped to the point where it can be
> >>effectively considered to be confined to the central plane.
> >
> >
> >Let's ignore the details about the above and assume it is completely
> >correct with the caveat's I already noted above.
> >
> >>
> >>Of course no analogy is perfect, but that's what mine was about.
> >
> >
> >I think this analogy is very good except for consideration of charge
> >dilution. To meet the criteria of the original problem we must assume
> >that a fixed charge is distributed around the sphere. We have a charge
> >density Q/A = rho. We have a fixed charge on the spherical shell, and a
> >fixed area A in which the charge is (or in our case is to be)
distributed.
> >Note that we can not assume an infinite charge density, or we have a
> >discontinuity, and all logic it would seem falls apart - but we can deal
> >with that also by solving finite rho and then summing on finite rho's to
> >infinity.
> >
> >I think what you have intuitively shown is that when the charge Q is
> >distributed around a finite number of points, there will be volumes
> >containing confining fields separated by volumes of repelling fields.
> >These volumes are in the form of "channels".
> >
> >The maximum field strength in these channels is diluted by the fact the
> >charges are separated from each other by distance 2*r, and by the fact
> >that addition of more charge Q around the sphere adds more channels but
> >reduces the fields in each of the channels. There is one other major
> >dilution factor to considered.
> >
> >In your analogy, you keep adding more point charges. This is a false
> >analogy in that the final charge Q aroud the sphere must be Q, a fixed
> >value. As you add charge points in your scenario, the charge in Q_i each
> >point must be diminshed. This is an error I made and then discovered and
> >corrected between runs 2, and runs 3 of Qball. Runs 1-2 keep adding
> >charge as the number of points is increased. Runs 3-5 in effect keep the
> >total charge on the sphere constant. In runs 3-5 you can clearly see the
> >field intensity drop across the entire sphere interior as the number of
> >points goes up, the average charge separation distance goes down.
> >
> >Now to try to see if we can intuit why the field intensites go to zero as
> >the number of charge location points goes to infinity. Let's imagine an
> >initial state of N charge points spread around sphere in an approximately
> >grid like fashion (this is technically not feasible on a sphere, but we
> >are only approximating, and in fact the Qball program roughly does this,
> >except the "rectangles" are mostly parallelograms.) The maximum field
> >stength in any channel is Emax. The charge Q_i distributed at each point
> >is Q/N.
> >
> >At each step j that follows, we double the number of points to 2*N, and
> >distribute the new points in the centers of the old rectangles (or
> >parallelograms.) We have thus doubled the number of channels and very
> >slightly reduced the channel fields. However, we must now divide all the
> >field strengths by 2. Emax_j <= Emax_(j-1)/2. Therefore E_max -> 0 as
> >j-> inf. That division of charge at each point by 2 must be done to make
> >the final total charge distributed around the sphere constant at Q. At
> >each step j, we diminish the channel field strength by (1/2)^j. Since
lim
> >j->0 (1/2)^j = 0, the channel field strengths all go to zero.
> >
> >Now let's attempt to look at your initial problem of the bubble universe
> >and an infinitely dense surrounding. The confinement force is now an
> >expansion force, due to gravity being attractive, but all else is really
> >the same, except for dealing with the infinite nature of the infinitely
> >dense volume outside the bubble. To begin this we can examine a single
> >shell, but only a finite portion of mass m in the shell, uniformly
> >distributed. This gives us a finite mass density in the shell. Such a
> >shell has zero force inside it, as we saw earier. We can now sum
> >(integrate) an infinite number of such shells, all of the same fixed
> >radius, each having mass m, so that the total mass in the resulting shell
> >is infinite. Since the force of each shell everywhere is zero, the same
> >is true of the final infinite sum. We can then sum (integrate) the
shells
> >at every radius r, with r-> inf. Since the force inside every shell is
> >everywhere zero, this must be true inthe final sum. There is thus no
> >force of gravity exerted by the external volume on the universe.
> >
> >Of ourse one tiny change in density out in that infinitely dense volume
...
>
> -------------------------------------------------------------------------- 

----
>
> Horace Heffner:
>
> John,
>
> Below is your original posting of the idea in the thread "Conjecture:
> dark
> matter and the red shift".  Not clear what article just prior
> triggered it.
>
> - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
> - - - - -
> Resent-Date: Sun, 8 Jun 2003 12:11:20 -0700
> From: John Fields <jfields@austininstruments.com>
> To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
> Subject: Conjecture: dark matter and the red shift.
> Date: Sun, 08 Jun 2003 14:09:02 -0500
> Organization: Austin Instruments, Inc.
> MIME-Version: 1.0
> X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by mx1.eskimo.com
> id
> MAA23123
> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com
> Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
> X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l@eskimo.com> archive/latest/50774
> X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com
> Precedence: list
> Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com
>
>
> Suppose for a moment that our universe is merely a bubble surrounded
> by
> an infinite expanse of infinitely dense, infinitely energetic
> Universe.
> For want of a better analogy, a void in a block of Swiss cheese.  When
> our universe was formed and the void appeared, some of the material
> from
> the Universe outgassed into the void and eventually became the matter
> of
> which everything in our universe is composed.  However, since the
> beginning of the formation of the void, the gravitational force of the
> Universe has been attracting matter back to itself.  Because of the
> inverse square law on our side of the void wall, the closer the matter
> gets to the void's wall the more it is attracted, the greater its
> velocity becomes, and the greater the red shift becomes the farther
> out
> we look.  If the velocity becomes luminal, then its mass becomes
> infinite, it leaves our local universe and rejoins the infinite
> Universe.
>
> So,  if this conjecture was true it would explain the reason for the
> increasing red shift with distance,  the discrepancy between how much
> matter should be here and how much there is, and the reason for the
> horizon of the universe.
>
> It would also settle the question of whether we have an open or a
> closed
> universe.  Interestingly, it would bring up the question of whether or
> not the Swiss cheese was really a black hole!
>
>
> Comments, please?
> --
> John Fields
> - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
> -
>
> Regards,
>
> Horace Heffner
>
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------
-
>
>
>
> Taylor J. Smith:
>
> Hi All,
>
> For me it is simpler to assume an infinite and eternal
> universe, but I have not yet come to grips with the idea
> that the "expansion" is accelerating, which I think
> is based on the unexpected dimness of certain stars.
> John's ideas are very exciting here.
>
> I think that the Cosmic Background Radiation has nothing
> to do with some big bang; but, instead, is is the result
> of absorption and re-radiation of energy by intersteller
> particles.
>
> As far as the redshift is concerned, it has been suggested
> that it might be caused by light losing energy during its
> long voyage through space, the tired-light theory.
>
> Halton 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.
>
> If the universe is expanding, redshifts should show a
> continuous range of values. Instead, however, they are
> quantized, i.e., they tend to be multiples of certain
> basic units, the main ones (expressed as velocities) being
> 72.4 km/s and 37.5 km/s.  This phenomenon, says Arp, is so
> unexpected that conventional astronomy has never been able
> to accept it, in spite of the overwhelming observational
> evidence.  He suggests that redshift quantization could
> be due to episodes of matter creation taking place at
> regular intervals.
>
> Does anyone have a reference to an explanation of the
> "acceleration of the expansion" in terms of Arp's theory?
>
> Jack Smith
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Robert Brady:
>
>
> Jones, Stephen,  and John,
>
> All of us seem to be on a similar track.
>
> Here are some things that seemed to self generate out of the Big Bang
> Simulator.
>
>     1.  The universe seems to be open according to the WMAP study, but
> local clusters do form in the Simulator and do expand outward as a
> group.
>
>     2.  Both matter and energy are required to form gravity.   As the
> universe expands, the energy field seems to decrease in strength and
> probably, but not shown, matter eventually disintegrates. (Perhaps
> other
> forces do also)
>
>     3.  In building the model, it was hard to think of the size and
> shape of the universe.  It may all be contained within a growing wall,
> or the energy field may be bigger.  It seems unlikely that the matter
> field would be bigger since, as I said above, it would disintgrate
> without the energy field.  The model is based on a round, bubble-like
> field.  It was used because the background radiation is so uniform in
> all directions.
>
>     4.  At some point, it would appear that we may be headed for a
> phase
> shift.  We have a universe where the matter and energy fields exist
> side
> by side.  The model shows that they are mutually dependent to create
> gravity and probably many other effects.  What happens when one of
> these
> fields is removed or lessened?  The model shows a rapidly growing
> outburst (which agrees with the WMAP findings), but what then?  Could
> the "bubble burst" and the universe become closed, for example. Jones,
> Stephen, and John have made good points.  Obviously there are many
> more
> questions to answer.
>
> Bob
>
>
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------
---
> Taylor J Smith:
>
> > As far as the redshift is concerned, it has been suggested
> > that it might be caused by light losing energy during its
> > long voyage through space, the tired-light theory.
> >
> > Halton Arp argues that redshift is primarily a function of
> > age, and that tired light plays no more than a secondary
>
> Frank Znidarsic:
>
> The gravitational mass of light is determined by the acceleration
> produced by
> the red shift.
>
> see page 12 of
>
> http://www.angelfire.com/scifi2/zpt/chapter7.html
>
> Frank Z
>
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------
----
>
> Horace Heffner:
>
> > A sample post late in the thread follows below.  I wrote (and
> > >posted) a basic program to integrate the effects of a spherical
> > >distribution of charge, and sample data.  We learned a few things from
the
> > >exercise if you recall...
>
> Frank Znidarsic:
>
> I worked something out on this also.  A spherical charge will
> experience a
> minimum of capacitance.  The capacitance is a geometric property.  The
> capacitance in a system of fields corresponds to the reciprocal of the
> elasticity of a
> mechanical system.  Several relationships exist.
>
> volts = (1/Cap) q
>
> force= kx
>
> see
>
> http://www.angelfire.com/scifi2/zpt/chapter7.html
>
> Frank Z
>
>
> opps wrong link should be
>
> http://www.angelfire.com/scifi2/zpt/chaptera.html
>
>
>
>
>
> --
> John Fields
Sorry for the late response....
Thanks you, John, this was very interesting. Makes one wonder what this
energy force that's directed at our universe is being created from. :)

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Bubble universe for Aunty Kreist and Kevin. (long) - bubble.doc (0/1)
    ... >our universe is like a bubble in a block of swiss cheese. ... unknown dark matter and another 73 percent is mysterious dark energy. ... **Matter self organizes in an energy field. ...
    (sci.electronics.design)
  • Re: Bubble universe for Aunty Kreist and Kevin. (long) - bubble.doc (0/1)
    ... >our universe is like a bubble in a block of swiss cheese. ... unknown dark matter and another 73 percent is mysterious dark energy. ... **Matter self organizes in an energy field. ...
    (comp.os.linux.networking)
  • Re: Isnt the entire universe a black hole?
    ... It is doubtful that the *entire* Universe is a black hole. ... bubble" may be like a black hole. ... the event horizon of "now" disappears. ... If I did place such matter outside this point and had ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: Dont like the truth? Lie.
    ... A Quintessential Introduction to Dark Energy ... "Most of the energy in the universe is not gravitationally attractive. ... We are probably the last generation to have been taught that gravity ... Visible matter comes nowhere close to closing the Universe. ...
    (sci.space.policy)
  • More on dark matter, baby universes and black holes
    ... evidence of 'dark matter'). ... Also, as we near the event horizon, ... billion years for our universe, which is well within the error ... Below I posit that whenever any black hole forms, ...
    (sci.astro)
Loading