Re: Big Bang Baloney....or scientific cult? [ Apparent Red Shift ]

From: Ole D. Rughede (ole.rughede_at_privat.dk)
Date: 07/22/04 

Date: Thu, 22 Jul 2004 21:56:58 +0200

"Ralph Hertle" <ralph.hertle@verizon.net> skrev i en meddelelse
news:40FFF0F7.60707@verizon.net...
>
> Info Plumber:
>
> If you set the maximum number of characters in your email program for
> your writings to not exceed 75 characters, or, 72 characters, your posts
> won't display in the chopped up form that they now have.
>
> That refinement will give your posts the appearance of some measure of
> typographical justification.
>
> .......
>
> "Ralph Hertle" <ralph.hertle@verizon.net> wrote in message
> news:40FCC49D.2050105@verizon.net...
>
> <snip>
>
> >> The universe is eternal. Every scientific discovery, demonstration,
> and proof done in all of history validates the existence of the
> existents being examined in the observations and experiments, and taken
> together by the use of inductive logic, the fact of continuity can be
> inferred and then validated.<<
>
> [you say:]
>
> > My intuition says that anything that is expanding at a more-or-less
> constant rate (or accelerating rate) must have been a singularity at
> some time in the past. Your statement above seems more like existential
> philosophy than hard science. There are few things in cosmology that
> have as much hard, scientific validation as the "big bang".<
>
> Intuition is not science, it is projection and wishing, just to mention
> some of the possible notions.
>
> The inference of a mathematical origin point for the claimed expansion
> of the universe seemed plausible based of the application of the Doppler
> Effect to the data of the Apparent Red Shift. It did seem that the
> emitters of light were moving away from Earth and, by deduction, from
> one another. The Hubble 'balloon' theory was offered.
>
> The corresponding dots on successive balloons when the dots are
> connected via, would you believe, Euclidean, straight lines, and the
> lines extended toward a common point [as a an Aristotelian Formal Cause]
> seemed to imply a common origin point. That is an example of the fallacy
> of application. and the 'balloon' physics that has resulted in the worst
> conceptual machinations ever created in physics.
>
> The Doppler-Hubble theory was a convenient way for the "must have-ist"
> religionist creationists to shore up there Biblical creation theory.
> That is not science - the 'balloon' theory is religion. The
> creationist-religionists have made it a point that cause and effect, and
> that means facts and logic, will not be operative in that area of science.
>
> What the discoverers of the Apparent Red Shift did accomplish was to
> identify and measure a unique phenomenon in the universe. They were wise
> enough to not immediately conjecture any guesswork causes. Any Ancient
> Greek concepts, i.e., a straight line, or the extension of a straight
> line, Circular Motion, Rectilinear Motion, or dimensional locomotion,
> were simply insufficient to explain the physical cause of the phenomenon
> of the Apparent Red Shift of light photons.
>
> The 'balloon' theory and the application of the acoustic Doppler Effect
> did not provide a causal explanation of the shifts of the frequencies of
> photons traveling from the more distant objects. The nature of light
> wasn't known, and the actual physical cause(s) that modified the
> photon-waves in some way was not at all known.
>
> The interposition of the 'Balloon' and BB theory so enamored the
> religionist-creationists that those scientists failed to ask the
> appropriate questions that would have been, and still are, necessary to
> ask in order to identify the causes of the Apparent Red Shift data.
>
> All except Lord Rayleigh, that is. That is a chapter of science that the
> religionist-creationists are hiding under the complexities of a rug of
> mysticism. He found a truly scientific cause and effect relationship
> between photons, hydrogen atoms, and the Apparent Red Shift. He found in
> controlled laboratory experiments that the energy level of photons was
> decreased upon collisions with hydrogen atoms. The frequency of the
> photons was proportionately lowered.
>
> Those experiments can be redone, and they are perfect problems for
> college level experimentation. The designs of the experiments can be
> improved and modern apparatus and measuring equipment may be used.
>
> The causes of the Apparent Red Shift can be rediscovered and
> demonstrated right in the laboratory, and true scientific theories can
> be checked, validated, and refined.
>
> Only religious and politically correct obstructionism can prevent the
> tradition of facts and logic in science to be advanced.
>
> Scientists may ask what is it in the hydrogen atom that causes the
> reduction of the photon energy level discovered by Rayleigh? Is it the
> electron? The emissions of gravitons previously absorbed by the atom?
> Or of some other effect that in some way at that time and conditions is
> related to the hydrogen atom?
>
> Forget the Euclidean geometric origin point that the
> religionist-creationists have foisted upon us.
>
> Instead, ask the real questions: what happens to photons in their
> travels through space to cause the lowering of their energy levels. If
> collisions or the intercession of other causes are at work, it may be
> found that the universe is not at all expanding, that there was no BB,
> that the Apparent Red Shift will have been explained in terms of
> physical cause and effect, that the cause of gravity may also be
> explained as an integral cause, that the red shift varies due to the
> differences of densities of hydrogen atoms or the different flux
> densities of radiant gravitons in space, and that the universe is
> considerably smaller than previously estimated.
>
> Due to religion the theory that no physicist seems to be advancing is
> that the universe continually exists as plurality, and that it is made
> of a myriad of parts.
>
> Ralph Hertle
>

I liked your explanation.
The red-hift is evidence of work done, for instance
in the scattering of light and by gravitational work.
Even gravitational deflection of light means a red-shift.

Let M be the mass of evenly distributed mass-elements
in a volume of radius R, precisely as in a massive body.

Let the the red-shift be
Z(R) = zetaGM/Rc^2 = zeta(delta lambda)/lambda = Z.
This should be called the relativity of locality

Let M increase proportionally to R^3, precisely as in a
spheric volume of astrophysical bodies in the universe.
Z(nR) = zetaGn^3M/nRc^2 =
n^2[zeta(delta lambda/lambda)] = n^2 Z
This should be called the relativity of distance.

And have this quotation from A. Einstein,
Zur Quantentheorie der Strahlung,
Physikalische Zeitschrift XVIII, 1917, p 128:

"Noch eine allgemeine Bemerkung soll hier
Platz finden. Fast alle Theorien der Tempe-
raturstrahlung beruhen auf der Betrachtung der
Wechselwirkungen zwischen Strahlung und Mole-
külen. Aber im allgemeinen begnügt man sich
mit der Betrachtung des Energie-Austausches,
ohne den Impuls-Austausch zu berücksichtigen.
Man fühlt sich dazu leicht berechtigt, weil die
Kleinheit der durch die Strahlung übertragenen
Impulse es mit sich bringt, dass letztere gegen-
über anderen bewegungserzeugenden Ursachen
in der Wirklichkeit fast stets zurücktreten. Aber
für die theoretische Betrachtung sind jene
kleinen Wirkungen neben den ins Auge fallen-
den der Energieübertragung durch Strahlung
als durchaus gleichwertig anzusehen, idem
Energie und Impuls aufs engste miteinander
verknüpft sind; es kann deshalb eine Theorie
erst dann als berechtigt angesehen werden, wenn
gezeigt ist, dass die nach ihr von der Strahlung
auf die Materie übertragenen Impulse zu solchen
Bewegungen führen, wie sie die Wärmetheorie
verlangt".

There is no expansion. The red-shift is not an
effect of movement with a Doppler-shift.

The reddening and blackning of light from
distant sources, increasing by distance, means
that there is a limit of observation which looks
like the inside wall of a black body cavity at a
minimum temperature of black body radiation
T(Aether) = T(CMBR) = the theoretical value
I have given for the aether density u erg/cm^3
2.692064 K in the aether equation:

kappa*U*V = G*h*c^2

from which further may be shovn that

G*c/kappa*L^2 = UL/h*c = constant
dimensionless Kappa = 2.000343E3.

with L = 1 cm, V = 1 cm^3, U = u*V, and
kappa = 1 erg/(sec*g^2).

Hence, U/h*f = (lambda/L)*2.000343E3
for all frequencies and corresponing wavelengths,
showing that U is the bulk of all photons emitted
as the free wavy EM energy in all of space, why
the Aether is a space-time-energetic continuum,
but of variable local energy density, dependent
of distance to radiant sources as stars and galaxies,
so that generally local T(aether) > T(CMBR).

Since the distant limiting black body wall of
observation shows isotropy of radiation in all
directions of a spheric space of the universe,
we must conclude that the magnitude or the
mightiness of the universe is many orders greater
than what we can observe, and that the structure
of the universe is everywhere the same and
with an even mass-distribution like what we
can see in the limited space of observation,
where the Aether is needed for conservation
of mass, energy and momentum at p = u/3.

Therefore the pressure p dyn/cm^2 should be
a quantity as parameter to the cosmological
constant Lambda cm^-2 in GR, and in SR
the condition shall be constant u (and p) in
all of space considered.

Ole D. Rughede

Relevant Pages