Cosmic growth of matter - the evidence by Akinbo Ojo

Akinbo,

Lovely essay, well written, interesting, with good referencing and highly readable. I suspect it didn't touch on the topic enough to finish highly, and most may disagree with many things, but agreement is not a scoring criteria!

In any case I can confirm from astronomy/astrophysics (though I'm really more an 'observational cosmologist') that the (type for type) 'mass growth' function of galaxies over the eons is well known and documented. It'll only be 'current dogma' for those who don't do their homework (most perhaps!) Galaxies were FAR LOWER MASS in the a early universe. What is even LESS widely known, including IN astronomy, is HOW that can and has happened! There are no shortage of silly guesses. The favourite one, 'mergers' is nonsense (not enough are found anyway), so feeds the 'dogma' you identify.

The galaxy growth fits a pattern of 'spurts' co-inciding with both the 'mysterious' re-ionization epochs AND the population shift from 'old' red discs to 'young' blue open spirals in an era of high Quasar activity. In the 60's Martin Rees wrote of the new 'pair production' from shear planes of quasar jets (contraflow helical 'superluminal' etc.) and it's now well understood (by specialists). What nobody did before was put that all together with the missing link of the 'columns' of ex quasar jet matter we find becoming new open spirals. Galaxies recycle themselves so have a simple sequence leading to certain morphologies. Now look at the CMB at larger scale and those EXACT (helicity, axial, asymmetric etc) 'anomalies' are what we find. A fractal scale model is suggested consistent with both your and Steve's (above) evidence! AND the Hawking & Penrose, and Dicke & Peebles model 'big crunch'. (more here;your link text )

I find we can judge the veracity of any theory by consistency with data and it's power to resolve anomalies. We KNOW current theory is badly flawed (Planck data analysys; "there's something fundamentally wrong with our cosmological model...") Just use with the alternative mechnistic redshift solution (NO accelerating expansion your link text ) and ALL the key anomalies in cosmology resolve, which tells me it's probably correct!

Your statement; "...the difference that for the universe its matter for growth arises de novo" can be interpreted legally as the Latin ('Anew') meaning 'afresh' for another (2nd or subsequent) time/beginning. So only needs proper understanding not rejection! Indeed perhaps each iteration has also been growing!

So I agree much, the only flaws are from building on long established but flawed foundations, and it's well written so certainly worth a high score.

Very Best

Peter

Dear Dr. Akinbo Ojo,

Please excuse me for I have no intention of disparaging in any way any part of your essay.

I merely wish to point out that "Everything should be made as simple as possible, but not simpler." Albert Einstein (1879 - 1955) Physicist & Nobel Laureate.

Only nature could produce a reality so simple, a single cell amoeba could deal with it.

The real Universe must consist only of one unified visible infinite physical surface occurring in one infinite dimension, that am always illuminated by infinite non-surface light.

A more detailed explanation of natural reality can be found in my essay, SCORE ONE FOR SIMPLICITY. I do hope that you will read my essay and perhaps comment on its merit.

Joe Fisher, Realist

Dear Ojo,

You started with the sentence "The study of the expanding size of the universe is already a well-traveled road following Hubble's 1929 discovery of redshifts from galactic clusters and the finding of other evidence like the cosmic microwave background radiation"

................In your opening sentence ' evidence like the cosmic microwave background radiation ' is not correct, as they have not accounted for the microwave radiation emitted from Galaxies, Globular clusters and stars etc... see the essay on CMB in previous FQXi... There was no provision to eliminate this radiation in the WMAP satellite. See my essay...

http://fqxi.org/community/forum/topic/1607

No Bigbang generated CMB detected; You can see Branko's( another author in this contest) solution here. http://vixra.org/abs/1602.0095

I have another objection, you are considering this whole universe as expanding universe only. You are not considering 60 percent of Galaxies like blue shifted Galaxies and Quasars etc... Do you feel it is correct...

Even though Bigbang is popular, it is failing at experimental evidences....

For your information Dynamic Universe model is totally based on experimental results. Here in Dynamic Universe Model Space is Space and time is time in cosmology level or in any level. In the classical general relativity, space and time are convertible in to each other.

Many papers and books on Dynamic Universe Model were published by the author on unsolved problems of present day Physics, for example 'Absolute Rest frame of reference is not necessary' (1994) , 'Multiple bending of light ray can create many images for one Galaxy: in our dynamic universe', About "SITA" simulations, 'Missing mass in Galaxy is NOT required', "New mathematics tensors without Differential and Integral equations", "Information, Reality and Relics of Cosmic Microwave Background", "Dynamic Universe Model explains the Discrepancies of Very-Long-Baseline Interferometry Observations.", in 2015 'Explaining Formation of Astronomical Jets Using Dynamic Universe Model, 'Explaining Pioneer anomaly', 'Explaining Near luminal velocities in Astronomical jets', 'Observation of super luminal neutrinos', 'Process of quenching in Galaxies due to formation of hole at the center of Galaxy, as its central densemass dries up', "Dynamic Universe Model Predicts the Trajectory of New Horizons Satellite Going to Pluto" etc., are some more papers from the Dynamic Universe model. Four Books also were published. Book1 shows Dynamic Universe Model is singularity free and body to collision free, Book 2, and Book 3 are explanation of equations of Dynamic Universe model. Book 4 deals about prediction and finding of Blue shifted Galaxies in the universe.

With axioms like... No Isotropy; No Homogeneity; No Space-time continuum; Non-uniform density of matter(Universe is lumpy); No singularities; No collisions between bodies; No Blackholes; No warm holes; No Bigbang; No repulsion between distant Galaxies; Non-empty Universe; No imaginary or negative time axis; No imaginary X, Y, Z axes; No differential and Integral Equations mathematically; No General Relativity and Model does not reduce to General Relativity on any condition; No Creation of matter like Bigbang or steady-state models; No many mini Bigbangs; No Missing Mass; No Dark matter; No Dark energy; No Bigbang generated CMB detected; No Multi-verses etc.

Many predictions of Dynamic Universe Model came true, like Blue shifted Galaxies and no dark matter. Dynamic Universe Model gave many results otherwise difficult to explain

I request you to please have a look at my essay on Dynamic Universe Model and its blog also where all my books and papers are available for free downloading...

http://vaksdynamicuniversemodel.blogspot.in/

Best wishes to your essay.

For your blessings please................

=snp. gupta

Dear Ojo,

Thank you for the reply. In Dynamic Universe model, Universe size will be FINITE, But the space where Universe is there, can be infinite, no limitation

Hope you will read my essay also

Best

=snp.gupta

Dear Aki9mbo Ojo

I invite you and every physicist to read my work "TIME ORIGIN,DEFINITION AND EMPIRICAL MEANING FOR PHYSICISTS, Héctor Daniel Gianni ,I'm not a physicist.

How people interested in "Time" could feel about related things to the subject.

1) Intellectuals interested in Time issues usually have a nice and creative wander for the unknown.

2) They usually enjoy this wander of their searches around it.

3) For millenniums this wander has been shared by a lot of creative people around the world.

4) What if suddenly, something considered quasi impossible to be found or discovered such as "Time" definition and experimental meaning confronts them?

5) Their reaction would be like, something unbelievable,... a kind of disappointment, probably interpreted as a loss of wander.....

6) ....worst than that, if we say that what was found or discovered wasn't a viable theory, but a proved fact.

7) Then it would become offensive to be part of the millenary problem solution, instead of being a reason for happiness and satisfaction.

8) The reader approach to the news would be paradoxically adverse.

9) Instead, I think it should be a nice welcome to discovery, to be received with opened arms and considered to be read with full attention.

11)Time "existence" is exclusive as a "measuring system", its physical existence can't be proved by science, as the "time system" is. Experimentally "time" is "movement", we can prove that, showing that with clocks we measure "constant and uniform" movement and not "the so called Time".

12)The original "time manuscript" has 23 pages, my manuscript in this contest has only 9 pages.

I share this brief with people interested in "time" and with physicists who have been in sore need of this issue for the last 50 or 60 years.

Héctor

Hi Ojo,

I remember you from the last essay contest... you shared my hatred of infinity:)

Anyway, you said "All life forms evolved gradually according to Darwin's theory, rather than immediately." But what are your thoughts about the telescoping/accelerating nature of evolutionary processes? Ray Kurzweil points out that evolutionary processes go quicker with each new capability they develop. He says, "So the first step in biological evolution, the evolution of DNA -- actually it was RNA came first -- took billions of years, but then evolution used that information-processing backbone to bring on the next stage. So the Cambrian Explosion, when all the body plans of the animals were evolved, took only 10 million years. It was 200 times faster. And then evolution used those body plans to evolve higher cognitive functions, and biological evolution kept accelerating. It's an inherent nature of an evolutionary process." Do you agree with this view?

Please check out my essay, and if you're interested please check out my independent film "Digital Physics" on iTunes, Vimeo, or Amazon Prime. It's all about the finite! :)

Thanks!

Jon

Akinbo,

Welcome to the party. I'll give you credit for being willing to challenge established beliefs. For whatever it is worth, all modern measurements of the cosmos indicate that space is flat. And this is a puzzle that is not resolved. You propose the simplest solution and Occam's razor is on your side.

Having said that, you want to treat the observable universe as an expanding Black Hole. Your presumption is that the Bing Bang occurred at a single point and that the Hubble Bubble has expanded from that point. From our perspective, this seems to be what we see ... i.e., we look in all directions and see distant galaxies moving away from us .....

The problem with this is that it goes against the belief that we are not at the center of the universe ... the assumption by cosmologists is that if you were at the edge of our Hubble Bubble and looked out into space, you would also see distant galaxies moving away. In addition, such an observer would see a different set of galaxies moving away that were not in the over-lap of the two Hubble Bubbles ... so as the Hubble Bubble expands, there is more mass in our OBSERVABLE universe although not in our Hubble Bubble plus all the other Hubble Bubbles.

There is another question concerning gravity ... according to GR we do not sense mass that is outside of our light cone. But orbit calculations are performed using the ACTUAL position of objects rather than the APPARENT positions based upon light-speed. I would have to ask similar questions regarding any mass that is outside of our Hubble Bubble.

BTW, do not confuse the Schwarzschild Radius with the size of the entity inside the BH.

In any event, you have argued the point as well as possible I think.

BTW, I have already scored your essay. You were one bombed within a few hours of your essay being posted, so I righted the wrong. These people are so petty.

Good Luck and Best Regards,

Gary Simpson

The Scalar Theory of Everything suggest another model:

this is simple video

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tjhieYgYoM0

this is paper with math

https://arxiv.org/PS_cache/astro-ph/pdf/0603

You might also see:

http://intellectualarchive.com/?link=item&id=1648/0603140v1.pdf

Hodge

That's :

https://arxiv.org/PS_cache/astro-ph/pdf/0603/0603140v1.pdf

and

http://intellectualarchive.com/?link=item&id=1648

hodge

Akinbo:

Yes. The model is that the universe started at 0 K with the first Source. It oscillates around 2.7 K. Nucleosynthsis is from the center of spiral galaxies outward in distance and the energy density (\rho) is maximal at the center. Matter and energy is created continuously as you suggest is indicated by the data. The nothing to nothing seems better than the Big Bang from nothing to what? birth without death of the Big Bang or from nothing to nothing like life. This could also suggest the stuff of our universe comes from another universe (say a 2 D one) and goes to another universe (say a 4 D one).

You have made some interesting calculations supporting the idea there must be creation of matter into our universe.

Akinbo

Your comment stared me thinking. The center of spiral galaxies (Sources) may be at the plank temperature. It could model the disintigration and re-radiation of black holes and the readiation from the center.

Hodge

Well...earth is both shrinking in mass and expanding in force, and so that makes measurement a little tricky. That is why the Hubble red shift is interpreted incorrectly in my view.

Looking back in time to the early galaxies is complicated because atomic time is not constant although decay time is. Decay time is what determines time's arrow and is also what defines the universe time pulse. Atomic time, the time of atoms, is really only constant in the epoch in which it is measured.

Akinbo

I read Rydin's sit and sent him a email.

Thanks for the reference.

Hodge

Dear Akinbo Ojo,

............... Your words..........

......................... Nice essay rich in astrophysical facts. You may want to check this website (http://home.earthlink.net/~rarydin/critique.html) for additional facts to improve your theory. ..............Reply...................

I will do, and tell you ASAP....

............... Your words..........

.........................I found your paper interesting and will rate it very well. ..............Reply...................

Thank you for the nice words and complements.

............... Your words..........

......................... The only thing I disagree is your statement that, "... we know now that Dark matter is not found experimentally,..." ..............Reply...................

Yes we should go be experimental results.... If something fails on experiment then what is the use.

............... Your words..........

.........................- Anytime outlying stars are found to be moving at high speeds yet not escaping it is because of dark matter. ..............Reply...................

NO No no sir, See my no dark matter paper.

There are three factors of star circular velocity calculations.

1. Heavy Galaxy center densemass

2. Other stars in the Galaxy ..... that is all the other stars except the one you are calculating the velocity

3. Out-side Galaxies

You have to calculate the simultaneous effect of all these together to calculate these velocities.

Just taking Galaxy center as single huge mass will not be sufficient as in a TWO body problem solution.

............... Your words..........

.........................- Anytime you observe bending and slowing of light grazing the surface of large celestial objects like sun, it is due to the gravitationally enhanced density of dark matter around those objects. ..............Reply...................

No No No sir, It is the combined effect of all the forces on the Photon. Not only by just sun, but the other planets, other stars and outer Galaxies also.

It is UGF the universal Gravitational Force. This UGF acts on each mass, which is the resultant vector of all the forces of attraction of other masses on that mass at that time. It is time and place varying force.

It will happen at all the stars all the time, not just on a solar eclipse day...

Please check my Paper on VLBI, the Very long Baseline Interferometry.

............... Your words..........

......................... - Anytime you perform a Michelson-Morley experiment and obtain a null result, it is a result of an earth-bound matter-medium called dark matter. ..............Reply...................

Wrong inference please

............... Your words..........

.........................- Anytime you observe variation of light speed with altitude, it is a result of variation of dark matter density with altitude. ..............Reply...................

I never heard any such experiment, in which light speed varied with altitude. Please give some details. It is against Einstein's Special theory of relativity, which says velocity of light is constant.

............... Your words..........

.........................So if researchers look where they should rather than gaze inside deep holes in the ground they would see abundant evidence for dark matter. ..............Reply...................

You can device some other experiment and show the world about it....

.........................

.........................

Have look at this part also just for your information please.....

You take the attraction between a boy and girl in their youth in human society. They love each other, marry and give birth to children. The couple work for children, their upkeep, education and their health etc. Everybody does this. Enjoy the old age and go away, it is natural.......

But if anyone (male or female) sits peacefully & silently and think a little, one understand that this whole thing is "MAYA" as said in Hindu philosophy. It is all nothing but some kind of magic that forces one to this work (MAYA). All these are ties and handcuffs making one as prisoner to do this family work and REPRODUCTION.

So the immediate thinking comes to our thinker, is why should I do all these work. I will resign and sit back and do nothing. As because, it is not profitable to anyone, why should anyone do anything about this REPRODUCTION, which involves large amount of work, which is not beneficial..............

Now the question comes who gets benefit and who is forcing us to do all these REPRODUCTION? Who wants us to do all these things? It is probably the GOD or the Mother Nature. They created the ATTRACTION between boy and girl. Not only in humans, but in other animals also had these instincts. So the God and Mother Nature are FORCING even the Universe to REPRODUCE. They know perfectly well nothing is permanent in this Universe .....!!!!!!

Best regards,

=snp.gupta

Hi Akinbo

you are looking for your time, for obvious false theories. It is better that your vast point in the right direction. There are a lot of arbitrariness in the Big Bang theory, and so in your essay.

For example: Why, Schwarzschild relationship (M=rc^ 2 /2G). Why not simply (M = Mc = rc ^ 2 / G). Why: "Multiplying both sides of ρ by volume, (4πr ^3/3)." You take for certain that the universe is a ball. But the universe is not the ball, but is a product of immanent relationships (relational approach). If you would just try to understand my table FQXi 2015 essay, would see how they relate Planck mass and length, without the need of introducing the term "Planck epoch". BTW, can you answer my question on YouTube, to which I received no response:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P-medYaqVak

Branko Zivlak One year before

Great lesson! Now I know where the mistake is. How does he know that "scaling factor" is differentiable? It is not.

So, my explanation in the essay:"matter dominant Universe" and "radiation dominant Universe" coexist in every point in time.

Your commitment and efforts in science is evident, not only in this essay. So I gave a rating higher than the value of the essay.

Why is T (CMB) = 2.74 can be found here: viXra:1602.0095

Regards,

Branko