Alternative Models of Cosmology

Space expansion? yes. It is measured in relation to the atoms around us.

What if the atom can vary its dimensions thru time?

I'm pretty sure that no one presented evidence that the atom is invariant.

And yet, everybody is claiming that the universe expands.

Space expansion or matter shrinks ?

The search of a scaling model of the universe, a self-similar one or dilation, has been pursued by the scientific community since Dirac, Hoyle & Narlikar, and others without results.

A scaling model is born, derived from data, using standard physics and making no hypotheses, this model has only one parameter (H0) :

A Self-Similar Model of the Universe Unveils the Nature of Dark Energy

So, from now on I'will ask for proper evidence that the atom is invariant every-time that I hear someone to say: the universe is expanding.

Space expansion? NO.

Matter evanesces? YES.

Dear Velez,

Universal I or singularity or conscience of god is the cosmological constant.

I = Zero = Infinity

Love,

Sridattadev.

At the Planck scale we encounter also a horizon, from our macro point of view at this scle we cannot longer make measurements, for us there is no longer causality (perhaps this scale is going to be 10^48, see www.physorg.com, integral challenges physics beyond Einstein, but anyway (our) causality no longer rules here), so the same limit we meet at a large universal scale, in this way we can observe ou total observable universe as a Planck unit, where for an observer that is super macro , "his" causality no longer exists, in this way the bubble in the bubble can go on forever...

keep on thinking free

Wilhelmus

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c1pgz8QIiso&feature=related

"Is Everything We Know Wrong? (...) So for now the standard model remains unchanged... (...) It's the best we have. And it's so nearly a perfect fit. It's just that it could be totally wrong."

Yes the standard model of cosmology is totally wrong. It is (implicitly) based on the following premises:

Premise 1: (frequency) = (speed of light)/(wavelength)

Premise 2: As photons travel, their wavelength varies with their frequency.

The second premise, which is a consequence of Einstein's 1905 false constant-speed-of-light postulate, should be abandoned. Cosmologists will have to try to deduce their science from the following couple of premises:

Premise 1: (frequency) = (speed of light)/(wavelength)

Premise 2: As photons travel, their wavelength remains constant.

Pentcho Valev pvalev@yahoo.com

The mechanics of the force of gravityAttachment #1: Mechanics_of_the_universe.docx

Once 'ex nihilo nihil fit', the cosmos fabric is necessarily infinite in time, as well as in space. Creation myths are bull shit, and our minds are full of them; jewish one or not!

The cosmos presents itself as nested construction, so, the most reasonable choice is thinking it is made of infinitely nested 'class of dimensions'.

Every macro or micro particle is infinite, sheltering an infinitely complex 'universe' (every particle of an infinite system is also infinite).

So, the 'model' is: No start, no end, no limit of any order (infiite), infinitEley NESTED'.

Cheers

The Alternative Models of Cosmology can be Vacuum.

==.

Philosophy of Science : The Models of Vacuum.

1.

A black hole is an idealized physical body ( with a mass of

three - six - ten times more than our Sun ) is a region of

spacetime from which nothing, not even light, can escape.

2.

A black body is an idealized physical body that can absorb

all incident electromagnetic radiation.

The result: from a 'black body 'not even light, can escape'

3.

Max Laue called ' Kirchhoff black body' as ' Kirchhoff vacuum'

Why?

Because Vacuum is a space in which there is nothing material.

For example: according to QET then electron interacts

with vacuum he disappeared there. And therefore physicists

invented the mathematical " method of renormalization",

a method "to sweep the dust under the carpet" / Feynman./

The result: from a 'vacuum 'not even light, can escape'

#

My conclusion.

The 'black body', the ' black hole' and the vacuum

can do one and the same work (completely absorb radiant

energy). It means that the 'black body' and the ' black hole'

are models of vacuum.

Another fact.

A black hole has a temperature within a few

millionths of a degree above absolute zero: T=0K.

/ Oxford. Dictionary./

And the vacuum has background cosmic temperature:

T= 2.7 K ----> T= 0K.

The background cosmic temperature (T= 2.7 K ----> T= 0K)

belongs to ' The Theory of Ideal Gas' and therefore we can use

this theory for explaining ' The Theory of Vacuum'.

My conclusion.

The 'black body' and the ' black hole' and

' The Theory of Ideal Gas' are models of vacuum.

===.

P.S.

If the 'black body' and the ' black hole' and the vacuum can radiate

the quantum of light and electron - then the reason is the Vacuum's

fluctuations / transformation / polarization. And this is ' a song from

another opera'. Because the Vacuum's fluctuations / transformation /

polarization explains the Origin of the Material Existence.

==.

Best wishes.

Israel Sadovnik Socratus

===.

Using the Union2 Compilation data (Supernova Cosmology Project, http://supernova.lbl.gov/Union/figures/SCPUnion2_mu_vs_z.txt) I find a best fit line through log(DL/Gpc) vs Log(z) gives a sum of squares error (SSE) of 1.95 with correlation 0.9955. The best fit LambdaCDM has 71% dark energy, 29% matter and Ho = 69.2 km/s/Mpc and gives SSE = 1.79. Using the best fit model in this paper (kinematically equivalent to empty model) I find SSE = 1.98 for Ho = 65.3 km/s/Mpc. Therefore, the model presented here does not produce a better fit than the best fit line while LCDM does, so the type Ia SN data favors LCDM over this model.

We present an alternative model of cosmology (http://arxiv.org/abs/1110.3973) based on modified Regge calculus. The motivation for this modification to Regge calculus (and, thus, to general relativity) comes from our interpretation of quantum mechanics called Relational Blockworld ("Reconciling Spacetime and the Quantum: Relational Blockworld and the Quantum Liar Paradox," W.M. Stuckey, Michael Silberstein & Michael Cifone, Foundations of Physics 38, No. 4, 348 - 383 (2008), quant-ph/0510090). We find that our flat, matter-dominated cosmology model produces a fit of the Union2 Compilation data matching that of LambdaCDM. However, our model is decelerating, not accelerating, so there is no need for dark energy.

My theory comes in the form of a (paradoxical) question: Is the Universe Expanding into a Black Hole?

(see attachment for details)Attachment #1: Is_the_Universe_Expanding_Into_a_Black_Hole.pdf

What I want to explain here is far away from most cosmology as presently understood. It came about through a very different set of known facts (the study of cycles), although these are not known to most people in the scientific world. However, what is put forward is quite consistent with known physics, indeed I would argue that it MUST result from known physics. It is not consistent with Big Bang Theory, because it suggests that the Universe is vastly more ancient than that. I call it The Harmonics Theory, and it can most easily be understood as arising from a single simple axiom:

"The Universe consists of a standing wave which develops harmonically related standing waves and each of these does the same."

This axiom is consistent with any field equations such as Maxwell's equations, Quantum Mechanics or Relativity. The fact that each wave produces harmonics is strongly related to non-linear wave equations. I would argue that the ultimate wave equations of the Universe must be non-linear. If they were linear then we would have no senses, because light would pass through our eyes without interaction, and the same for all other senses.

The consequences of this axiom are what makes it interesting. A single fundamental wave, let us call it frequency 1, loses energy gradually to waves of frequency 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13 ... and then each of these does the same. This means that frequency 2 loses energy to 4, 6, 8, 10, 12, 14 ... and 3 loses energy to 6, 9, 12, 15 ... while 4 loses energy to 8, 12, 16 ... and 5 to 10, 15 .. and 6 to 12, 18 ... and so on.

It is immediately evident that some frequencies such as 12 are produced in many ways while others such as primes are produced in 1 or few ways.

When calculations are done to high order (I have done to about 10^53) it is found that there are certain patterns that almost repeat, and certain orders of magnitude where especially strong harmonics of the original wave form. The first of these especially strong harmonics is 34560 and others tend to be near powers of that number or at about powers of 10^4.5 which is found to correspond quite well to the observed spacing (spacing is naturally inversely related to frequency) of the sequence:

observable universe, galaxies, stars, planets, moons, .... cells, atoms, nucleons.

Within each of the levels of very strong structure there are secondary strong structures typically at ratio of 12, 24, 28, or 20 above and below the strongest one of that level. So the outer planets are the dominant structure but the inner planets are spaced at 1/28 of the distances from the Sun. Likewise, spiral galaxies are dominant, but satellite galaxies are spaced at 1/12 of the distance between spirals.

At all levels of structure there are observable tendency towards quanta or periodicity. At some levels of the structure, both the wave spacings and cycle periods are observable, giving strong support to the existence of standing wave structures: (matching cycles periods in years to wavelengths in light years is correct because the waves propagate with the velocity of light)

a. The megawalls of galaxies are at a spacing of 588 million light years according to present estimates of the Hubble constant. A cycle of 586 million years is found in geology according to Afanasiev, geology professor at Moscow University.

b. Cycles with periods 11.1, 9.6, 8.88, 5.92, 4.44 years are commonly reported according to Edward R Dewey who founded the Foundation for the Study of Cycles. My own analysis of nearby stars shows that they more commonly are spaced at distances in light years near these same figures.

c. The spacing of outer planets indicate waves of 80 and 160 light minutes and such periods are found in many solar phenomena. This period is also indicated by galaxy cores and other phenomena throughout the universe. See papers by Kotov.

For more details, background and graphics please see:

Harmonics Theory - The Physics and Maths

Today, in the international scientific community, in sciences cosmology and theoretical physics are perceived wrong inferences and conclusions, which are Imposed as fundamental theories and principles. As a consequence, thousands of scientists in the U.S.A. and around the world focus and work in the wrong direction and their efforts not give the desired positive results, only reinforce untruth about the structure of the Universe. This is unjustifiable spent scientific potential, much time and money.

I am convinced, that scientists sooner or later will find the right path, but the question arises, which I want to share with you "Why did this have to happen slowly, difficult and very expensive, then it can be quickly, easily and cheaply? ". It is therefore necessary the scientists of sciences cosmology and theoretical physics adopt model about structure of the Universe and physical laws operating there, of the short e-book "The Dualism". Please visit the

http://uploads.worldlibrary.net/uploads/pdf/20120905183454the_dualism_pdf.pdf

Today, in the international scientific community, in sciences cosmology and theoretical physics are perceived wrong inferences and conclusions, which are Imposed as fundamental theories and principles. As a consequence, thousands of scientists in the U.S.A. and around the world focus and work in the wrong direction and their efforts not give the desired positive results, only reinforce untruth about the structure of the Universe. This is unjustifiable spent scientific potential, much time and money.

I am convinced, that scientists sooner or later will find the right path, but the question arises, which I want to share with you "Why did this have to happen slowly, difficult and very expensive, then it can be quickly, easily and cheaply? ". It is therefore necessary the scientists of sciences cosmology and theoretical physics adopt model about structure of the Universe and physical laws operating there, of the short e-book "The Dualism". Please visit the

http://uploads.worldlibrary.net/uploads/pdf/20120905183454th

e_dualism_pdf.pdf

There is a large number of Blueshifted Galaxies ie., more than about 35 ~ 40 Blueshifted Galaxies known at the time of Astronomer Edwin Hubble in 1930s. The far greater numbers of Blueshifted galaxies was confirmed by the Hubble Space Telescope (HST) observations in the year 2009. Today the known number of Blue shifted Galaxies is more than 7000 scattered all over the sky and the number is increasing day by day. In addition Quasars, UV Galaxies, X-ray, γ- Ray sources and other Blue Galaxies etc., are also Blue shifted Galaxies. Out of a 930,000 Galaxy spectra in the SDSS database, 40% are images for Galaxies; that gives to 558,000 Galaxies. There are 120,000 Quasars, 50,000 brotherhood(X-ray, γ-ray, Blue Galaxies etc.,) of quasars, 7000 blue shifted galaxies. That is more than 31.7% of available Galaxy count are Blue shifted. Just to support Bigbang theory, we are neglecting such a huge amount Blue shifted Galaxies.

How to explain the existence of such large number of blueshifted Galaxies in an expanding universe?

Quasars are Blue shifted Galaxies:

Is that true?

There are 248 papers :

Go to ADS search page try searching title and abstract with keywords "Blue shifted quasars". If you search with "and"s ie., 'Blue and Shifted and Galaxies" [use "and" option not with "or"option] you will find 248 papers in ADS search. I did not go through all of them. You can try this link...

DYNAMIC UNIVERSE MODEL: Blue shifted quasars in ADS

http://vaksdynamicuniversemodel.blogspot.in/2012/05/blue-shifted-quasars-in-ads.html

Now I want to have a live discussion whether quasars are REDshifted or BLUEshifted?

An alternative model for all of cosmology exits in self-similar fractal scale-invariant cosmology between quantum and macroscopic cosmology, or simply fractal scale cosmology. The term for this field of research is more specific and can be considered a branch, or sub-field, of the more generic field of fractal cosmology which includes fractal patterns in matter distributions between all cosmological matter objects. This field of research is not simply fractal cosmology. My research into this field, into a specific model, directly correlates a scale relation between atomic quantum systems and macroscopic cosmological systems through a uniquely explicit framework. The framework reconciles many disparaging differences between the two scaled systems and is fairly intuitive (simple). The results have been thus far very interesting.

Click here for latest details on this model

Click here for older details on this model

In this specific sub-field of research in fractal cosmology, there are actually very few individuals doing remotely similar research. The notable few that are, besides myself, are Robert L. Oldershaw and Laurent Nottale. Our specific models are currently fundamentally different though the premise is loosely the same, that macroscopic cosmological systems are a scale invariant self-similar representation of quantum systems through some form of scale transforming framework, and that subsequently other macroscopic systems have quantum scaled relatives. I urge you to explore our individual models to get a fulsome perspective of all the research being done. Notably the quality of research material differs. I concede I have not been as polished as the others, but in response I turn the focus to my results.

My own research into my specific model has derived very interesting results which have been my only driving motivation to pursue this research and my model. Whether or not this line of research is correct or not is inconsequential as the importance lies in exploring the possibility to either validate or invalidate it. My current belief is that this field of research will be fruitful, through I maybe proven wrong, my results indicate otherwise.

Satyavarapu

Quasars are not 'blue shifted galaxies' in astronomical terms, but often emit blue as well as red shifted radiation subject to orientation of the opposing jet 'outflows'. The 'parent' galaxy to the jets is at a distance from us measured in 'redshift', because, consistently, systems further away (so also further in the past) are increasingly redshifted.

The distance correlation is based on an assumption for the cosmological constant or 'rate of expansion' of the universe. I for one do not subscribe to the most mainstream view on this as the evidence is based on space being entirely 'empty nothingness' so having no effect on wavelength of em emissions over time or distance (see my essay - at 7th).

Blue shifted em waves are normally emissions not the emitting matter itself moving towards us. Some are, but far less than the emissions. Galaxy Zoo is a good source of survey data.

But back to quasars. I have a slightly different analysis of them which is more consistent with wider observation that the old mainstream view, and explaining a number of anomalies. You can find it in my last years essay (also 7th in the community list) or in more detail with a bigger picture (and nice pictures) here; http://vixra.org/abs/1102.0016 which shows how they fit precisely with a dynamic but cyclic model.

I hope that helps.

Best wishes.

Peter

Hi all

I have a question about cosmology, I would be grateful if anyone, preferably a cosmologist, could answer it and perhaps make some comments about it.

I have studied the foundations of cosmology and as far as I understand the so called concordance model of cosmology (popularly known as the big bang model) is based on a strong principle, namely: space expands as function of time. This simple assumption can account for the cosmological redshift and the temperature of the cosmic microwave background radiation which are considered two of the most important experimental evidences favoring this model (of course the abundance of the elements and the distribution of galaxies are important too, but not fundamental as space expansion). The idea of space expansion led astronomers and physicists (Lemaitre, et al.) in the 1930s to propose the idea of the universe having a beginning in the past. The Big Bang and the stationary models both assumed space expansion as a fundamental ingredient and without it they wouldn't be able to explain Hubble's law and more specifically the cosmological redshift. Hence, the key in any of these models is the mechanism used to make light to change its wavelength as it travels long distances. I think that my point has been clear, if space is not really expanding the whole concordance model won't be able to explain cosmological phenomena and the whole edifice of modern cosmology would fall. Do you agree on this?

If so, do you know any other alternative model (where space expansion is not considered) to account for the cosmological redshift and the CMB?

Cheers

Israel