Alternative Models of Cosmology

Satyavarapu Gupta

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?

Peter Jackson

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

Satyavarapu Gupta

Peter

I did not see your post , orelse I would have replied it long ago...

I am showing below that two quasars are blue shifted...

see :

http://www.blogger.com/blogger.g?blogID=8826339039574834163#editor/target=post;postID=3764090022352257683;onPublishedMenu=overview;onClosedMenu=overview;postNum=22;src=postname

http://www.blogger.com/blogger.g?blogID=8826339039574834163#editor/target=post;postID=3318178562691887961;onPublishedMenu=overview;onClosedMenu=overview;postNum=18;src=postname

For the text portion

I. The first Redshifted Quasar 3C273:

The author Schmidt in 1963 published the first paper on a quasar declaring it as red shifted [1]. He said:

"Spectra of the star were taken with the prime-focus spectrograph at the 200-in. telescope with dispersions of 400 and 190 ﾃ... per mm. They show a number of broad emission features on a rather blue continuum. The most prominent features, which have widths around 50 ﾃ..., are, in order of strength, at 5632, 3239, 5792, 5032 ﾃ.... These and other weaker emission bands are listed in the first column of Table 1."

He concluded that this quasi stellar object now well known as Quasar. It is the nuclear region of a galaxy with a cosmological red-shift of 0.158, corresponding to an apparent velocity of 47,400 km/sec. The distance would be around 500 megaparsecs, and the diameter of the nuclear region would have to be less than 1 kiloparsec.

II. The first Redshifted Quasar 3C273 is that Blue shifted?

The Table 1 shown below embeds the table 1 of Dr Schmidt in the first 4 columns. The remaining columns show how the quasar is blue shifted for the same wavelengths. I.e., the same wave lengths of his observations were used in this paper to show this same quasar 3C273 is Blue shifted. To support further on this, the spectrum observations made by other three more authors were also discussed in this paper. The checking of the first Redshifted Quasar 3C273 for a possibility of blue shift was tried mainly because of the observation of Dr. Schmidt saying this Quasars 3C273's spectrum is in the "blue continuum" [1]. The Quasars are known for some of the irregularities in the spectrum like some spectral lines match exactly with the some elemental lines with some blue / redshift ratio while some other prominent lines don't match for the same ratio.

Basically many astronomers in their published papers said that sodium line, Carbon line CIV etc., are blue shifts other lines. There are observed variation in quasars in the lines w.r.t other lines in the known spectrums. If the quasars are taken as blue shifted such variation will be very very less or even cease to exist. To explain such phenomenon Bigbang based cosmologists take the help of million light years length of sodium with a velocity of jet at 50000000 meters / second in the case of this 3C273. How such length of sodium can exist I don't know.

Many of these papers talk about such blue shifts. These references can be found at ADS [2,3]. For this, go to ADS search page try searching title and abstract with keywords "Blue shifted quasars". If you search with "and's i.e., '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. Some of the papers will be discussed here later in this paper.

In the Table 1, in addition to the original values given by Dr. M. Schmidt, four new columns were added. These columns show the possible blue shift of '(-0.143122)' of the Quasar 3C273 and the resulting wavelengths after the blue shift. SDSS website gives different possible wavelengths in angstrom units in their webpage on 'Algorithms - Emission and absorption line fitting' [4]. These wavelengths were chosen as they will be more authentic and accurate. Please note there are some slight differences in the numerical values in wavelengths as given by Schmidt and SDSS webpage.

Table 1. Wave-lengths and Identifications as given by Dr. M. Schmidt

Table 1: Observations in this paper

l/1.158

l / 0.856878

l0 from SDSS

3239

2797

2798

Mg II

3780.00

H_theta+19

3799

4595

3968

3970

5362.49

Mg+186

5177

Note 1

4753

4104

4102

H d

5546.88

Mg+370

5177

Note 1

5032

4345

4340

H g

5872.48

Na-23

5895

5200-5415

4490-4675

6068-6319

Na-OI

Note 2

5632

4864

4861

H b

6572.70

H_alpha+8

6565

5792

5002

5007

[O III]

6759.42

SII+27

6732

6005-6190

5186-5345

7008-7223

blue continuum

Note 3

6400-6510

5527-5622

7468-7597

blue continuum

Note 3

Note 1: Later measurements of this QUASAR 3C273 at wavelengths 4595 and 4793 show dips or flatter curves instead of peaks (absorption spectra instead of emission spectra).

1. Dr. M. Schmidt's paper "3C 273: A Star-like Object with Large Red-shift", published in Nature 197, 1040 (1963)

http://www.nature.com/physics/looking-back/schmidt/index.html

2.http://adsabs.harvard.edu/cgi-bin/nph-abs_connect?db_key=AST&db_key=PRE&qform=AST&arxiv_sel=astro-ph&arxiv_sel=cond-mat&arxiv_sel=cs&arxiv_sel=gr-qc&arxiv_sel=hep-ex&arxiv_sel=hep-lat&arxiv_sel=hep-ph&arxiv_sel=hep-th&arxiv_sel=math&arxiv_sel=math-ph&arxiv_sel=nlin&arxiv_sel=nucl-ex&arxiv_sel=nucl-th&arxiv_sel=physics&arxiv_sel=quant-ph&arxiv_sel=q-bio&sim_query=YES&ned_query=YES&adsobj_query=YES&aut_logic=OR&obj_logic=OR&author=&object=&start_mon=&start_year=&end_mon=&end_year=&ttl_logic=AND&title=blue+shifted+quasars&txt_logic=AND&text=blue+shifted+quasars&nr_to_return=200&start_nr=1&jou_pick=ALL&ref_stems=&data_and=ALL&group_and=ALL&start_entry_day=&start_entry_mon=&start_entry_year=&end_entry_day=&end_entry_mon=&end_entry_year=&min_score=&sort=SCORE&data_type=SHORT&aut_syn=YES&ttl_syn=YES&txt_syn=YES&aut_wt=1.0&obj_wt=1.0&ttl_wt=0.3&txt_wt=3.0&aut_wgt=YES&obj_wgt=YES&ttl_wgt=YES&txt_wgt=YES&ttl_sco=YES&txt_sco=YES&version=1

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

4.Algorithms - Emission and absorption line fitting of SDSS http://www.sdss.org/dr7/algorithms/speclinefits.html

[deleted]

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.

Israel Perez

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

[deleted]

Israel Perez wrote: "I have a question about cosmology, I would be grateful if anyone, preferably a cosmologist, could answer it... (...) ...do you know any other alternative model (where space expansion is not considered) to account for the cosmological redshift..."

You expect a cosmologist to answer this question and automatically become an unperson?

Halton Arp Victim Of Rational Scientific Society

George Orwell: "Withers, however, was already an unperson. He did not exist : he had never existed."

Pentcho Valev

Israel Perez

Hi Pentcho

Thanks for the links. I'am aware of the controversy with Halton Arp. Unfortunately, the second link didn't work.

Regards

Israel

Nainan Varghese

Kindly see a small essay on CMB Radiation at http://vixra.org/abs/1404.0056

Nainan

Steve Agnew

There is certainly a great deal of evidence to support the notion of an expanding universe, a la, the red shift.

There are other cosmologies, however.

A contracting universe is also consistent with these observations. However, a contractin universe is completely different from an expanding universe...actually, not so different as just oppostite.

Contraction as a means of universal force makes much more sense...and so I like contraction.

Peter Jackson

Israel,

Yes. And it's actually worse than that. The Concordance model (If an 'observational' cosmologist view will do) was just the 'closest approximation' that could be agreed. It's highly inconsistent with current findings, including CMBR anisotropies.

You refer to; "the mechanism used to make light .. change its wavelength as it travels long distances." Unbelievably No! According to current 'Baryon Acoustic nonsense theory' light 'decouples' in the early universe, so no change on the journey is allowed for in redshift theory except in the local emitter area. It quite beggars belief really as that conflicts with most other astronomy! There are in fact many effects that could add to redshift. I listed them on an APS blog page recently (can't find it right now) but the very expansion itself on the 12bn yr journey is one!

A few of the inconsistencies are officially admitted, such as here;

Ostriker & Nabb 2012 (specifically on galaxy evolution, but way behind mine here which resolves the anomalies);

Helical CMBR asymmetry and also; giving the complex and unique 'anomalous' CMB Anisotropic pattern precisely predicted by the DFM;

Copi et al 2010 Large-Angle Anomalies in the CMB.

But it's 'head in the sand' as editors wont publish any other theory. You have to smile!. The DFM give pre 'big bang (not!) conditions, resolves around 9/10 of the anomalies, and logically derives slowly decelerating expansion with 'joined up' cosmology.

I've taken the 9 page strait jacket off my essay, which now more readably explains the foundations. Academia.edu Jan 2013 It's only just lodged, do please give me your thoughts (The main paper including the full list of effects not allowed for is still in draft).

So most admit current theory is quite inconsistent, but wont look at any alternatives as they're different from current theory! Bring back Spock I say.

Best wishes

Peter

Israel Perez

Dear Peter

Thanks for your reply. Indeed, that's why cosmologists called it "concordance", so far this model represents what most cosmologists agree on. As you rightly point out there are still several anomalies that seriously challenge the model. No theory is perfect, they all have anomalies, so we should understand that finding an explanation of the universe is not an easy task. As far as I know this is the best available description of cosmological phenomena and despite certain inconsistencies cosmologists will hold the model until a more powerful one appears on the scene.

I'll take a look at your documents but it'll take some time to give you a reply since the material is considerable. I'll let you know as soon as possible.

Best Regards

Israel

[deleted]

I agree that the wavelength of an elementary source such as H-Alpha is a universal constant. The concept of universal wavelength replaces Einstein's constant light speed postulate of SR eliminates all the paradoxes of SR. Also it gives rise to a new theory of relativity called IRT and a new theory of gravity called DTG.

The paper in the following link describe a theory of everything based on the above concept:

http://www.modelmechanics.org/2012unification.pdf

Ken Seto

[deleted]

The paper in the following link describes a new theory on the origin of our universe.

http://www.modelmechanics.org/2011universe.pdf

Also please visit my website for more papers on my theory:

http://www.modelmechanics.org/

Ken Seto

[deleted]

Welcome to http://vixra.org/

[deleted]

A New Theory on the Origin of Our Universe

A new physical model of our Universe, called Model Mechanics, has been formulated. The current state of our Universe as interpreted by Model Mechanics is as follows: Space isoccupied by a stationary, structured and elastic light-conducting medium called the EMatrix.A mass-bearing particle called the S-Particle is the only fundamental particle existsin our Universe. The different absolute motions of the S-Particles in the E-Matrix gives rise

to all the observed particles such as the electron and the different quarks. Also, the absolute motions of the S-Particles or S-Particle Systems give rise to all the forces and processes of nature. Model Mechanics leads to a new theory of gravity called Doppler Theory of Gravity(DTG) and DTG unites with the electromagnetic and nuclear forces naturally [1, 2]. It alsoleads to a new theory of relativity called Improved Relativity Theory (IRT). IRT includes

SRT as a subset. However, unlike SRT, the equations of IRT are valid in all

environments....including gravity.

In cosmology, Model Mechanics provides natural solutions to the following problematic cosmological observations of the current theories:

1. The observed accelerated expansion of the far reached regions of the universe disagrees with the predictions.

2. The observed rotational curves of galaxies disagree with the predictions of current theories.

3. The observed paths of travel of the spacecrafts Pioneer 10 and 11 disagree with the predictions of current theories.

4. The observable universe appears to have a much larger horizon than it is allowed by its observed age.

5. The GRT description of gravity gives rise to the observed flatness problem of the universe.

6. Dark matter....this is the free S-Particles that are not in orbiting motions around the E-Strings.

7. Dark energy....this is a repulsive effect arises from the interacting objects following the divergent structure of the E-Matrix.

The above Model Mechanical description of our current Universe leads to a new interpretation for the origin of our Universe. This new interpretation provides explanation for the following mysteries of our universe:

1. How the electrons and up quarks were produced during the Big Bang.

2. Why is there a preponderance of matter over anti-matter in our universe.

A paper entitled "The Origin of the Universe as Interpreted by Model Mechanics" is available in the following link:

http://www.modelmechanics.org/2011universe.pdf

Eckard Blumschein

Isn't a stationary light-conducting matrix at variance with Michelson 1881 and Michelson and Morley 1887?

Eckard

[deleted]

I am interested in astronomy ,and I knew from some sources that there are about 7000 blueshifted galaxies,but another source said that the number is only 100.

so if possible if any one is an expert in this field please tell me which number is correct.

best regards

Stuart Marongwe

INTRODUCING NEXUS: A QUANTUM THEORY OF SPACE-TIME, GRAVITY AND THE QUANTUM VACUUM

Hie

It is well known that it is notoriously difficult to quantize gravity. I have proposed an alternative approach to Quantum Gravity which has provided answers to fundamental questions such as Dark Matter and Dark Energy without resorting to exotic particles and hitherto unknown scalar fields. You can download my paper from this website www.scirp.org/journal/ijaa and provide a constructive critique

Best regards

Stuart Marongwe

MOND ACCELERATION DERIVED FROM NEXUS

Here is something that is bound to raise your eyebrows. If you read the published version of my paper you will find that I derive Hubbles law from Nexus in form v=H/k which is the induced constant rotational velocity by a graviton (Dark Matter).H is the Hubble constant and k is graviton wave vector in the nth quantum state. it can also be expressed as v=H/nK where K is the ground state wavevector K=H/c and c=speed of light.

Therefore the acceleration induced by a graviton in the nth state on a test particle is v^2xk or H^2/nK. Thus the highest induced acceleration is by the ground state graviton where n=1. This is H^2/K = Hc ~ MOND acceleration.

Peter Jackson

Mutasim, (& Stuart)

There are ~7000 blueshifted galaxies, most in two groups nearby and around a plane tilted wrt the Milky Way. Ave velocity is 200km/s, highest 8000km/s. Many are quite small (satellites). There are many more with a blushifted half (rotating towards us).

The full list can be found on the JPL's NASA/IPAC Extragalactic Database (NED). A good analysis from 2009 is here; Blogspot; Fitted Planes.

The peculiar pattern is consistent with the predictions of a cyclic cosmological model which also predicts the CMB peculiar anisotropies, just confirmed by Planck, described in a model of 'discrete fields' (DFM) and in my essay here three years ago (2020 vision). Similar cyclic cosmologies have been suggested by Dicke, Peebles, Einstein, Penrose and Turok among others, many which the findings support, resolving the 'pre Big Bang' problem.

Stuart,

I'll try to find some time for a quick look and comment. Do check out and cemment on my well supported essay this year revealing an apparently powerful QM aspect of the DFM. http://fqxi.org/community/forum/category/31419?sort=community 'The IQbit'.

Best wishes

Peter

Stuart Marongwe

I am checking it now. Its good to share different views of reality.

Stuart

Peter Jackson

Stuart,

You'll see I find manipulating symbols only approximates nature so use a very different dynamic geometrical approach to model how reality evolves. I can't then comment on your formulations, but it's more interesting to see where we've ended up from the very different routes taken. I liked your paper and found some broad areas of agreement, though also differences to falsify.

For me, gravity emerged unheralded from a dynamic logic resolving the differences of SR and QM. SR is implemented by scattering at c from simple condensed fermion conjugate pairs (high coupling constant but low EM profile; n=1) and protons, with various fractions of bound molecular gas. Collectively 'plasma', which has interesting qualities including a '2-fluid' state.

The condensation of the matter, directly related to orbital or rotational velocity as you say, creates the quantized G potential. So 'gravitons' are in that case ions, which are quite handy, also being Dark Matter and implementing 'curved space time' due to refraction, including the kinetic effects found due to relative plasma motion (as my prev. essay and recently confirmed by the VLB Array).

Plasma density distribution of course relates to massive bodies, and also relative motion through the QV (shocks). I've tended to favour the Yukawa potential as it's sharper cut of matches the model and observation, but I'd take your advice on the implications of your proposal. There was too high a 'symbol density' for me to be confident about conceptual harmonics.

To get a better glimpse of the 'discrete field' model I've derived you'd need to see my last 3 essays, starting with '2020 Vision' (estimating no change to doctrine before 2020). It's far from complete, but you'd better comment on it because if you think it's entire claptrap there's little point exploring further! Look at the conversations on the 'other' "Alternative Models" blog, or a more comprehensive joint paper published on the quantum optics foundations is open access here; arXiv; Resolution of Kantor and Babcock-Bergman Emission Theory Anomalies.

Best wishes

Peter

« Previous Page Next Page »