1 - Halton Arp's redshift anomoly is real. He presents two excellent examples to prove his anomoly. They are NGC 7603 and AM 2054-2210. These are not chance alignments. There are other good examples. See his article in the April, 1983 issue of Sky and Telescope magazine. Most main libraries should have a copy.

2 - Therefore, space cannot be expanding but instead, the light waves are expanding. My reason is that there is an 'intrinsic force that is perpendicular to the field lines that pushes the fields apart'. This is based on the expansion noted in the electric and magnetic field patterns when in open space.between the magnetic poles and the electric charges.

3 - The big bang violates the laws of conservation of matter and energy. To reword these laws in my own words, it implies "Matter cannot be created or destroyed but can only be transformed". Therefore, matter always existed! This supports the steady state Universe rather than the concept of creation out of nothing as the big bang implies.

4 - The background radiation can be accounted for in two other ways. The first is that the 2.73 K temperature can be the average total sum of all the matter and energy in the Universe. Since it is a composite temperature, it cannot be attributed to any one substance or radiation.
The next possibility is that the Sun is surrounded by a 'helio sphere' of solar dust that was ejected by the Sun during those erupting flares that eject this dust. This dust is approximately from 1 to 2 millimeters in size and is the proper size to radiate the current wavelength of the background radiation of from 1 to 2 millimeters in length. Refer to 'Contemporary Astronomy' by Jay Pasochoff, page 297, figure 11-7. Published by W. B. Saunders company copyright 1977. Although the author attributes this dust to meteor impacting, I beleive it is dust from the Sun.
This dust remains in suspension well beyond the inner portion of the solar system, around the Sun because of weak positive charges within each particle that distributes them evenly to counteract the gravitational attraction.

5 - The big bangers use a false analogy to explain why we appear to be in the center of the Universe. You cannot compare three dimentional cubic space to two dimentional spherical space. While two dimentional spherical space has no center, three dimentional space does have a common center which is generally known as the 'center of gravity'. Therefore, the big bang point of the initional explosion should be considered as the center of the big bang. Under these conditions then, the recessional velocities would vary. Although the lateral expansion would expand as a two dimensional body, the radial expansion relative to the center would vary from maximum expansion to a decreasing gravitational deceleration. The big bangers should have realized in the beginning that it is virtually impossible to be located in the center of our Universe since we are not located in the center of our solar system, our galaxy and in the center of our Virgo Supercluster. This should have alerted them to look for another source for the expansion. Therefore, scrap the 'raisin bread big bang' Universe.

Please print this letter to alert other big bangers of these contradicting truths.

I am an amateur astronmer specialising in astronomical theory and cosmology. I am a member of the Warren Astronomical Society, a suburb of Detroit MI. I am self educated with an extensive library of astronomical and physics books and it is my primary hobby. We had a sub-group in our club to study and discuss cosmology a few years ago.

Michael Cyrek
cosmolcm@MSN.com

Scroll to the latter half of this post to get answers to the comments. Thank you.



<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: michael cyrek on 2002-12-13 11:13 ]</font>

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: michael cyrek on 2003-01-01 10:07 ]</font>

I always thought that very reasonable and believed that view to be older than creation.
Years ago I read in archaeological surveys that the creation account was actually fashioned according to a clay potters model so as to form a convincing story for those unable to understand otherwise,many thousand years ago.

I thought the steady state theory postulated a continual creation of matter.

There really was such a crazy idea.
I hope you don't think it was the only hypothesis within the Steady State theory, or do you?

New matter is not created. It is only transformed. Old galaxies eventually evaporate into gases and dusts in intergalactic space to form clouds of new gases and interspaced with dust. These intergalactic clouds capture any wayward large bodies in this space and condense all this matter to start forming new galaxies to replace the old evaporated galaxies. The largest bodies captured by these clouds eventually become the nucleuses of these new galaxies.

correction on my Email address. I should use my newer one which is cosmolcm@MSN.com


<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: michael cyrek on 2002-12-28 08:44 ]</font>

The dust in the solar system is the "Zodiacal Light". It is concentrated in the ecliptic plane.

Why aren't there more of these alignments?

What expansion are you talking about? I thought that Maxwell's equations predict electric and magnetic fields very well, and they also predict EM waves that do not expand.

Yes, well relativity contradicts the conservation of matter as well. E=mc^2. Instead we have the conservation of mass-energy. Unfortunately, laws like these stop working on a quantum mechanical scale, such as an extremely tiny universe right after the big bang.

Well, why is that heliosphere moving so fast w/resp to the sun (polarity of background radiation)? Why don't we see spheres around other stars?

All analogies have flaws. Perhaps we should use the better analogy of a four dimensional hyper-sphere, but we cannot visualise such things. If we're not going to visualise it, we might as well go all the way to manifolds which aren't necessarily spheres embedded in euclidean space.

In fact, if you want a bit better analogy, you can take a 3D sphere (now with galaxies on inside not on surface), and stretch it out equally in all directions. If you follow one of the galaxies around, you still see the hubble law in effect. If you make your sphere big enough and the speed of light slow enough, none of the galaxies can tell that they're the center of the sphere. Not that it would matter.


<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: xriso on 2002-12-12 19:17 ]</font>

cyrek: These are not chance alignments

Prove it.

michael cyrek:
"Matter cannot be created or destroyed but can only be transformed". Therefore, matter always existed! This supports the steady state Universe rather than the concept of creation out of nothing as the big bang implies.

Chip:
But what would prevent a system from forming that lead to matter that then could not be created or destroyed but only transformed?

michael cyrek:
The big bangers use a false analogy to explain why we appear to be in the center of the Universe. You cannot compare three dimensional cubic space to two dimensional spherical space...The big bangers should have realized in the beginning that it is virtually impossible to be located in the center of our Universe since we are not located in the center of our solar system, our galaxy and in the center of our Virgo Supercluster. This should have alerted them to look for another source for the expansion. Therefore, scrap the 'raisin bread big bang' Universe.

Chip:
The so called "Big Bangers" actually don't "believe" that the universe has a "center" at all! The "Big Bang" as theorized was nothing like a conventional explosion. On the largest scale, it is observed to be an accelerated expansion from everywhere. You have misinterpreted a bad classroom analogy, and seem to be thinking of it as a fireworks display. [img]/phpBB/images/smiles/icon_wink.gif[/img]


Never Mind.

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Chip on 2002-12-12 20:52 ]</font>

cynek: To reword these laws in my own words, it implies "Matter cannot be created or destroyed but can only be transformed".

Your rewording is incorrect. There is no law of nature which says (or implies) that "matter cannot be created or destroyed". The correct phrasing is "energy cannot be created or destroyed". It is well known in modern physics that what we call "matter" is simply another form of energy. Energy & matter transform back & forth all the time (I have myself created a great deal of matter from energy).

cynek: Therefore, matter always existed! This supports the steady state Universe rather than the concept of creation out of nothing as the big bang implies.

Substitute "energy" for "matter" and you may be on to something, but whatever you are on is leading you astray. The statement "as the big bang implies" is false. It implies no such thing, although it is a common misconception.

The now legendary Stephen Hawking proved in his PhD thesis that the universe must have begun as a singularity in general relativity. This oft-repeated fact has become the parent of the misconception that Big Bangers think the universe popped out of nothing, creating all energy from "scratch". But they don't, and likely never did (at least for the most part).

Rather, the correct interpretation (and the one actually used by BB-ers) is that the universe was, in its early stages, much smaller & hotter than it is today. How it got that way is anybody's guess, but a definitive answer requires some quantized model of general relativity, perhaps string theory, or some other form of quantum gravity.

As a result there is now a cottage industry in pre big bang cosmology.

Good post, as usual!

ljbrs [img]/phpBB/images/smiles/icon_wink.gif[/img]

__________________
"There is in the universe neither center nor circumference." Giordano Bruno Born 1548. Torched 1600.

cynek: The background radiation can be accounted for in two other ways. The first is that the 2.73 K temperature can be the average total sum of all the matter and energy in the Universe. Since it is a composite temperature, it cannot be attributed to any one substance or radiation.

The background radiation is a radiation. It is not matter, and therefore cannot be an "average total sum of all the matter and energy in the Universe". But it could be the "average temperature of all the matter and energy in the universe", which is exactly what it is in the context of Big Bang cosmology.

cynek: The next possibility is that the Sun is surrounded by a 'helio sphere' of solar dust that was ejected by the Sun during those erupting flares that eject this dust.

Solar flares don't eject dust, they eject gas & ions, but nothing even close to 1 or 2 millimeters. In fact, 1 or 2 millimeters is gigantic by solar system dust standards, and cannot be the source of the microwave background. For one thing, it would be nigh onto impossible to get the dust to distribute itself so evenly as to match the even distribution of the CMB. For another thing, the dust would never exhibit a thermal spectrum, but would exhibit a spectrum skewed by the emissivity of the dust grains as a function of wavelength. For another thing, that much dust of particles that big would be visible. You could look out with your telescope and literally see it sitting out there. The fact that we don't see it (and you could no more "not see" it than you could "not see" that you are looking through a curtain) is a very good indication that it's not there.

cynek: This dust remains in suspension well beyond the inner portion of the solar system, around the Sun because of weak positive charges within each particle that distributes them evenly to counteract the gravitational attraction.

The dust could not remain suspended anywhere. Dust in the solar system is blown away on a fairly short time scale, and replaced by new dust, from comets & asteroids, mostly. The "small" positive charges would have to be "huge" positive charges to create the mechanical force necessary to "hold up" the dust. And even if you could create such an arrangement, it would be dynamically unstable and fall apart at the first sign of perturbation.

This is a non physical solution.

Tim Thompson:

Another excellent post!

ljbrs [img]/phpBB/images/smiles/icon_wink.gif[/img] [img]/phpBB/images/smiles/icon_wink.gif[/img]

_________________
*Nothing is more damaging to a new truth than an old error.* Goethe

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: ljbrs on 2003-01-01 16:57 ]</font>

cynek: The big bangers use a false analogy to explain why we appear to be in the center of the Universe. You cannot compare three dimentional cubic space to two dimentional spherical space.

Three dimensional space is not "cubic". "Cubic" simply refers to the usual Cartesian coordinate system, which uses (x,y,z) coordinates to represent the 3 dimensions. It would be just as valid to use spherical coordinates and call 3 dimensional space "spherical". I shudder to think of what we would call the 3 dimensional space of confocal ellipsoidal coordinates (one of my theoretical mechanics final exam problems was to work out the equations of a paltry simple harmonic oscillator, but everything had to be done in elliptic cylindrical coordinates; I haven't been the same since).

Now, lets get simple. Consider a sphere, say 1000 miles in radius. Now consider another sphere, concentric with the previous sphere, but only 900 miles in radius. Now consider the spherical shell which is made up of the space between the two spheres, with inner & outer surfaces separated by 100 miles. Quiz: Where is the center of that spherical shell?

The answer is obvious, it is the same point that is the center of the two concentric spheres. But it does not lie in the spherical shell, which volume you have to leave before finding the center. The same is true for the two dimensional surface of either sphere. It is a simple analogy, and not at all "false" to extend the problem to 4 dimensions. If I have a 3-dimensional surface embedded in a 4 dimensional space, just as the two dimensional surface is embedded in a 3-dimensional space, the center of that embedded 3 dimensional surface does not need to be on the surface, any more than does the center of the 2 dimensional surface need to be on it. Right?

Cheers.

Maybe there is another explanation than the Big Bang:
The absolute zero in the vaccuum of space is -273° C The background radiation is 2.73 K There is definitively an action caused by the vaccum of space here.
So it could be possible than the CBR is the residual value of all the energetic activity produce since the universe exist and dissipated trough the "Quantum Medium" of space.See the Dr. Puthoff experiment about the -Quantum Medium- of space here:
http://ascension2000.com/DivineCosmos/01.htm

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Orion38 on 2002-12-13 00:30 ]</font>

These people do. I didn't capitalize it, but I notice you did. Why wouldn't the Steady State Theory refer to that one promulgated by Jeans/Bondi/Gold/Hoyle?

The dust you refer to is within the planets. I am referring to dust that is well beyond the planets. This dust may be about a tenth of a light year distant or less from the Sun. As I have said, this dust is weak positively charged ions so it disperses evenly to form this shell. This weak repulsion between the particles also keeps them in suspension from the gravitational attraction. This shell moves with the Sun and does not represent the background radiation but could be the cause of the misconception. The weak dipole effect may be caused by a distant charged cloud to cause its displacement.

You will notice the bridge of stars that connects the two objects. The clue here is that the stars are connected between the objects. If this was a chance alignment, then how do explain the large galaxy with one arm? Also, if the small object was more distan and the stars were its tail, how do you explain its curved taik?
Incidentally, the Sky And Telescope photographs are positive prints while Arp's photographs in his book are negative prints and do not do justice to his photo's. See the S&T photo's.

Good point Michael,and there is more look at this:
http://perso.wanadoo.fr/lempel/red_s...GC_7603_uk.htm

http://www.mpa-garching.mpg.de/HIGHL...ght0108_e.html

http://xxx.uni-augsburg.de/abs/astro-ph/?0101538

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Orion38 on 2002-12-13 15:32 ]</font>

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: michael cyrek on 2002-12-26 13:48 ]</font>

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: michael cyrek on 2002-12-28 09:10 ]</font>

Just a word of caution to michael cyrek: as you may now know, there are lots of people here who know quite a bit about cosmology, and the typical arguments against the mainstream. From what you have posted here, it appears to me (and I have long experience here) that you have only read "alternative" cosmologies, like Arp's, but have not learned enough about the mainstream cosmology.

We have had many people come and go on this board who have tried to tear down the Big Bang, and they have all failed. In general, they have not understood cosmology (or relativity, or...) and have therefore decided it must be wrong. I have said this many times: in order to tear down a theory, you must first understand it. I suggest you read some other sources about cosmology (like Ned Wright's tutorial for example) before coming here with both barrels blasting.

michael cyrek:
"The big bang universe is portrayed as a loaf of raisin bread expanding in an oven equally in all directions. Do you accept this explanation of a universe with no center?"

Chip:
The actual raisin bread is a finite shape that can have a center. It, and the inflating balloon covered with dots are both illustrations only of the concept of overall expansion, with each point appearing to move away from other points. Any selected point chosen as a reference frame, appears to be stationary, with all other points moving away from it. All of these things are just analogies used to visualize a basic concept. They are not scientific models.

I accept in a general sense, the observed and verified aspects of the theory based on papers, articles, and books by cosmologists I've read over the years. The "Big Bang" is much different from popular notions of it being an explosion or coming from a specific location.

cyrek: These are not chance alignments.
TT: prove it.
cyrek: You will notice the bridge of stars that connects the two objects. The clue here is that the stars are connected between the objects.

I notice a filament, which may or may not be made of stars. But you can only assume that this filament physically connects NGC 7603 & NGC 7603B. You make the statement as if it were a decided fact, but from the image alone, you cannot provide any definitive evidence that the filament does not lie in the foreground (or background) of the image. In short, this is not even close to "proof".

cyrek: If this was a chance alignment, then how do explain the large galaxy with one arm? Also, if the small object was more distant and the stars were its tail, how do you explain its curved tail?

NGC 7603 & NGC 7603B are both galaxies. The objects in the filament have spectra that are similar in some respects to quasar spectra, but they are not necessarily quasars. They are most likely large concentrations in the ill-defined filament. NGC 7603 has the lowest redshift (0.029), and its companion NGC 7603B has a slightly higher redshift (0.057). The objects in the filament show redshifts of 0.243 and 0.391, while the filament itself appears to have a redshift of 0.030, making it hard to distinguish from NGC 7603.

So, here's how I explain the alignment. NGC 7603B has collided with, or barely missed, NGC 7603. It has the higher redshift because it is moving away from us. The filament is made of material expelled tidally from NGC 7603 by the collision. It has nearly the same redshift as NGC 7603 because it is moving essentially across our line of sight. The high redshift objects are moving away from us, and so they show a much higher redshift. It could well be a projection effect, with their motion much more directly radial with reference to us, than is the motion of NGC 7603B.

I see nothing unphysical or unreasonable about that scenario. The notion that the redshift is entirely "cosmological" in origin is incorrect. Every redshift is always a combination of "cosmological" and "local' effects. In the paper which reports these observations (Two emission line objects with z>0.2 in the optical filament apparently connecting the Seyfert galaxy NGC 7603 to its companion, M. Lopez-Corredoira & C.M. Gutierrez, Astronomy and Astrophysics 390(3): L15-L18, August 2002), the authors make note of this possibility, and while they doubt it, admit that they cannot rule it out.

I agree that NGC 7603 and the surrounding system are interesting objects, but your confidence in the strength of this object as example too heavy for Big Bang cosmology to bear is much to high. It is not difficult to explain by standard group dynamics, at least in principle.

That was Hoyle et al that introduced that concept because they apparently accepted the expansion of space.
I do not accept the expansion of space so there is no need to introduce that concept.