snowflakeuniverse:

I find your reply concerning the constancy of k very disappointing. You give the following equation:

k=(3/2)*sqrt(2)*c/T^1/3.

Let's parse the equation, OK? (3/2) is a constant, check. sqrt(2) is a constant, check. c is constant, check. T^1/3 is not a constant. Therefore k is not a constant. Well, (3/2) and sqrt(2) are most definitely constants, can't do anything about that. What about c? We can make k a constant if c(T)=c₀T^1/3, so that it cancels the time dependence in the equation. But wait a minute! T^1/3 is an increasing function of time! Didn't you say that the speed in the "unobserved dimension" which is sqrt(2)*c is decreasing? I have pointed it out and I will point it out again: your work is riddled with mathematical errors where some quantities are held to be constant and then at other times revealed to be time-dependent, rendering your proofs invalid.

A perfect example is when you write:
Is anything in your model experiencing a constant acceleration? If so, then why do you have A==(-2/9*k)/T^4/3, which is manifestly not constant? Again you are using formulas blindly without regard to domain of applicability.

That is why I am going to continue to insist on a decent proof of your fundamental equation. You may say:
I find this utterly unacceptable. If you expect to ever take the stage at a real scientific meeting you are going to have to answer questions like mine, especially concerning the equation(s) fundamental to your theory.

So, once again, my questions about your fundamental equation:

1. Why the volume of space? Why not something else?

2. Why is the time dependence T? Why not T² or T³ or even sinh(T/T₀)?

Do not give a laundry list of successes you attribute to this equation, I'm only interested in a reasoned, not necessarily rigorous proof of your fundamental equation. I'm still waiting.

To be continued ...

__________________
Microsoft is over if you want it.

The bar has been lowered for the promotion of ATM ideas; the bar for the acceptance of ATM ideas must remain high.

Hi Celestial Mechanic

The technique and methodology for determining the value of a constant in an algebraic expression is a first year algebra task.

I tried to illustrate the methodology with an example of s = 1/2 a t^2, This equation was used to illustrate how to determine a constant, (in this case “a”) by knowing the value of the variables s and t. This is the same technique I used to determine the value of k in “k=(3/2)*sqrt(2)*c/T^(1/3).”

Just as one can determine the value of a constant “a” in s = 1/2 a t^2 by knowing the value of the variables “s” and “t “at a particular moment, one can determine the value of “k” in “k=(3/2)*sqrt(2)*c/T^(1/3).” by knowing the value of c and T at a particular moment.

Continued.

Snowflake

Celestial Mechanic continued

You asked

So, once again, my questions about your fundamental equation:

1. Why the volume of space? Why not something else?

2. Why is the time dependence T? Why not T2 or T3 or even sinh(T/T0)?

Do not give a laundry list of successes you attribute to this equation, I'm only interested in a reasoned, not necessarily rigorous proof of your fundamental equation. I'm still waiting.

1. Why a volume of space?

This is a good question and it is kind of a new one.

The reason for considering a volume of spacetime is to explain the properties of a mass and have that explanation to be similar to that of describing the properties of spacetime.

Mass is usually treated as if it is its own “dimension”, at least if one is trying to dimensionally balance an equation like F = MA, or F =g M1 M2 / D^2

In general relativity the relationships are based upon measures of distance and time, and this, to me, indicates a kind of “truth”, all we have to describe our universe are measures of distance and time. This presents the “challenge” of describing mass using just rulers and clocks.

I also held the idea that the same general description of a mass should apply to that of spacetime itself. The dimensional relationships that describe mass should be formally the same as describing spacetime.

If we observe an object in spacetime, lets say a cat, and we were to describe its location in spacetime, we would establish an array of points that describe the shape of the cat. These points that describe the cat are also separated by intervals of relative time. To complete the description of the cat, I add an additional measure of time, the historical location of the cat, relative to the beginning of time.

Inherent in this description of the cat, is that there is a volume being described with temporal relationships within the cat and there is a historical location of the cat. (Who has just left my desk.)

Similarly, spacetime can be described the same way, as a matrix of points separated by intervals of time with a given historical location.

The same methodology for describing spacetime and an object appealed to me, and it is from that perspective I approached my theoretical works. Reality would not be described by abstract and arbitrary coordinate systems but by unifying physical characteristics.


Question 2
Why is the time dependence T? Why not T2 or T3 or even sinh(T/T0)?


I have answered this before, but basically the reason a volume of spacetime varies to the square of the absolute time elapsed is because it works.

1. The relationship allows one to dimensionally balance F = MA and F = MM/D^2 with no constants that carry “units” (specifically “g”).
2. Any other relationship would not establish the inverse square laws as a characteristic of spacetime
3. Any other relationship would not establish the principles of conservation of momentum and energy to be a characteristic of spacetime based upon a geometric relationship
4. Any other relationship would not preserve the relative proportional measures of time
5. The proposed relationship predicts that the effect of gravity diminishes with the passage of absolute time, just as Dirac and Gamow believed.


The verification or more detailed explanation of the above relationships can be found in the original posting presented to the students.

Snowflake

And that is where your train of thought derails. The matrix of points in spacetime is NOT separated by intervals of time, they are separated by intervals of distance. Just because you can divide this distance by c to obtain a time does not make it a time. The intervals separating points are space-like four-vectors.
And how do these "unifying physical characteristics" lead to any kind of a useful result? How, for example, does the "unifying physical characteristics" (whatever those may be) of the Sun and the Earth enable me to determine the mutual gravitational pull of the two bodies upon one another? Don't I have to know the distance between the two? How do I measure the distance without a really, really, really long tape measure? I have to introduce a coordinate system in order to even begin making sense of any observations that could lead to this determination. Your use of the words "abstract and arbitrary" strike me as code words of math-phobia.
A weak answer at best. Have you demonstrated that out of ALL possible functions f(T) that you could have used in dS/dT=f(T), that k*T and ONLY k*T leads to a sensible theory. I'll bet you can't.
Again you give a laundry list. I will only comment on the first one as the others do not follow exclusively from your theory, there are other reasons for their validity.

What you are really doing above is chosing units by setting G=1. This is legitimate, but you must remember that you are doing it. You have not made constants that carry units "go away". They are still there and you must be prepared to restore G to the equations if needed to facilitate computations in SI units. The same is true of all scientific theories that set one or more of c, h-bar, G, e (unit of electrostatic charge, not the number e), or the mass of some particle equal to 1 for the sake of convenience.

__________________
Microsoft is over if you want it.

The bar has been lowered for the promotion of ATM ideas; the bar for the acceptance of ATM ideas must remain high.

Now I move to your answers to my five questions.
Not an answer to my question. Why do you only consider volume of space, S, in your fundamental equation? Why does S have units of m³ instead of m⁴ or m⁵ or whatever dimensionality your "spacetime" with all its "unobserved" dimensions has?
And that's your problem, you redefine words in an ad hoc manner and sling around a bunch of terms you don't understand, such as degree of freedom.
And somehow three or four or possibly more directions orthogonal to one another is not unique enough?
And why are these different? Distance is distance, or to paraphrase Gertrude Stein, "A rod is a rod is a rod." And even if they are different, it is not enough to constitute separate "dimensions" for each of them.
Two different measures of one and the same thing, NOT two different things and certainly not two dimensions. Get over it. As Gertrude might say, "A clock is a clock is a clock."
At what level does your "unlimited" expansion start? At the atomic? At the level of ordinary objects? Planets? Solar Systems? Galaxies? Clusters of galaxies? Perhaps it's time for you to examine the basic premises of your "theory" regarding expansion and its "limits".

To be continued ...

__________________
Microsoft is over if you want it.

The bar has been lowered for the promotion of ATM ideas; the bar for the acceptance of ATM ideas must remain high.

ARRGGHHH!!! Another laundry list! OK, one more time:
Whose derivation rests on pillars of sand.
You have shown no such thing. What experiments show this?
Geometry that is neither intrinsic nor unique to your model.
No, conservation principles are a consequence of the invariance of the Lagrangian under translations and rotations. You really ought to read up on Noether's theorem sometime.
At what rate does G change in your theory? At the moment, the best upper bound on (dG/dt)/G is on the order of 10^-11 yr^-1. Is your value consistent with this?
Your model succeeds where it does only because of its resemblence to a matter-dominated universe with flat spatial geometry. It is utterly incapable of handling these last two issues.
Yes, I do. You ASSUMED k to be a constant when differentiating D to obtain V, V to obtain A. You ASSUMED that you could use ordinary relations for uniform acceleration to solve for k and obtained a formula for k where k has time-dependence. Your whole "theory" is riddled with such blundering mathematical incompetence.
They are relevant. Volume is relevant because that is what you chose to use in your fundamental equation. The "unobserved" dimension and its existence/non-existence is relevant. And your insistence on redefining terms with already well-known and understood meanings guarantees that most of a reviewer or referee's efforts will be expended on trying to fathom what you mean by your use of the words--at least until they hit the first of your mathematical errors.

My suggestion is "Get thee to a library". Really concentrate on the math and physics. Understand what the current models say before you attempt to criticize. And understand the mathematical tools before you attempt to theorize.

__________________
Microsoft is over if you want it.

The bar has been lowered for the promotion of ATM ideas; the bar for the acceptance of ATM ideas must remain high.

Hi Celestial Mechanic

Regarding the rate that the effect of gravity varies
You stated,
At what rate does G change in your theory? At the moment, the best upper bound on (dG/dt)/G is on the order of 10^-11 yr^-1. Is your value consistent with this?

The gravitational constant does not vary in this model, the effect of gravity does. It is the density of systems that decreases with the expansion of spacetime.

The accelerative field due to the expansion of observable space was shown to vary by the following relationship.

A1/A2 = T2/T1 ^ (4/3)

Assume a 10 billion year old universe,
Compare over a 1 year interval of time.

A1/A2 = (10,000,000,001/10,000,000,000)^(4/3)

In one year there would be a variation of about 1 part in 10^-10 which technically would appear to be measurable, according to your post,

However, how would this be measured?

It has been shown that all physical process all slow down at the same rate, thereby making any local measure of this small change over the passage of a year impossible.

For example,

Lets say we use a pendulum clock to measure intervals of time. Since the effect of gravity diminishes with the expansion of the Earth and the Clock, one would expect to measure an increase in the period of the clock and thus evidence of the expansion of spacetime and the diminished effect of gravity.

But all local clocks will also slow down the same proportional rate, resulting in no measurable change in period of the pendulum clock, which makes the local observation of the change in the effect of gravity impossible to measure.

However, objects observed in the past should bear evidence of the increased effect of gravity in the past, as well as faster clock rates. This effect has been empirically verified.



Snowflake

It seems that we have a significant communication gap.

That you sincerely believe what you have written, in terms of high-level summaries*, I do not doubt.

However, I (for one) find your presentions inconsistent, vague, ad hoc, and quite incomplete. Or, as Celestial Mechanic wrote, "And that's your problem, you redefine words in an ad hoc manner and sling around a bunch of terms you don't understand".

Our recent (and not so recent) exchanges on quasars is an example (more later).If the No Dark Matter thread, which you began, is what you are referring to, then I would counter that it could serve as a good example of what I (and CM) have just described - inconsisent use of (essentially undefined) terms, confusion and inconsistency when details are examined (or questions asked), and (not included in the above) apparent inability to defend the ideas presented against relatively simple, straight-forward challenges.

If it is not this thread that you are referring to, please state where, in BAUT, you have presented this "quantitative explanation".I seem to have missed this; I will re-read this thread, and look into this claim.To the extent that "quasars" provide a good observational test of these last two "quantitative analyses", I'm sure you'd agree that what you have presented, in this thread, doesn't even get you to first base (e.g. not even a working definition of 'quasar', let alone an OOM quantitative match between your idea and observation).Let's get back to quasars, shall we?

Here is a simple, straight-forward, question:

In the SFU idea, what are "quasars"?

Here is a second, straight-forward, question:

To the extent that the templates labelled 30, 31, 32, and 33, on this SDSS page are of objects for which the term "quasars", as defined within the SFU idea, is applicable, to what (OOM) extent does the SFU idea match these spectra?

*such as "many of the responses have been consistent with predictions or characteristics of the model. The majority of the questions involve the prediction that the effect of gravity should be greater in the past and the observational evidence of this effect."

Are "quasars" among the objects included in your "[t]his effect has been empirically verified" claim?

Hi Nereid,
First I have to thank you for the many links you provide in your posts. They are interesting and I have found them informative.

You asked what I define a “quasar” as.
I have stated this before, a quasar is simply a very young galaxy. This is consistent with “mainstream” explanation of a quasar. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quasar

I presented on this forum a brief quantitative analysis that showed that the energy production of a galaxy, when observed far enough in the past, would result in the energy production equivalent to that of a quasar, which is about 100 times that of a galaxy. The analysis also provided a different explanation for the cause of the energy variations observed from quasars. (Accelerated stellar evolution combined with sequential chain reaction supernovas as opposed to matter falling into a super massive black hole).

Quasars without super massive black holes

Also
Quasars and Supernova Fires

(Note a few of years ago the Wikipedia link to quasars listed the energy production to be 100 to 1,000 times that of a galaxy. It appears that gravitational lensing was amplifying the luminosity, based on the changes reflected in the 7/2006 Wikipedia article)

The analysis provided by me also offered a different explanation for the cause of the energy variations observed from quasars. (Accelerated stellar evolution as opposed to matter falling into a super massive black hole).

As you repeatedly point out in your postings to me, there should be correspondence of the theory to observation. I thought of an observational “test” of the proposed explanation.

See next post.

Snowflake

Prediction – Doppler effect and the Energy variation in Quasars

Quasars exhibit a variation in the production of energy. Some variations last days, some last weeks, months, even years.

The “mainstream” explanation for this variation is the variation in the magnitude and density of the masses inrushing towards a “super massive black hole”

The “Uniform Expansion Model” explanation for this variation is cascading chain reactions of miniature, densely packed supernovas. Since the effect of gravity is much greater in the past, it takes less mass to form a star. What today takes enough mass to form 1 star would form hundreds of miniature stars in the past. If one of these stars becomes a supernova, there would be initiated a chain reaction of super novas due to the much denser stellar population.

Method to Verify model
There should be observational verification of the proposed model. The verification involves a study of the spectra emitted during an intensification of the energy output from the quasar.

Spectra is the light emitted by elements and molecules. If the source is in motion when producing the spectra, there is a corresponding Doppler shift. Motion away from the observer causes a “red” shift, or a lengthening of the wavelength of the spectra and motion towards the observer results in a “blue” shift.

If the source of the energy variation from a quasar is the result of matter falling into a “super massive black hole”, than the spectra should be additionally red shifted. While there would be matter falling into the alleged super massive black hole corresponding to a direction towards our perspective resulting in a “blue shift”, there should be less of this blue-shifted spectra observed due to the absorption effects of the dust and gasses surrounding the “black hole”.

(There should also be a gravitational red shifting, which would also be observed in the Uniform Expansion model. This red shift would be relatively constant and not change significantly with a variation in energy output)

However
If the Uniform Expansion explanation for the observed variation in energy is correct, the exact opposite kind of Doppler effect should be observed. As the energy produced increases, there should be a corresponding “blue” shift observed in the spectra. If we are watching the progression of a chain reaction of supernovas approach our perspective, the velocity of the material approaching our perspective would cause a “blue shift” to the spectra. If we are watching a progression of a chain reaction of supernovas move “away” from our perspective, the velocity of the material departing would be red shifted, but this spectra would be reduced in intensity or dimmer due to the dust and debris from the nearer previously exploding supernovas absorbing the spectra.

The test
So, if the “super massive black hole” model is correct, there should be a red shift observed when energy production increases. If the “chain reaction of supernovas” model is correct, there should be a blue shift observed when energy production increases.

Is there observational evidence of any of these effects?

I will place a copy of this post to the “Ask the (mainstream) expert".

Snowflake

Prediction – Doppler effect and the Energy variation in Quasars

Quasars exhibit a variation in the production of energy. Some variations last days, some last weeks, months, even years.

The “mainstream” explanation for this variation is the variation in the magnitude and density of the masses inrushing towards a “super massive black hole”

The “Uniform Expansion Model” explanation for this variation is cascading chain reactions of miniature, densely packed supernovas. Since the effect of gravity is much greater in the past, it takes less mass to form a star. What today takes enough mass to form 1 star would form hundreds of miniature stars in the past. If one of these stars becomes a supernova, there would be initiated a chain reaction of super novas due to the much denser stellar population.

Method to Verify model
There should be observational verification of the proposed model. The verification involves a study of the spectra emitted during an intensification of the energy output from the quasar.

Spectra is the light emitted by elements and molecules. If the source is in motion when producing the spectra, there is a corresponding Doppler shift. Motion away from the observer causes a “red” shift, or a lengthening of the wavelength of the spectra and motion towards the observer results in a “blue” shift.

If the source of the energy variation from a quasar is the result of matter falling into a “super massive black hole”, than the spectra should be additionally red shifted. While there would be matter falling into the alleged super massive black hole corresponding to a direction towards our perspective resulting in a “blue shift”, there should be less of this blue-shifted spectra observed due to the absorption effects of the dust and gasses surrounding the “black hole”.

(There should also be a gravitational red shifting, which would also be observed in the Uniform Expansion model. This red shift would be relatively constant and not change significantly with a variation in energy output)

However
If the Uniform Expansion explanation for the observed variation in energy is correct, the exact opposite kind of Doppler effect should be observed. As the energy produced increases, there should be a corresponding “blue” shift observed in the spectra. If we are watching the progression of a chain reaction of supernovas approach our perspective, the velocity of the material approaching our perspective would cause a “blue shift” to the spectra. If we are watching a progression of a chain reaction of supernovas move “away” from our perspective, the velocity of the material departing would be red shifted, but this spectra would be reduced in intensity or dimmer due to the dust and debris from the nearer previously exploding supernovas absorbing the spectra.

The test
So, if the “super massive black hole” model is correct, there should be a red shift observed when energy production increases. If the “chain reaction of supernovas” model is correct, there should be a blue shift observed when energy production increases.

Is there observational evidence of any of these effects?

Snowflake

I moved this post from the Astronomy section to the ATM section. I'm going to look around for Snowflake's thread and merge it there. Snowflakeuniverse, this is a warning. You know better.

Further, your statements about the mainstream model of quasars show some serious lapses. Your "Universal Expansion Model" explanation has some gaps too, for example, how do supernovae have chain reactions?

__________________
Forming opinions as we speak

OK, now I merged it, and see you've posted the same thing twice.

BTW, the photons we see coming from quasars should not have any substantial change in redshift when the total luminosity increases (or decreases). This light comes from jets interacting with matter far from the quasar, and is red-shifted according to the cosmological redshift plus the specific velocity of the cold matter the jet is hitting.

Also most of the shorter period variations in quasar brightness are thought to be from gravitational microlensing events. These shouldn't change the redshift either. Speaking of which, if the quasars are not single small sources of light, but numerous simultaneous supernovae, then the microlensing events should not be smooth rise&fall events, but a much more complex image should be derivable. This is especially true with the Einstein Cross quasars where the microlensing events are very frequent.

__________________
Forming opinions as we speak

Hi Antoniseb

Thanks for your response,

Regarding energy production from quasars

You said,

This light comes from jets interacting with matter far from the quasar, and is red-shifted according to the cosmological redshift plus the specific velocity of the cold matter the jet is hitting.

I thought that the mainstream explanation for the light observed from a quasar was the result of matter being accelerated to near light speeds and the interaction/collision of the matter falling towards the “super massive black hole” in produced heat and light.

Actually the material should spiral in towards the core, which would effect the Doppler shift due to “falling”, but I thought that there should be a Doppler effect observed as the spiraling material fell to the “black hole”.

I have heard of jets emanating from quasars, but have not associated the jets as the primary reason for energy production and the variation in energy production.

(P.S. I thought that since part of this thread would deal with just observational evidence, a separate / dual posting made sense).

Snowflake

Antoniseb

Regarding my theory – multiple supernova chain reactions

You asked
”how do supernovae have chain reactions?”

If a star were close to another star that blows up, the radiation and pressure produced by the exploding star would cause the nearby star to explode.

According to the Uniform Expansion Theory, the effect of gravity was greater in the past since the density of all systems was greater in the past. This would mean that the mass presently required to form a star would be a lot less in the past. One solar mass of today could produce hundreds of mini stars in the past and these stars would be comparatively close. If one of these mini stars blew up, it would cause surrounding stars to similarly explode.

In many ways the successive explosion of near by stars is like a wild fire. The successive mini supernovas will only stop when there is too much distance between stars, or when the wave of explosions encounters a region which has already “burned”.

Snowflake

It seems that this claim was made several times in this thread; for example, here (extract): and here (extract):The post which presents this quantitative case seems to be #20 (extract; my bold):Is this the key post, in this thread (and, indeed, on BAUT) where the the quantitative 'conformance to observation' was presented?

If so, then it seems that you did not, in fact, present anything quantitative wrt an observational fit (merely summarised, in words, the results of some work you did (or, rather, claim to have done)).

If not, then where (in BAUT) did you present the quantitative case (SFUI predictions vs observational data)?

If you are unable to add an attachment (e.g. "Figure 6", with predictions from the SFUI added), please say so (and we will find a way to get the material presented).

In the meantime, I am very curious about one of your claims (my bold) - "The corresponding fit is perfect". What is your (quantitative) criterion for perfection, wrt fitting astronomical, observational data (1a SNe)?

Leaving aside the issue of the extent to which any wikipedia entry can be considered a good summary of "“mainstream” explanations", and just looking at the "[t]his is consistent with" part:

-> in the mainstream view, quasars are galaxy nuclei (not galaxies)

-> BL Lac objects, blazars, type II quasars, Seyferts, AGN, ... are all closely related, in the mainstream view

-> the ("host") galaxies associated with (most) quasars are separate objects, which have been studied in some detail (an example).

So, with this more accurate summary of what "a quasar" is, in "the mainstream", would you please elaborate on your "very young galaxy" definition/idea? Specifically:

1) what proportion of these "very young galaxies" have disks? halos? bulges?

2) what is the mix of populations of stars (among I, II, and III), that comprises these "very young galaxies"?

3) what is the gas and dust content of these "very young galaxies"?

4) how old are the oldest stars in these "very young galaxies"?

5) how big (in kpc) are there "very young galaxies"?

6) are Seyfert galaxies, and AGN galaxies (such as M87) also "very young galaxies" (in the SFUI)?

7) are Seyfert nuclei, AGNs, blazars, BL Lac objects, Type II quasars (all) also "very young galaxies"?In terms of the (revised?) SFUI, as presented in this thread, may BAUT members rely upon what you presented in those two threads (other than wrt the lensing caveat), as accurate (wrt the SFUI)?Indeed.

To what extent is this SFUI analysis quantitative?

Specifically, how well - quantitatively - does application of the SFUI, to "very young galaxies", account for the observed "energy variations observed from quasars"?And I have an even easier one, that can be done by any BAUT member, quantitatively ... and which will very quickly show how well the SFUI (as presented in this thread) matches observations: spectra.

If quasars are "very young galaxies", then their spectra will have the same features as spectra of very young galaxies.

Once snowflakeuniverse has answered the minimum set of the seven questions above, any BAUT member can download the appropriate template spectra (pop I stars, supernovae, gas, dust, ...), and produce their own, synthetic, spectrum of a SFUI "very young galaxy". This data is all freely available, on the web, as are lots and lots of (detailed) quasar spectra (an example).

But perhaps snowflakeuniverse has already done this?

What made you think such a thing? Certainly not anything in mainstream literature. Yes there is an SMBH involved. It shoots a jet in our general direction (if it's a different direction, we don't see it as a quasar). This jet is not visible photons, it is high energy charged particles. Visible photons are released along the way.

It is good that you're making an effort, but it is surprising to me how little you know about the mainstream model.

Concerning Supernovae chain reactions: how much pressure do you think that a supernovae 100 AU away from a mildly evolved star would exert on the core of its neighbor? How much pressure is there already in the core of that star? I don't think the extra pressure would be measurable.

__________________
Forming opinions as we speak

What are the ("mainstream") sources, that you referred to, for this explanation?Other than wrt mass, how do these 'past' stars differ from those we can see, in the local region of the Milky Way?

Specifically:

a) how do the oberved colours, spectra, incidence of starspots, stellar winds, incidence and evolution of binary systems, and variability differ (quantitatively)?

b) how does the incidence of planetary nebulae, supernovae remnants, neutron stars, generation of high energy cosmic rays, and rate of formation of 'metals' differ (quantitatively)?

c) what are the key processes involved in initiating, and sustaining, this "chain reaction of super novas"?

d) what is the expected mass of gas that would be expelled from the 'very young galaxy', by this "chain reaction of super novas"?

e) what proportion of the stars formed in these 'very young galaxies' that would supernova, in (say) 100 million years?Have you done any calculations, to show how big any of these 'gravitational redshifts' would be expected to be (in either the SFUI, or mainstream)? If so, what were the quantitative results?Perhaps you could consider some (potentially) much, much more obvious signatures - if I've understood your idea correctly, the majority of the light from SFUI quasars would be from supernovae (SNe), and supernova remnants (SNR). Both have quite distinctive, characteristic spectra, so unless nuclear and atomic physics is also (completely) re-written in the SFUI, quasar spectra will show strong SNe and SNR footprints, even at quite modest resolutions.

Have you compared SNe and quasar spectra, in terms of this kind of match? If you did, what did you find?The quick answer to your question is "as written, it's impossible to say". Why? Because there's nothing quantitative!

For example, there may very well be "a red shift [..] when energy production increases" ("if the “super massive black hole” model is correct"), but the expected size of any such redshift, as determined from a quantitative model, may be far below detectibility (either because we can't resolve the relevant spectra with sufficient resolution, or (more likely) because any such effect would be completely swamped by other effects, such as line broadening).

Anyway, as I've said twice already, spectra should provide a clean test of this SFUI ... because the signature in quasars, of lots of SNe and SNR, should be very obvious.

If you'd like to post a question (not a thinly veiled advertisement for your idea) in BAUT's Q&A thread, on this topic, I think there will be lots of interesting replies.

In a nutshell: the observed light (cf x-rays, radio, ...) from quasars comes from at least four sources: the accretion disk, the jets, the broad-line region, and the narrow-line region (these last two are non-stellar; basically, clouds of gas). In the IR, a significant part of the observed 'light' is from the torus (especially for type 2 quasars).

For blazars (and BL Lacs), most or 'all' the light is from the jets; for Seyferts, the nucleus (which comprises all five components mentioned above) may be only a minor source of light (the stars and gas in the surrounding galaxy dominate).

The doppler shift of the infall you describe, in the accretion disk, has certainly been observed ... for a number of 'normal' galactic nuclei; for (most) quasars and other AGN, the accretion disk is far, far too small to be resolved, and the gas far too hot to easily disentangle any doppler broadening (from other, much more dominant, physical processes). IF the jets had nice narrow lines, some very interesting studies could be done (matter in the jets is moving at relativistic speeds); however, AFAIK, they don't

The Uniform Expansion model has characteristics of a finite universe that is infinitely aged.

If the expansion includes matter, then the passage of time slows with the expansion of spacetime. Expand a pendulum and the period increases. Expand a light clock and the period increases. All relative measures of time or physical processes slow with the expansion of spacetime.

When we establish the age of the universe, we assume that our clock rates are constant, an incorrect assumption by the proposed model. Given this assumption, the age of the universe is fixed.

However, since clock rates were actually faster in the past, the amount of time elapsed is greater than we have assumed. The relationship is hyperbolic, when the universe began, the relative clock rate was nearly infinitely faster than today’s relative clock rate.

The result is from an “absolute”, or fixed constant measure of time, the universe has a beginning, but in terms of actually experiential time, the universe is infinitely aged.

Snowflake.