![big-bang-8[1]](http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2014/05/big-bang-81.jpg?quality=83)
New evidence, based on detailed measurements of the size and brightness of hundreds of galaxies, using The Tolman test for surface brightness, indicates that the Universe is not expanding after all. I’m betting that somewhere, some activist is trying to figure out an angle to blame climate change. (h/t to Roy Spencer)
From Sci-News.com: Universe is Not Expanding After All, Scientists Say
In their study, the scientists tested one of the striking predictions of the Big Bang theory – that ordinary geometry does not work at great distances.
In the space around us, on Earth, in the Solar System and our Milky Way Galaxy, as similar objects get farther away, they look fainter and smaller. Their surface brightness, that is the brightness per unit area, remains constant.
In contrast, the Big Bang theory tells us that in an expanding Universe objects actually should appear fainter but bigger. Thus in this theory, the surface brightness decreases with the distance. In addition, the light is stretched as the Universe expanded, further dimming the light.
So in an expanding Universe the most distant galaxies should have hundreds of times dimmer surface brightness than similar nearby galaxies, making them actually undetectable with present-day telescopes.
But that is not what observations show, as demonstrated by this new study published in the International Journal of Modern Physics D.
The scientists carefully compared the size and brightness of about a thousand nearby and extremely distant galaxies. They chose the most luminous spiral galaxies for comparisons, matching the average luminosity of the near and far samples.
Contrary to the prediction of the Big Bang theory, they found that the surface brightnesses of the near and far galaxies are identical.
Full story: http://www.sci-news.com/astronomy/science-universe-not-expanding-01940.html
===========================================================
Physicist Luboš Motl isn’t impressed:
It is quite a bold claim but not shocking for those who have the impression based on the experience that these journals published by World Scientific are not exactly prestigious – or credible, for that matter. The sloppy design of the journal website and the absence of any TEX in the paper doesn’t increase its attractiveness. The latter disadvantage strengthens your suspicion that the authors write these things because they don’t want to learn the Riemannian geometry, just like they don’t want to learn TEX or anything that requires their brain to work, for that matter.
…
The point of the paper is that the expanding Universe of modern cosmology should be abandoned because there is a simpler model one may adopt, namely the static, Euclidean universe. Their claim or their argument is that this schookid-friendly assumption is completely compatible with the observations. In particular, it is compatible with the observations of the UV surface brightness of galaxies.
Read more of what he has to say here: http://motls.blogspot.com/2014/05/claims-universe-is-not-expanding.html#more
The cartoon I published Friday might be prescient.
The paper:
UV surface brightness of galaxies from the local universe to z ~ 5
Int. J. Mod. Phys. D DOI: 10.1142/S0218271814500588
Eric J. Lerner, Lawrenceville Plasma Physics, Inc., USA Renato Falomo, INAF–Osservatorio Astronomico di Padova, Italy Riccardo Scarpa, Instituto de Astrofısica de Canarias, Spain
The Tolman test for surface brightness (SB) dimming was originally proposed as a test for the expansion of the universe. The test, which is independent of the details of the assumed cosmology, is based on comparisons of the SB of identical objects at different cosmological distances. Claims have been made that the Tolman test provides compelling evidence against a static model for the universe. In this paper we reconsider this subject by adopting a static Euclidean universe (SEU) with a linear Hubble relation at all z (which is not the standard Einstein–de Sitter model), resulting in a relation between flux and luminosity that is virtually indistinguishable from the one used for ΛCDM models. Based on the analysis of the UV SB of luminous disk galaxies from HUDF and GALEX datasets, reaching from the local universe to z ~ 5, we show that the SB remains constant as expected in a static universe.
A re-analysis of previously published data used for the Tolman test at lower redshift, when treated within the same framework, confirms the results of the present analysis by extending our claim to elliptical galaxies. We conclude that available observations of galactic SB are consistent with a SEU model.
We do not claim that the consistency of the adopted model with SB data is sufficient by itself to confirm what would be a radical transformation in our understanding of the cosmos. However, we believe this result is more than sufficient reason to examine this combination of hypotheses further.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Oceans cause cmb? when the detectors were earth based, they could not and cannot distinguish the thermal energy level from supposed cmb from that absorbed/reradiated from the molecules in water – vapour…oh you’re just teasing! You can’t really think that – if you do then I think you missed the points he made – looks worse than the graph fudging in agw.
“New evidence, based on detailed measurements of the size and brightness of hundreds of galaxies, using The Tolman test for surface brightness, indicates that the Universe is not expanding after all. I’m betting that somewhere, some activist is trying to figure out an angle to blame climate change. (h/t to Roy Spencer)”
Twas a shame to start this conversation in that manner, with a misrepresentation of the claims of the paper, and a cheap shot on people from the “other team”
Anthony Said:
“How about you just suck it up and move on? I don’t take well to whining from people that should have the professionalism and ethics to use their own name when they criticize other university professionals. – Anthony”
Steven Goddard? Who is he? Why do you allow him to not just comment, but post articles criticizing other university professionals, under a fake name?
REPLY: He doesn’t post articles here any more, I showed him the door, and you’ll notice he’s not even in the blog roll. Being anonymous with a fake name “drumphil” certainly seemed fine for your purposes until recently. But I expect university professors to adhere to higher standards, especially when they are criticizing another University professor.
Tough noogies if that bothers you. – Anthony
P.S. Goddard says he’ll out himself at the Heartland conference in July
[asked and answered – not going to discuss it further – Anthony]
[snip]
[snip – see previous response]
[snip – Mr. Schaeffer (if that really is your name) asked and answered – End of story. Move along or find yourself put in the permanent troll bin]
[snip – troll bin for you then sir]
If nothing else, as I saved the entire exchange, I have a great example for anyone who says you wouldn’t use your mod powers to manipulate things to your advantage. I’ll make sure that people can see exactly what sort of questions you would hide and ban someone for asking. Seeyas later.
[Our shop, our perogative. We owe you nothing. Commenting here is a privilege, not a right. But this sort of continuous rapid fire disruptive off-topic harassment was your entire point from the beginning, you aren’t interested in answers, or truth, only denigration, as has been your entire M.O. here with your fake names and now your supposedly real one. No further comments will be published from you. Good day sir.]
Here’s a presentation https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L0q_pG8FnxQ at the Oxford University Space and Astronomy Society on the “The Evidence that the Universe is NOT Expanding”. In addition to the surface brightness work, it goes over four other sets of evidence. 1)Lithium—decreasing lithium with increasingly old stars contradict BB, but was predicted by theories that explain Li, D and He production from stars and cosmic rays in galaxies. 2)Evidence against dark matter; 3) Large scale structure too big to be formed since the BB, but were predicted with non-BB model from plasma physics and gravitation; 4) Asymmetries that contradict inflation. It also points to Mike Disney’s work which shows that BB theory has more free parameters (over 20 now) than independent predictions. In contrast, non-expanding theories have used either ONE free parameter—the Hubble constant—or two (also MOND gravitational acceleration constant). If Occam’s razor still works, it should certainly cut off Big Bang theory. We are really dealing with two approaches—one, the BB, with unlimited free parameters and “new physics”, and the other that uses laboratory-tested physics and minimizes free parameters.
This “spin” would be relative to the center of the universe and due to its own gravity. If the universe is large enough, any rotational acceleration would appear as linear acceleration.
For the first part of the (local) universe’s presumed existance, the favored cosmological model predicts that the universe decelerated after the “big bang,” then, mysteriously, the universe began to accelerate. ΛCDM cosmologists calls this ever-increasing loss of energy “dark energy,” which presumably acts to pull matter apart.
If our universe is accelerating in terms of radians, rather than in meters/sec², the universe must be quite large for us to not have noticed.
The spin would accelerate, for example, if the central gravity increased or if our orbit decayed.
Then, I propose an incremental approach using novel methodologies such as the one described in A Metal-rich Molecular Cloud Surrounds GRB 050904 at Redshift 6.3
milodonharlani says:
May 25, 2014 at 10:04 pm
I don’t know why this is so hard to grasp. BICEP2 observed gravity waves in the early universe, not what came before the BBT. This finding has implications for what might have come before the BBT, but really is only dispositive for hypotheses about the evolution of our universe soon after the BBT.
As bones said above
bones says:
May 25, 2014 at 3:37 pm
The BICEP2 result needs to be confirmed.
———————-
on the contrary BICEP2 result may be just another misinterpretation of dust in the Milky Way – more of a wishful thinking then solid science:
“However two independent analyses now suggest that those twisting patterns in the CMB polarization could just as easily be accounted for by dust in the Milky Way Galaxy”
http://www.nature.com/news/no-evidence-for-or-against-gravitational-waves-1.15322
Magic Turtle says:
May 27, 2014 at 1:27 pm
“It is arbitrary because the theorists were not compelled to do it but did it as an act of free will. However, the original Big Bang theory was proposed as an explanation for the absolute origin of the universe including time and space. It was not proposed just as an explanation for the imagined expansion of the universe as it is now. And I am not demanding anything at all of Big Bang theorists, as I have already said. I have accepted that the scope of the theory has been reduced to consideration of events after the alleged creation and that this new, restricted theory is what goes by the name of the “Big Bang Theory” these days.”
Exactly! you are bang on… /groan 🙂
A theory of a rotating Gödel universe, updated with the knowledge that this (local) universe has evolved, can be found in the paper, Tommy Gold Revisited: Why Does Not The Universe Rotate?, by George Chapline, Physics and Advanced Technologies Directorate, Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, and by Pawel O. Mazur, Department of Physics and Astronomy, University of South Carolina.
The paper also addresses event horizons, and, therefore, may require further update by Stephen Hawking’s latest theory of black holes, Information Preservation and Weather Forecasting for Black Holes.
Thomas Gold was an astrophysicist at Cornell University.
This Wikipedia and Wikimedia Commons image is from the user Chris 73 and is freely available at //commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:NautilusCutawayLogarithmicSpiral.jpg under the creative commons cc-by-sa 3.0 license.
Read some descriptions of Gödel universes online, though, not one of them exhibited the near linearity that we observe at the 10 giga parsec level.
Version 1.0 of my conception of the present rotating universe with GR, is analogous to a nautilus, except that the universe has many open “chamber tails”, similar to the spiral tails of galaxies.
Just like the spirals of galaxies, these “chamber tails” show distinct, though not complete, separation of clusters of galaxies. A cosmological event horizon would approximately be as wide as an analogous chamber, about 14 giga parsecs for our own horizon. Galaxies may spend an eternity traveling from one adjacent chamber tail to the next, similar to how galactic spirals travel like waves among the stars. Given our present rotational acceleration (rectilinear inflation), casualty anomalies would not propagate since light, much less matter, would not get very far.