Non Dark Hyperbolic Universe
My comment to a post about two black holes on a collision course:
I pointed out in a July 18 post, a study by BeppoSax concluded quasars had a source of synchrotron radiation, not thermal radiation so the conclusion implies no black hole. I expect that will take a long time to sink in.
My comment got this reply, to a different subject:
Hi David Michalets...I get these papers and try to learn what they are saying....All I can see here is they are moving the goal posts yet again, changing the laws of gravity is not the answer ?......and not a word on electricity or plasma as usual. Just when you think they are coming out of the rabbit hole.....Please have a quick scan when you can....thx....
the link provided
my comment to his reply:
So much can be said but here is an initial attempt.
The immediate red flag for this hyperbolic universe:
Galaxies furthest away from the center are moving fastest until they reached large distance from the center the space-time turns flat and they possessed hyperbolic trajectory.
This hyperbolic cosmology, like the defective one we have now, assumes the Earth is right at the 'center of the universe' but I remain unconvinced of that basic assumption.
The cause of that mistake:
The red shift of the neutral hydrogen absorption line increases in proportion to the approximate distance. This was known decades ago. This is due to the diffuse hydrogen atoms in the intergalactic medium. This proportion gets skewed by hydrogen clouds like those surrounding the Magellanic Clouds which have large red shifts though both are supposedly gravitationally bound to the Milky Way.
Better telescopes and longer exposures allow more distant galaxies to be seen and a spectrum taken. The consistent observation is these more distant galaxies, distant by dimming, have ever increasing red shifts. These galaxies are not moving faster; we just make the mistake to treat the red shift due to distance as also a velocity. That basic mistake leads to expanding universe and dark energy, simply because this velocity fabricated from a mistake has no possible cause).
The paper also mentions dark matter is avoided by this theory. However I posted on August 13 astronomers expect hydrogen atoms in a spiral galaxy move like a planet in our solar system, but in a circular not elliptical orbit. That mistake leads to dark matter, simply because they do not move like that (by observation) so dark matter must excuse the mistake.
This hyperbolic theory gets worse:
<a formula> that can explain the galaxy flat rotation curve problem, a is the negative semi-major axis of orbit's hyperbola.
Apparently the galaxy rotation problem is solved with a hyperbola. I had posted about that rotation on August 13.
the Supernova Cosmology Project (Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory) and the High-Z Supernova Search (international) were looking for distant Type Ia supernovae in order to measure the expansion rate of the Universe with time. They expected that the expansion would be slowing, which would be indicated by the supernovae being brighter than their redshifts would indicate. Instead, they found the supernovae to be fainter than expected from a uniformly expanding universe. Hence, the expansion of the Universe was accelerating!
The misuse of an absorption line redshift has consequences.
In the context of dark energy, the cosmological constant is a reservoir which stores
energy. Its energy scales as the Universe expands.
This solution so conveniently ignores thermodynamics. Apparently infinite scalable dark energy awaits to 'fill' the hole in the expanding fabric.
Since it was mentioned, here is a comment on the supernova project. Maybe this should be a separate post some day.
From the Supernova Cosmology Project
remove the dashes to get the 25 page doc (avoiding a large attachment)
One must read this document thoroughly, probably more than once to follow.
the expected supernova light curve is compared to the observed curve and a stretch factor will align them. This stretch factor assumes a relativistic time dilation, in this expanding universe spacetime.
The basic idea is that you want to find an object of known
brightness, a “standard candle," and then plot it on the astronomer’s Hubble
diagram (Fig. 1), which is a plot of brightness (magnitude) against redshift. We
should interpret this graph as follows: for an object of known brightness, the
fainter the object the farther away it is and the further back in time you are
looking, so you can treat the y-axis as the time axis. The x-axis, the redshift, is a
very direct measurement of the relative expansion of the universe, because as the
universe expands the wavelengths of the photons travelling to us stretch exactly
proportionately—and that is the redshift. Thus the Hubble diagram is showing
you the “stretching" of the universe as a function of time. As you look farther
and farther away, and further back in time, you can find the deviations in the
expansion rate that are caused by the cosmological parameters.
Figure 1: The Hubble plot: A history of the “size" of the Universe.
Figure 1 in my opinion is a very interesting conclusion. In the past the luminosity of the supernova was used to calculate the distance for that dimming. That is why it is called a 'standard candle' for that.
Figure 1 indicates the luminosity reduction (y-axis) is directly proportional to this calculated red shift to be a 'red shift' (x-axis ) and this red shift allows its use for a stretch factor as in 'time dilation' later.
Figure 6 is a comparison of 2 spectra.
I need a second opinion on this, if I am wrong. This wavelength distribtion looks like thermal radiation with the peak indicating a temperature so curve B is hotter than curve R, with the B peak at a shorter wavelength.
Instead the difference in spectra is calculated as a red shift.
The supernova has no red shift in an absorption line or emission line for this analysis. Instead the red shift is observed in comparing the range of wavelengths for thermal radiation.
I am not a physicist but this approach seems innovative. Second opinion available?
If you take out that (1+z) time dilation, and also remove the small variations in the stretch factor, the low redshift and high redshift composite light curves now lay right on top of each other. This shows that the supernovae are very similar across redshifts and that the K-correction does an excellent job in bringing them in line with each other.
When the luminosity curves do not match, this stretch factor from the expanding universe reconciles the difference - and the supernova confirms the expanding universe.
The non-dark universe theory repeats a number of mistakes in our current cosmology.
After this exchange, I posted the next day about this supernova project.
Hit back to go to previous page in history.
Here is the list of topics in this Cosmology Topic Group .
Ctrl + for zoom in; Ctrl - for zoom out ; Ctrl 0 for no zoom;
triple-tap for zoom to fit; pinch for zoom change; pinched for no zoom