Universe is Not Expanding After All, Controversial Study Suggests

[revelarts]

Universe is Not Expanding After All, Controversial Study Suggests
May 23, 2014 by Sci-News.com

According to a team of astrophysicists led by Eric Lerner from Lawrenceville Plasma Physics, the Universe is not expanding at all.

Quote:

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. These results are consistent with what would be expected from ordinary geometry if the Universe was not expanding, and are in contradiction with the drastic dimming of surface brightness predicted by the expanding Universe hypothesis. “Of course, you can hypothesize that galaxies were much smaller, and thus had hundreds of times greater intrinsic surface brightness in the past, and that, just by coincidence, the Big Bang dimming exactly cancels that greater brightness at all distances to produce the illusion of a constant brightness, but that would be a very big coincidence,” Mr Lerner said. That was not the only startling result of their research. In order to apply the surface brightness test, first proposed in 1930 by physicist Richard C. Tolman, the team had to determine the actual luminosity of the galaxies, so as to match near and far galaxies. To do that, the astrophysicists had to link the distance to the galaxies with their redshift. They hypothesized that the distance is proportional to the redshift at all distances, as is well verified to be the case in the nearby Universe. They checked this relation between redshift and distance with the data on supernova brightness that has been used to measure the hypothesized accelerated expansion of the Universe. “It is amazing that the predictions of this simple formula are as good as the predictions of the expanding Universe theory, which include complex corrections for hypothetical dark matter and dark energy,” said study co-author Dr Renato Falomo of the Osservatorio Astronomico di Padova, Italy. Dr Riccardo Scarpa from the Instituto de Astrofısica de Canarias, Spain, who is a co-author of the study, added: “again you could take this to be merely coincidental, but it would be a second big coincidence.” Therefore if the Universe is not expanding, the redshift of light with increasing distance must be caused by some other phenomena – something that happens to the light itself as it travels through space. “We are not speculating now as to what could cause the redshift of light,” Mr Lerner said. ”However, such a redshift, which is not associated with expansion, could be observed with suitable spacecraft within our own Solar System in the future.” ______ Eric J. Lerner et al. UV surface brightness of galaxies from the local Universe to z ~ 5. Int. J. Mod. Phys. D, published online May 02, 2014; doi: 10.1142/S0218271814500588 Link to article: Universe is Not Expanding After All, Controversial Study Suggests | Astronomy | Sci-News.com and the paper (you gotta pay $30 to read the whole thing): http://dx.doi.org/10.1142/S0218271814500588

"...a radical transformation in our understanding of the cosmos..."

OK Wow!
So it's Nobel prize time or ignored and smear the scientist time.

More observational evidence against the big bang.
this is kinda breath taking.

from the article:
"Contrary to the prediction of the Big Bang theory, they found that the surface brightnesses of the near and far galaxies are identical.

These results are consistent with what would be expected from ordinary geometry if the Universe was not expanding, and are in contradiction with the drastic dimming of surface brightness predicted by the expanding Universe hypothesis."

This is added to other observations in conflict with Big Bang predictions on red shifts (stars at same known distance with different red shifts), lithium and helium abundances, galaxy distribution and old galaxies appearance of age among other topics, which have been ignored or ridiculed, since they don't support the dogma of the big bang.

Cosmology is still the weirdest slipperiest area of science. Collecting the data is great, but explaining it in a uniformed clear way is something no one seems to HONESTLY do that well.

[Noir]

Its no secret that the Math behind the expanding universe models is complex to say the least, it was not the answer scientists wanted, but it was the one the data showed, so we have gone with it...maybe we are to find the answer was not as unexpected as first appeared, but we shall have to wait and see.

As for the actual article

"It is amazing that the predictions of this simple formula are as good as the predictions of the expanding Universe theory, which include complex corrections for hypothetical dark matter and dark energy...the redshift of light with increasing distance must be caused by some other phenomena – something that happens to the light itself as it travels through space.
We are not speculating now as to what could cause the redshift of light"

Ignoring for a moment the unintended humour that results from combining these two parts of the article...this raises many more questions than it answers. Dark Matter, not a thing? And yet we can obverse its effects on the Universe, how will this new theory explain gravitational lensing, orbiting Galaxies etc? Not to mention this new theory needed for changing light.

Much much much more information and explanation needed to challenge the weight of evidence showing expansion.

[darin]

The universe is a powerful creation. I think you hit on what will happen; Just about ANYTHING contrary to the popular narrative is shat-upon.

[revelarts]

Noir,
i'm not sure that they are proposing a full blown new theory. just specifically pointing out that the expansion is not not supported which cripples and kills many of the big bang theories assertions.

it seems there are several puzzle pieces in of data but we don't have a full picture to go by.
but those that believe the big bang picture is correct have to deal with several new piece that show that picture to be wrong.

the question is do scientist have the flexibility to maneuver without a solid or consensus "theory" (dogma) and live in the questions or with competing hypothesis?

However there is a group of cosmologist that have definite alternative theory, and they reject the big bang outright as well.
They believe that the universe wide electromagnetic fields/currents are the main cause of all of the effects seen. And seem to believe the universe is eternal.
They cannot explain nearly everything either, but it seems to me they resort to less reliance on esoteric mathematics. And fewer ad hoc assumptions that go beyond observation and the known boundaries of physics.

their anti-big bang statement was here
https://web.archive.org/web/20120209...statement.org/

their theoretical "electric universe model" promotion site is here.
http://www.thunderbolts.info/wp/

Of course creationist believe that the universe was created. however scientifically they cannot answer all of the cosmological questions either. But there's nothing scientifically that contradicts the outline of scripture that does not have a (or many) viable alternative explanations which do hold up scientifically.

[revelarts]

1st 15 minutes of this video talks about red shift and the contradictory observation, and a scientist fired for writing about it.

<iframe width="640" height="360" src="//www.youtube.com/embed/KmotCQCxQEI?feature=player_detailpage" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

[Noir]

1st 15 minutes of this video talks about red shift and the contradictory observation, and a scientist fired for writing about it.

So we're also changing our theory on Quasars, Blazars, and Radio Galaxies?
Again i'm seeing more dismissing of current theory, with no solid description of an alternative.

[revelarts]

So we're also changing our theory on Quasars, Blazars, and Radio Galaxies?
Again i'm seeing more dismissing of current theory, with no solid description of an alternative.

well again the observations challenge the theories.
concerning alternative theory see the link above to the thunderbolts project.
you'll find more than enough anti bits on them as well.
no theory has a lock on the all the observations.

[Noir]

well again the observations challenge the theories. concerning alternative theory see the link above to the thunderbolts project. you'll find more than enough anti bits on them as well. no theory has a lock on the all the observations.

Yeah i've spent (probably too long) reading up on these Thunderbolt Project people, who are proponents of the 'Electric Universe Theory'

Their beliefs include but are not limited too

Stars do not shine because of internal nuclear fusion caused by gravitational collapse. Rather, they are anodes for galactic discharge currents.
Impact craters on Venus, Mars and the Moon are not caused by impacts, but by electrical discharges.[3] The same applies to the Valles Marineris (a massive canyon on Mars) and the Grand Canyon on Earth.[4]

...call me a conformist, but i'm not buying it.

[revelarts]

Yeah i've spent (probably too long) reading up on these Thunderbolt Project people, who are proponents of the 'Electric Universe Theory'

Their beliefs include but are not limited too


...call me a conformist, but i'm not buying it.

conformist



I'm not a conformist to any theory of stars at this point.
but i think they make some good points based on the observations.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature...&v=_Z26taV9SWc


concerning other conventional cosmological theories in flux or dead because observations have destroyed them.

Caltech astronomer Mike Brown told NPR:
“Before we ever discovered any [planets outside the solar system] we thought we understood the formation of planetary systems pretty deeply… It was a really beautiful theory. And, clearly, thoroughly wrong."

Our Very Normal Solar System Isn't Normal Anymore : Krulwich Wonders... : NPR
Quote:

As the discoveries roll in, Mike is getting more and more uncomfortable. .. Meantime, he is trying to get used to the idea that we live on an unusual planet in an unusual solar system. That's two "unusuals." One more than he's used to. To live doubly-unusual, is to be luckier — and perhaps rarer — than we knew. "It really is something that I find deeply weird," he writes. "What does it all mean? I don't know. I am certain that this single-minded emphasis on planets-in-habitable-zones is making people forget that there is still a lot of weird stuff happening out there and that we still don't even understand the basics of how we ourselves got here."

the observations are SUPPOSE to kill the theories right?
I've been told that's what science is all about.
I'm NOT saying this is you Noir but it seems to me
when we say some theories are like dogma people get upset. they reply "no no, it's open to change and revision.."
when we say a specific theory is basically proven crap they get upset. they say "no no you just don't understand it, it's true, true as true can be..."

the new observations in cosmology do not seem to make for rock solid theories.
there's a lot of room for alternatives if the field was truly open.


I'll give you another Quick one.
your probably familiar with it.
the ORT CLOUD.
Here's my understanding . It's this THEORETICAL cloud of asteroid like ice and rocks surrounding the outside of the solar system
Which Occasionally tosses off stones/ice to create the comets we see today.
the REASON this theory was proposed was because the comets that we see could not have been traveling around our sun since the imagined beginning of our solar system. some 4.6 billion years ago.
the comets would all be LONG gone in just thousands of years. UNLESS ...here comes the theory to the rescue... there's some UNSEEN Cloud of comets ready to kick off a comet or 3 every so often.

this is TOTALLY unproven, Unobserved and has other technical issues (like why is it kicking out comets, how big would this thing have to be to make this work), but it's the conventional wisdom at this point.
God forbid the universe be young. of course Nothing lines up with that ... except comets and .. well that's another story.

[Noir]

I was listening to an astronomy podcast only the other day about the Oort cloud, and what did the professor state from the outset? That the cloud is unobserved and effectively theoretical, with may questions over its shapes, size, and what it could be affecting in terms of observation. Not exactly dogmatic induction y'know.

We'll probably never have definitive proof that the Oort cloud is there, as it would take centuries of testing and investment to confirm.

[revelarts]

I was listening to an astronomy podcast only the other day about the Oort cloud, and what did the professor state from the outset? That the cloud is unobserved and effectively theoretical, with may questions over its shapes, size, and what it could be affecting in terms of observation. Not exactly dogmatic induction y'know.

We'll probably never have definitive proof that the Oort cloud is there, as it would take centuries of testing and investment to confirm.

Not exactly dogmatic, that's very true,
not even close to passion some other theories endear.
But try maintaining that there is no Oort cloud.

[Noir]

Not exactly dogmatic, that's very true, not even close to passion some other theories endear. But try maintaining that there is no Oort cloud.

Maintaining that there is no Oort cloud is not the issue. The replacement theory to explain the comets currently being described as held in the Oort cloud, is.

[revelarts]

Maintaining that there is no Oort cloud is not the issue. The replacement theory to explain the comets currently being described as held in the Oort cloud, is.

see what i mean.

[Noir]

see what i mean.

'I don't believe in your theory but i don't have an alternative' is a poor argument.

[revelarts]

'I don't believe in your theory but i don't have an alternative' is a poor argument.

that's only the way you view it.
see you and others seem to think that you must cover ALL the bases if you have a CORE theory that you believe in strongly.
and add on other ancillary theories which may have far less merit than the core theory but align with it.

It becomes part of the whole.
so an attack on it is an attack on the whole.

To say that there is no good evidence for an Oort cloud, therefore I don't believe there is one.
is NOT strictly an attack on "the whole theory of the big bang."
It is ,Strictly speaking, an attack ONLY on the Oort cloud theory and what it attempts to explain.
Then someone could go on to say that the MOST likely explanation is that the solar system is not 4.6 million years old. THAT Idea aligns better with the OBSERVATIONS of comets.

But the reaction is to that comment brings into question the core theory therefore isn't honestly entertained.
EVEN THOUGH that's what the Data seems to show.

the other alternative is to just say WE DON'T KNOW.
but some how that's a horror for the scientific community as well.
For some reason the scientific community likes AT LEAST to have some guess on why something happens.
BUT will Only allow guesses that go along with their main Theories.

so do you think it make sense to say.
'Based on the evidence , it seems the Oort cloud is bogus, but I don't know how or why there are comets.'
Would that be a scientifically honest thing to say Noir?

or is it more honest to ASSUME 1 very weak idea is true,
and reject out of hand any alternatives or even holding a position of mystery?

Concerning the age of the solar system and the earth for that matter there aare several different data points to choose from to try to determine age. Depending on which ones you choose and what assumptions you make you do end up in very different places.
but you'd 1st have to be open to the idea of looking at data that doesn't conform to the standard models. which the dogma of science culture will not allow folks to do.