On Tue, 07 Dec 2004 06:38:52 -0800, SOMEONE wrote: NASA also announced that the universe was expanding at an expanding rate. That would seem to make the universe "flat" and expanding forever.
To test this, I developed a simulator of the Big Bang. I created a computer model that simply produces an energy field and drops matter into it. The object was to see what happens. Here is what I got: ... 2. As matter approaches the edge of the field, it expands faster away from the center ... John Fields wrote: NASA'a announcement and your results seem to add credence to my hypothesis that there was no big bang but, instead, a "big bubble" which sprang into being much like a bubble in a cavitating fluid. Assuming the bubble is nonspherical and that what lies behind it is massive, the matter on our side of the wall being attracted to it will be attracted to it more strongly the closer it gets, so it will accelerate and its doppler signature will be increasingly red shifted from any viewpoint in the bubble. That would seem to explain the increase of red shift with distance and the apparent expansion of the bubble. Jones Beene wrote: [John's proposal] also glosses over the most important basic starting point - the distinction between an "open" and "closed" universe. John Fields wrote: It seems to, but I believe that by virtue of its undetectability, the distinction is irrelevant because it can never be determined. Consider: If the universe is open, and the bubble expands forever, mass will continue to accelerate toward the wall and the universe will seem to be expanding because it is. On the other hand, if the universe is closed the bubble will one day begin to collapse. However, the mass on our side of the wall will still continue to be accelerated toward the wall, we will still see the rate of red shift increase, and we will conclude that because of the increase in rate the universe is expanding, when exactly the opposite will be the case! On the third hand, if the bubble has ceased to either expand or contract, the mass on this side will still be accelerated more and more as it heads for the wall, but we will still see the increase in the shift with distance and conclude that the universe is expanding. Consequently, the only thing we will ever be able to detect is the shift, and since its rate of change will increase with distance, we will always perceive the universe as being open. Hi All, For me it is simpler to assume an infinite and eternal universe, but I have not yet come to grips with the idea that the "expansion" is accelerating, which I think is based on the unexpected dimness of certain stars. John's ideas are very exciting here. I think that the Cosmic Background Radiation has nothing to do with some big bang; but, instead, is is the result of absorption and re-radiation of energy by intersteller particles. As far as the redshift is concerned, it has been suggested that it might be caused by light losing energy during its long voyage through space, the tired-light theory. Halton Arp argues that redshift is primarily a function of age, and that tired light plays no more than a secondary role. He presents abundant observational evidence to show that low-redshift galaxies sometimes eject high-redshift quasars in opposite directions, which then evolve into progressively lower-redshift objects and finally into normal galaxies. Ejected galaxies can, in turn, eject or fission into smaller objects, in a cascading process. Within galaxies, the youngest, brightest stars also have excess redshifts. The reason all distant galaxies are redshifted is because we see them as they were when light left them, i.e., when they were much younger. About seven local galaxies are blueshifted. The orthodox view is that they must be moving towards us even faster than the universe is expanding, but in Arp's theory, they are simply older than our own galaxy as we see them. If the universe is expanding, redshifts should show a continuous range of values. Instead, however, they are quantized, i.e., they tend to be multiples of certain basic units, the main ones (expressed as velocities) being 72.4 km/s and 37.5 km/s. This phenomenon, says Arp, is so unexpected that conventional astronomy has never been able to accept it, in spite of the overwhelming observational evidence. He suggests that redshift quantization could be due to episodes of matter creation taking place at regular intervals. Does anyone have a reference to an explanation of the "acceleration of the expansion" in terms of Arp's theory? Jack Smith
