Exploring the Mysteries of the Center of the Universe

[subtillioN]

Originally posted by Hydr0matic
Ok, how about this... http://www.npl.washington.edu/AV/altvw68.html. Can the Sorce model explain this ?

BTW the article shows many historical inaccuracies, such as:

"The remarkable expansion of the universe was discovered in 1929 by CalTech astronomer Edwin Hubble, who showed that distant galaxies are systematically moving away from us and from each other."

Hubble simply found that there was a relationship between distance and red-shift. He did not believe that this meant that the galaxies were actually moving away from us. That assumption is pure speculation and interpretation which the "Fingers of God" and the "Cosmic Stretch marks" show is inaccurate.

 

[meteor]

and there is no "nothing" before that moment
what is before is infinite but different and some kind of
radical change happens but the evolution of it is governed by equations and does not involve
divergences (divergent curvature was why the 1916 GR model broke at time zero). Here the parameters stay under control. It is not
conclusive but it is promising.

OK, this sounds interesting. So, essentially you're saying that before Big-Bang existed something that we can call "pre-space", that I must suppose that was not expanding. Then suddenly, at time zero, Big Bang and expansion. What kind of mechanism can afford this, some phase transition? I don't know.

 

[Hydr0matic]

Originally posted by subtillioN
I have never heard of this before. Can you give me a bit more information with perhaps some images of the cosmic "stretch-marks"?

BTW it sounds like the "Fingers of God" phenomenon discussed earlier in this thread (or was it another one?) which shows the Velocity-to-distance mapping to be incorrect. I would bet that it is another artifact of the faulty doppler interpretation of red-shift.

It's not like the "Fingers of God" no.. Here is another paper which includes graphic elements.

http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/magazines/tj/docs/TJv16n2_CENTRE.pdf

Although this is not a reliable source, and the author interprets the quantization as evidence that Earth is the center of the universe, it will perhaps enlighten you a bit more about the quantization. Sorry I couldn't find anything else. Please disregard the author's interpretations

 

[subtillioN]

Originally posted by Hydr0matic
It's not like the "Fingers of God" no.. Here is another paper which includes graphic elements.

http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/magazines/tj/docs/TJv16n2_CENTRE.pdf

Although this is not a reliable source, and the author interprets the quantization as evidence that Earth is the center of the universe, it will perhaps enlighten you a bit more about the quantization. Sorry I couldn't find anything else. Please disregard the author's interpretations

Just a quick note before reading this article, energy of all forms is quantized at many levels. I see no particular reason why the mechanism of redshift wouldn't be quantized as well.

I will give this a thorough reading soon and come back with my feedback. It sounds fascinating, thanks.

 

[subtillioN]

Originally posted by Hydr0matic
It's not like the "Fingers of God" no.. Here is another paper which includes graphic elements.

http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/magazines/tj/docs/TJv16n2_CENTRE.pdf

Although this is not a reliable source, and the author interprets the quantization as evidence that Earth is the center of the universe, it will perhaps enlighten you a bit more about the quantization. Sorry I couldn't find anything else. Please disregard the author's interpretations

The images suggest to me that it could very easily be a consequence of the inhomogeneity of the intersteller medium which causes the red-shift.

See this link I already provided as a possible mechanism for the red-shift:
http://www.Newtonphysics.on.ca/hydrogen/index.html

Meanwhile, back to reading the article.

 

[subtillioN]

Originally posted by Hydr0matic
It's not like the "Fingers of God" no.. Here is another paper which includes graphic elements.

http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/magazines/tj/docs/TJv16n2_CENTRE.pdf

Although this is not a reliable source, and the author interprets the quantization as evidence that Earth is the center of the universe, it will perhaps enlighten you a bit more about the quantization. Sorry I couldn't find anything else. Please disregard the author's interpretations

Ok here is my very simple answer.

Look closely with a critical eye. The data graphs do not match the illustrations of the concentric shells nor do they match the simulations. This leads me to assume that it is a simple inhomogeneity of the intersteller medium which causes the inhomogeneity (bunching) of the red-shifts.

"The heart of the big bang is atheism"

Is that the kind of thing you were warning me about?

[[[ seems inverted to me! ]]]

 

[Hydr0matic]

Originally posted by subtillioN
Ok here is my very simple answer.

Look closely with a critical eye. The data graphs do not match the illustrations of the concentric shells nor do they match the simulations. This leads me to assume that it is a simple inhomogeneity of the intersteller medium which causes the inhomogeneity (bunching) of the red-shifts.

So you're saying that it's the very specific distribution of the H₂ that's causing the quantization ? Just so I'm clear on what your saying...

Originally posted by subtillioN
"The heart of the big bang is atheism"

Is that the kind of thing you were warning me about?

[[[ seems inverted to me! ]]]

Among other things ..

Let's revisit the Hubble Law... You say that the "velocity to distance mapping is proven to give incorrect results", and yet you agree there's actually a redshift-distance relation (which you explain with intergalactic H₂? Have I understood you correct?). But not only is intergalactic gas responsible for redshifts, there's also an inherent redshift signifying an objects age, correct ? Not to mention the doppler effect.

So how, in Sorce theory, does one know if an object is far away, young or fast moving, judging by it's redshift ?

 

[subtillioN]

Originally posted by Hydr0matic
So you're saying that it's the very specific distribution of the H₂ that's causing the quantization ? Just so I'm clear on what your saying...

Yes that is correct.

Let's revisit the Hubble Law... You say that the "velocity to distance mapping is proven to give incorrect results", and yet you agree there's actually a redshift-distance relation (which you explain with intergalactic H₂? Have I understood you correct?).

Yes the red-shift to distance relationship is real but it is not a linear absolute projection. It is far from an exact relation.

But not only is intergalactic gas responsible for redshifts, there's also an inherent redshift signifying an objects age, correct?

There is some corelation with age it seems.

Not to mention the doppler effect.

Right, there is also a doppler effect from objects in motion.

So how, in Sorce theory, does one know if an object is far away, young or fast moving, judging by it's redshift ?

Sorce Theory is no different in respect to this phenomenon. It uses all the known techniques for determining distance. They simply must be used in conjunction with full awareness of the limitations of each.

Sorce Theory is a Unification Theory. It explains the nature of quantum scale phenomena and all the forces and unifies and explains these recurring matter/energy patterns appearing on many scales in the Universe.

 

[Hydr0matic]

Originally posted by subtillioN
Yes that is correct.

Ok. Wouldn't the H₂ distribution have to be pretty non-random to give that kind of redshift distribution ? What do you suppose could have caused this non-random distribution ?

 

[subtillioN]

Originally posted by Hydr0matic
Ok. Wouldn't the H₂ distribution have to be pretty non-random to give that kind of redshift distribution ? What do you suppose could have caused this non-random distribution ?

It is well known that the H₂ distribution is quite anisotropic. There have been observations of vast hydrogen clouds surrounding galaxies and existing in intergalactic space.

 

[chroot]

Originally posted by Arc_Central
...there is one thing that ticks me off...that character by the name of Chroot. I've seen maybe a dozen of his post so far, and have yet to see anything off substance.

Hey, I go on vacation for a couple of days, and miss some good ol' chroot bashing! Well, I just have to retort.

First, you admit having only seen [maybe] a dozen of my posts. I've posted, thus far, 460 times. I've posted a dozen times in this thread alone, in response to this entertaining wacko subtillioN. You've seen [maybe] 2.5% of my posts on this site.

For your own edification, I suggest you learn to use the 'search' feature here on physicsforums before making a fool of yourself. Since your substance-o-meter seems to be broken, here are some of my recent posts that I personally feel are bursting at the seams with 'substance.'

https://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?s=&postid=44233#post44233
https://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?s=&postid=42236#post42236
https://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?s=&postid=41293#post41293
https://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?s=&postid=40527#post40527
https://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?s=&postid=40490#post40490
https://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?s=&postid=39929#post39929

and so on, and so on. Mmmmmmm, substance.

Whip it out! Put up or shut up! Enough of this perverted display.

Consider it whipped out.

I can only say either bring it up to the plate and show us a swinging #@%&

Wow, you're really fond of the penis references, aren't you? You might be interested to know that, in addition to my physical prowess, my cock is, in fact, also bigger than yours.

- Warren

 

[Phobos]

Consider this cut off.