The Forum is provided for both SIS members and non-members to discuss topics relevant to the Society's work. It also provides the opportunity for non-members to ask questions about the Society’s work and/or published material.
All posts are moderated before inclusion. No attachments are permitted.


Postby John » Sun 17 May 2020 10:53 pm

In the guessing game we call cosmology, opinions and assumptions rather than proven fact rule. This means that there are no truly correct cosmologists, their qualifications mean simply they are learned in what may well prove to be fantasy physics.

This [unavoidable] difficulty has beleaguered most, if not all science until research has eventually established viable, testable procedures. The results of research currently applied to light and the assumptions made have led to totally opposed theories, the Big Bang model and the older Eternal/Infinite model, which I favour.

The most critical assumption - that the Universe is expanding - has fathered the Big Bang theory. Crucial to justifying this idea, it is proposed that Redshifted light is proof that the source of this light is receding at what maybe ever-increasing speeds. If this is correct it lends verity to the notion. If it isn't, the entire theory falls, together with the reputations of its highly paid proponents.

The best evidence in favour of 'expansion' was the comment by Edwin Hubble that he thought redshifted light was light stretched/shifted into the red spectrum by the high-speed recession of the source object. This was interpreted by a group of leading astronomers as proof that the Universe is indeed expanding. However, no final proof is possible as yet.

Later, in his 'Rhodes Memorial Lectures delivered at Oxford in the Autumn of 1936, under the general title, The Observational Approach to Cosmology', Hubble made it plain that the cause of redshift may be due to a) loss of energy; b) a signal of high-speed recession; c) a new principle of physics. He called for more research, but none was done. His analysis can only mean that, in his view, none of these possibilities stood as proven. So the claim that Hubble proved that the Universe is expanding is untrue!

I take the view that the Universe is a constant, that it has always existed. Its constitution is entirely physical, a property we describe as Matter. The activity of Matter is governed by immutable laws that are themselves the only controls possible that can direct the interweaving of the constituent particles of Matter. The individual laws of physics are a purely human method of differentiating between aspects of what is a single, fully integrated Law of Nature. This law allows the formation of differing units containing varying quantities of the various 'ingredients'. This results in an astonishing variety of purely natural outcomes.

The scientific community are very aware of this and have tried over the past 100 years to discover Natures way of integrating these physics into a single law of everything.

Nature's behaviour, being an entirely automatic process, tells us that all these 'ingredients' are - indeed must be - present, to some degree, in every possible formation. I interpret this as meaning that every construct generated by automatic acts must include some amount of each fundamental particle. Therefore the complete absence of any such 'ingredient' is impossible.

The evolution of Matter into both inorganic and organic entities must be - can only be - via the simplest, gradual accumulation of atoms/molecules that, inevitably, set a path of evolution. At some point, in an organic entity, the molecular structure develops innate and complex selection capabilities that strictly limit the range of acceptable additional material. In this way, only steps that change the lifeform in a viable manner will be taken. Should a step prove to be deleterious, the process will either cease or continue as a distortion now unlikely to survive. It is this automatic process that produces the human brain and all our intellectual abilities.

Tools and other such constructs cannot possibly be created by this simplistic methodology and require the directing minds of mankind.

Auto processes have no choice, no discretion. Even the individual levels of these 'ingredients' used by Nature are dictated by the pressure of 'conditions' at the very moment of their acquisition. Every 'condition' is in a constant state of change. Nothing is ever quite still, the atoms are in constant motion. The fact is that every part, every vestige of the Universe is in constant motion. Were it no so, stasis would prevail and the Universe would be an immobile lump.

Consequently, if this is right, it must also apply to light and disproves Einstein yet again. He claimed that Mass could not travel at the speed of light. I contend that light must have an element of Mass – and so must anything that may exceed that arbitrary speed.

The energy to drive light at such speed must surely be provided by its source and renewed in transit by converting an element of its Matter into energy. Light travels extraordinary distances and is in collision with the plasma that fills outer space. It is bent around Stella objects and it is unclear whether this local bending force depletes or renews the driving force of light.

Whichever is the case, light can't ease its way through space without diminishing its energy. In the process, Matter, in the form of light rays, is reduced by its conversion into energy, so will gradually fade and become red. Ipso facto – redshift! I hold that redshifted light has travelled further than brighter light, has a weaker initial intensity or has been weakened by collision with more obstruction.

None of these states of light indicate the true initial power of the emitting source, nor provide any definite information relating to how far away the source may be. As of now, we have been using levels of light emitted by stars/galaxies at distances known by triangulation. This is a reasonable assumption, a step along a path that may lead to a knowable truth. My personal opinion leans to the possibility that few if any, shades of light are a guide to distance. I feel that the night sky stars and galaxies are not billions of light-years away and the distances assumed are just that – assumptions. I feel my assumptions are of a standard as credible as any others!

Another feature of starlight is the famous Ollber's Paradox. I think the reason starlight does not illuminate the entire night sky is quite obvious - if light is emitted in discrete near-parallel lines. As these lines extend over time the gaps between them widen. When they have reached the limit of human sight only those rays that are still close together will present as a blob of visible light. This 'spreading' is another aspect that diminishes the visibility of light over distance. We cannot see light [in space] that is not directly in our line of sight and space is too diffuse for us to see the other light beams whizzing past Earth.

As most travellers know, the night sky illuminates cloudless desert so that you can see for miles! Nonetheless, we cannot see the beams of light even when in our atmosphere they illuminate our surroundings, This tells me that I cannot expect to see the extended starlight beams that are not colliding with objects visible in my range of vision.

The plasma of space is not dense enough to deflect/reflect light of sufficient power that can be detected, even by telescopes. Mayhap it can do neither anyway.
Posts: 48
Joined: Tue 25 Sep 2012 9:03 am

Return to SIS Discussion Forum

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 10 guests