Anisotrophic Spiral Universe

Jana

I just found out John C. Mather and George F. Smoot got a Nobel "for their discovery of the blackbody form and anisotropy of the cosmic microwave background radiation"

I was really excited in the 90's over the Ralston and Nodland find, and also dismayed that their find was dismissed. I felt the chiral nature of the universe's grain to be an obvious thing, and that somehow it might be one factor that might break down the silly Big Bang theory. Now I find two other jokers got the Nobel for Anisotropy and I feel there is no justice. Nodland and Ralston found Anisotropy (the property of being directional) to the background radiation 10 years ago and probably had their careers destroyed for publishing their findings.

Now these two other guys have got a Noble prize this year, Jana is pissed!!
http://nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/physics/laureates/2006/
http://www.usatoday.com/tech/science/2006-10-03-physics-nobel-prize_x.htm

Physical Review Letter 21 April 1997 Vol 78 #16
Borge Nodland & John Ralston
"Polarized electromagnetic radiation propagating across the Universe has it plane of polarization rotated by the Faraday effect. We report findings of an additional rotation, remaining after Faraday rotation is extracted, which may represent evidence for cosmological anisotropy on a vast scale."

From a letter from Borge Nodland to me 1 sept 1997:
Thanks for you letter and enclosed article.
Although some would prefer our universe to be more "perfect," I am quite convinced the electromagnetic asymmetry we found in the data is real.
www.cc.rochester.edu/college/rtc/Borge/aniso.html

From my letter to Eric Lerner: "Despite the general disagreement with Nodland’s and Ralston’s findings in the scientific community I think that they are on the right track, while the rest have been crippled by their illogic of the big bang theory. Everything else in the universe exhibits chirality and polarity so why not the universe itself. This would explain the asymmetry of neutrinos and may also explain the chirality of life. In the other pole of the universe matter would be of the opposite chiral nature. Here life consists of left handed proteins and right handed sugars, but in the opposite Cosmic-hemisphere life would exhibit right handed proteins and left handed sugars. If this effect is true this knowledge would be valuable for those investigating the origins of life itself."

Jana

The idea of chirality on such a universal scale is literally mind blowing, and acts to help break loose this earth-centric myopia we still embody through our cosmology. I had a significant breakthru...

THE MIRAGE MODEL OF THE UNIVERSE, Jana, March 2002

Spacetime “appears” to be expanding because what we see in the universe is “radiant” bodies, whose “light” of which we perceive. That light is more red shifted towards the perimeter of the observable universe because of the curvature of spacetime. The further a light source is from us the greater the degree of curvature that the light passes and consequently the greater the red shift...giving the “appearance” of acceleration away from us.
The spacetime curvature reaches its zenith at the event horizon so that light beyond the event horizon cannot reach us, for it is beyond the horizon of our bubble of spacetime. Light is not only shifted red by the curvature of spacetime, it doesn’t travel in a linear curve, but takes a spiral path*. Spacetime and therefore the universe itself is spiral, light is spiral and travels in a spiral path. Things only “appear” to be receding away from us because their radiant light is warped into a red shift by the curvature of spacetime…
However all these effects are simply a mirage. If we could simultaneously see from every vantage point in the universe in one instant, we would see there is no curvature, no redshift, no receding universe. These effects are simply the play of light in spacetime from the myopia of our singular point of view.
We are effectively using our mathetmatics and science to “prove” what is merely a play of light and perspective; talk about flat earth syndrome. If we can see the mirage inherent in our singular point of view first, then our entire cosmology will change along with our science.

Event horizon.
"Spacetime" must be condenced around a black hole to where light does not escape. I have seen this in a vision, with the grid of spacetime becoming ever smaller around the black hole, my eye of spirit totally fixated at the edge between Spacetime grid and black hole. The event horizon at the edge of our known universe is basically the ultimate crux of the curvature of spacetime. You could call it speed of expansion past lightspeed or simply the curvature of "Spacetime" goes off the screen so to speak.

Jana

I don't place much need in traditional and mythic cosmology either, and connecting them up with the fallacious ideas of modern science gets us into the poopoo even deeper.

Steven set me straight...
Jana,
Mather and Smoot have been at work on the anisotropic nature of background radiation for about 30 years. They were two of the three principle designers of the Cosmic Background Radiation (COBE) Satellite that was launched in '89. The findings taken from data sent back from the satellite were announced in '92. This is essentially the work that earned them the Nobel Prize. The particular instrument on COBE that Smoot designed mapped distant galaxies for four years and was responsible for the confirmation of the anisotropic nature of background radiation; a finding that did more to confirm the Big Bang theory than anything else up to that time. Ralston, Nodland and a third researcher named Jain, published two papers on the "corkscrew" effect in '97. I would imagine their work was based in no small part on the data from the COBE satellite. From the looks of things in their bio's and publication lists they still have thriving careers.
SN

Gary Kent

Anisotropy implies asymmetry. Anisotropic crystal structures have much less symmetry than isotropic ones. But, amorphous transparent substances are isotropic too. But, an anisotropic universe implies a structure that is not amorphous because the anisotropy must arise from some degree of organization. That organization is not sperical since a spherical structure would give rise to isotropic behavior toward radiation.

Einstein wrote an addendum to his little book on Relativity that was entitled Relativity and the Asymmetric Field. He did not consider a symmetric universe to be the only possibility. Asymmetry in spacetime is an old idea, in other words.

If the universe is truly asymmetric, measurements of the recession velocities of very distant objects like the type 1a supernovae used to infer an accelerating expansion of the universe and a nonconstant Hubble Parameter should differ based on the direction in which the measurements are made. The effect might be small, so exceedingly distant supernovae would have to be investigated.

So far, I do not think that a large enough population of really distant type 1a supernovae have been discovered yet, but the Hubble Space Telescope is presently being employed and some results are already being published. I doubt that anisotropy is among the effects for which workers are looking, however.

*****

I think that part of what you are saying is that since spacetime is curved, time itself must be curved and light traveling in this medium shows acceleration at larger and larger distances precisely because time itself is curved. This very curvature implies acceleration. This may well be the basis of the difference between a relativistic redshift and a Doppler redshift. I am not sure. I will have to get back to you on this.

But, if this is so, then time curvature is already automatically taken into account when relativistic redshifts are used to determine distances to extremely distant luminous objects. Having already been "discounted", your objection to the logic of the Big Bang may be a red herring.

Smile

Gary Kent

Gary Kent

.......................................................Are We Dead Meat?

Cynicism is deadly. It needs to be put down. There is no place for it in science. If one truly believes in the scientific method and if she really undrstands what it really means to her in her everyday life, that is, if it ever actually does mean anything to her in her everyday life, then she must give the same small credit to others that she gives to herself.

I know that there are many critics of the Nobel Prize committee. But, I give them credit for knowing more than I do. If they are aware of one single fact that I am not, their judgement may not be the same as mine.

Dissing the Nobel Prize committee because awards were not handed out as we wish is not worth getting pissed about anyway!

Jana seems to allow that there is some validity to the concept of Relativity because he/she/it bases his/her/its rant against the Big Bang hypothesis on ideas like event horizons, black holes and curved space. Then he/she/it should know that RELATIVISTIC redshifts are used to deduce the probable origin of the universe as beginning about 13.7 billion years ago as the appearance of a quantum virtual particle in a most probable exceedingly high energy state.

The inflationary universe scenario makes the BB far more plausible than it ever was, solves all the most vexing theoretical problems that the original BB hypothesis possessed and will likely earn Alan Guth a Nobel eventually.

RELATIVISTIC redshifts are mathematically distinct from Doppler redshifts. Using relativistic redshifts, investigators already have taken into account the very same issue that Jana raises. Spatial curvature does indeed help induce the relativistic redshifts that are observed. So, Jana is not telling us anything new. It has all been known since about 1920 or so when general relativity was beginning to have an impact on astrophysics.

Contrary to Jana's intent, his/her/its commentary unwittingly ratifies the BB hypothesis.

Still, there are a few problems with it. The main problem is the fact that not only are redshifts used to extrapolate Hubble's Law back in time to "origins". Distances, and therefore times, are also determined by relative light intensity measurements.

Using type 1a supernovae within a particular mass range, which can be determined from the shape - namely the width - of the intensity signal, their intrinsic brightness follows a time series intensity curve that reaches a maximum. If that maximum can be measured, the relative brightness, as it appears in a telescope, can be used to determine the distance. There are other "standard candles" that are used the same way to measure intergalactic distances.

The big problem facing the BB hypothesis today is that the intensity differences result in somewhat different distances than redshift distances for extreme supernovae in the earliest galaxies yet detected (about nine billion light years away).

Relativistic redshift distances seem to be smaller than luminosity distances. If one plots a curve of distance versus time and she chooses as the origin the one defined by luminosity distances, the curve defined by redshifts falls short.

There must be one other difference. The luminosity curve is not a straight line. It seems to show that the putative expansion of the universe has been accelerating in recent epochs.

The problem is to explain how this could be happening. I believe that the explanation that has been proposed is a cockeyed invocation of a supernatural "dark energy" that pervades space and not only is assumed to behave like the initial quantum impetus to the BB, it is believed to solve the mass deficit problem.

Nobody knows what dark energy is and nobody has proposed a plausible test. Indeed, like superstring theory, there seems literally to be no way to test it. It appears to be "unfalsifiable". This should make it a nonstarter as far as the scientific method is concerned. We may as well spend hundreds of millions of dollars per year trying to prove or disprove the existence of God.

I renounce cynicism. Scientists are good people with heart. They adore Truth. Truth is God, even for those who are atheists. To a good scientist, there is nothing closer to a mortal sin than to commit fraud by publishing a paper that he knows is a lie.

The extreme proposal of dark energy just goes to show exactly how desperate some scientists are to solve what appears to them to be an unsolvable dilemma.

I think that the only recourse is to go back and change whatever assumptions that need to be changed to bring the redshift distances into line with the luminosity distances. No problems could possibly arise from this tactic that are worse than the present untenable situation!

One thing I do suspect is a fault of many scientists is that they may be quite lazy. Or else they have too many classes to teach, too many distracting students to concern them, too many faculty meetings, advisory committees and publishing deadlines. But this is not their fault.

Their heads are on straight! Give them a tasty morsel and they will gobble it up. But they are aficionados of French cooking. To be eaten at all, presentation is everything. It hardly matters what it tastes like!

To mix metaphors, my degree is not in physics. It is in chemistry. I do not have a license from the Pope to say mass in the astrophysicist's sanctuary. Furthermore, I do not speak Latin. My mastery of the lingo and the buzzwords is poor. And I do not know the right people to get published. No bishop of the religion of physics (collaborator) will issue to me a nihil obstate and the Popes of science (journal editors) will not stamp my paper with the imprimatur.

So, I have recourse only to the Internet and these blogs.

I have no illusions. It is highly unlikely that I can influence just the right person who might be motivated to do something about all this. I doubt that I am the right person, unless I can indeed find a collaborator. It may be dangerous to collaborate with whom some scientists may regard as the enemy, however. So, I think it is not likely that I will ever find such a person.

I'm a loser. But, I still keep on tryin'!

Rolling Eyes

Gary K

Please edit these as standard URLs.

3w. luckyboyproductions. org possibly available as early as Tuesday, 3ap07

hometown. aol. com/ nuchristianrabbi /

neochristianity. blogspot. com/

resurrection. org/

neocosmology. blogspot. com/

3w astronomy. com/ ASY/CS/ forums/ 334401/ ShowPost. aspx

3w astronomytoday. com/ forum/ viewtopic. php?t=727&sid=783de8aff44cbeb920e251a5c9a4174b

garykent. wordpress. com/

Anisotrophic Spiral Universe

Forum Options

Register