A universe model compatible with VSLT
The research of Halton Arp and Eric Lerner supports a stationary universe, and the intrinsic nature of redshift, i.e. not linked to its presumed expansion (Doppler effect).
I also believe that the universe is stationary. Which doesn't mean static. Galaxies are not eternal, but have a limited average lifespan (of the order of a few tens of billions of years). Galaxies were not all born at the same time, but each galaxy has its own moment of birth. Two different galaxies have different birth moments (often billions of years apart).
A galaxy is born from PLASMA released by a supermassive rotating black hole when it EXPLODES.
The fact that black holes explode is confirmed by the GAMMA RAY BURST phenomenon. These are beams of gamma rays so intense that billions of suns are needed to generate them.
How do these rays originate?
The only possible explanation is that the electromagnetic radiation that composes them was IMPRISONED in a black hole which, EXPLODING, released it into space.
Rotating black holes are essential for the existence of a galaxy, because they provide the gravitational force that allows the galaxy's stars to rotate in a plane passing through its nucleus. All galaxies have stars that rotate in a plane. This is evidence that the galaxy's core is super-massive and rotating black hole.
This black hole absorbs not only the radiation that goes beyond its event horizon, but also all the MATTER that passes through it.
This matter is endowed with kinetic energy which is released to the black hole. The TEMPERATURE of the latter is therefore destined to increase over time.
It follows that inside the black hole matter can only exist in the PLASMA state.
When the black hole explodes, this plasma is projected into space together with the radiation which, due to the very high temperature, will have a very high frequency (gamma rays).
From the plasma projected into space, a new generation of neutral atoms will arise (due to Coulomb attraction), stars, a new super-massive rotating black hole and a new galaxy.
The atoms of a newborn galaxy emit light at the fastest possible speed. And since the speed is proportional to the wavelength, with the maximum possible wavelength.
As time passes, the atoms emit light at a slightly decreasing speed. In fact, atomic electrons move in a sea of NEUTRINOS. These latter particles, like electrons, have mass, although infinitesimal. They therefore interact with atomic electrons, slowing them down. And since the speed of electrons is proportional to the speed of light, it follows that v, and therefore c, decreases slightly over time.
The redshift is therefore not linked to the distance between galaxies, but to their age difference.
Our galaxy is one of the oldest in the visible universe. This is the reason why almost all galaxies appear red (they are younger. They emit light with a great speed and therefore a long wavelength).
The reason why redshift appears to be linked to distance is that to observe distant galaxies they need to be very BRIGHT, i.e. very YOUNG.
As time passes, the atoms present in galactic clouds are pushed towards the outside of the galaxy by the "radiation pressure" emitted by the stars in the galaxy. They thus form a shell of matter that absorbs the photons coming from the stars of the galaxy (at a surface temperature of around 5700 °K) and re-emits them at a much lower temperature (around 2.75 °K)
This is the origin of the cosmic radiation we observe. This radiation comes from the shell of NORMAL matter that surrounds OUR galaxy, placed at such a distance that the temperature of the photons that hit it goes from 5700 °K to 2.75 °K.
In fact, the temperature map of the cosmic background radiation presents symmetries around the GALACTIC PLANE.
This shell is present in all older galaxies, while it is absent in young, newly formed galaxies.
It is responsible for the fact that for older galaxies the number of visible stars is much lower than that of stars actually present, number deduced from the deflection of light passing near the galaxy which provides its effective mass.
Giuseppe Pipino
Thank you Giuseppe for sharing your model of the universe. Your perspective, which integrates ideas from Halton Arp and Eric Lerner, and proposes a stationary universe with black holes playing a central role in galaxy formation, is indeed intriguing. Here’s a detailed analysis of the model:
- Redshift as Intrinsic: The idea that redshift might be intrinsic rather than a result of cosmic expansion is a departure from the standard cosmological model. Traditional cosmology, supported by the observation of the cosmic microwave background radiation (CMB) and the large-scale structure of the universe, interprets redshift primarily as a Doppler effect due to the expansion of space. The intrinsic redshift hypothesis, though compelling, would need to address several established observations, including the isotropy and homogeneity of the CMB and the uniformity of redshift across different galaxy types.
- Black Hole Explosions: The model proposes that galaxies form from plasma released by the explosion of supermassive rotating black holes. While gamma-ray bursts (GRBs) are associated with high-energy phenomena, they are generally understood as originating from stellar collapses or mergers of compact objects, rather than the explosion of supermassive black holes. Supermassive black holes are generally considered to accrete matter rather than explode, and their dynamics are complex and not yet fully understood. The idea of black hole explosions leading to galaxy formation would need to reconcile with our current understanding of black hole physics and observational evidence.
- Plasma State and Matter Creation: The notion that black holes contain matter in a plasma state and that this plasma is expelled during explosions to form new galaxies is innovative but would require extensive theoretical and observational support. The creation of matter from high-energy phenomena and the formation of new galaxies from such processes would need to align with nucleosynthesis models and the observed distribution of elements.
- CMB and Galactic Shells: The model suggests that the CMB originates from a shell of matter surrounding our galaxy, which absorbs and re-emits radiation. This interpretation contrasts with the prevailing view that the CMB is a remnant of the early universe, with its uniform temperature and isotropy being well-explained by the Big Bang model and inflationary theory. The observed uniformity of the CMB, its blackbody spectrum, and its temperature fluctuations are critical pieces of evidence for the Big Bang model.
- Galactic Redshift and Age: The hypothesis that the redshift is due to the age of galaxies rather than their distance is an interesting take. However, this idea would need to address how it fits with the observed relationship between redshift and distance, as well as the evidence from supernovae and distant galaxy surveys that supports an expanding universe.
Further Exploration:
- Theoretical Development: It might be beneficial to develop detailed theoretical models and simulations that explore how black hole explosions could lead to galaxy formation and how this mechanism fits with observed cosmic structures.
- Observational Evidence: Aligning your model with observational data, such as the distribution and formation of galaxies, the spectrum of the CMB, and high-energy astrophysical phenomena, would provide stronger support for the proposed ideas.
- Integration with Existing Models: Comparing and contrasting your model with the standard cosmological model and addressing how it explains or modifies existing observations could help in assessing its viability.
I look forward to further discussions and insights into how your model could be tested or refined based on current observations and theoretical advancements.
Best regards, Sandeep Jaiswal
Dear Giuseppe Pipino ,
GP: What is wrong about this model of Universe? ... intrinsic nature of redshift, i.e. not linked to its presumed expansion (Doppler effect).
What is wrong is that it is incompatible with the time dilation of type 1a supernovae as measured by Goldhaber:
Article Timescale Stretch Parameterization of Type Ia Supernova B ‐B...
Time dilation is well supported and rules out any cause of redshift other than expansion.
Note that neither expansion nor intrinsic red shifting is the same as Doppler, Doppler is generated in addition by local peculiar motions.
Sandeep Jaiswal
Dear Sandeep,
First of all, I thank you for carefully reading my note relating to a cosmological model (which we will call VSLT) which is essentially based on the intrinsic interpretation of the cosmological redshift.
I will only respond to one of your observations, as the discussion is so broad and complex that it certainly requires a lot of time and effort.
The observation I would like to respond to is the following:
• gamma-ray bursts (GRBs) are associated with high-energy phenomena, they are generally understood as originating from stellar collapses or mergers of compact objects.
I think that the characteristics of GRBs make them difficult to associate with collapsing stars. For example, supernovae that become neutron stars or black holes.
First of all, the extremely short duration of many CRBs. Events of this type last from about ten milliseconds (source Wikipedia) to a few hundred seconds. Conversely, it is known that a supernova transforms into a neutron star (or a black hole) in a time ranging from a week to a few months.
The second reason that suggests that GRBs are not due to collapsing supernovae is that GRBs HAVE NEVER BEEN OBSERVED in our galaxy. On the other hand, supernovae that collapse in our galaxy are quite frequent (three supernovae per century).
With reference to GRB 221009A Wikipedia reports: “As of 2023, there is no conclusive evidence that this gamma-ray burst was caused by a supernova;[37][38][39][40] nor have any of the enormous number of neutrinos emitted by supernovae been detected.[41] ”
The further reason that suggests that GRBs are not due to supernovae that become neutron stars or black holes is the fact that the sources of such radiation are very far away (even billions of light years). Since they arrive with the frequency centered on the gamma band (f>3 10^19 Hz) the decrease in frequency linked to the high redshift means that they were emitted at a much higher frequency. A star emits radiation with a frequency that depends on TEMPERATURE, according to Planck's law. To have frequencies higher than 3 10^19 Hz, temperatures of billions of degrees are needed.
Such temperatures are impossible to refer to the surface temperature of a star, but are entirely reasonable if referred to the interior of a super-massive black hole with an age of a few billion years.
In fact, consider that the temperature of a black hole can only INCREASE, given that the black hole can only absorb matter without being able to expel it.
George Dishman
wrote:
>
Dear George,
Evidently you have not read, even fleetingly, my article: Evidences for Varying Speed of Light with Time (scirp.org)
In it I set out my hypothesis that c undergoes an annual decrease of -2.4 (cm/s)/year.
The justification for this hypothesis will be provided in a subsequent article entitled > which justifies this hypothesis starting from a model of a homogeneous and isotropic universe.
However, beyond any possible justification, the aforementioned article, in the "Introduction" shows precisely how the thesis of the speed of light c varying according to the law (1) dc/dt=-Hc, with Hubble's constant H, explains perfectly the trend observed for the redshift z of supernovae with distance, summarized by the Goldhaber graph.
This hypothesis explains many other things, such as, to limit ourselves to the most important, the trend of the light curves of the peripheral stars of galaxies without any need for elusive entities such as dark matter. In the second aforementioned article, the empirical Tully-Fisher law is theoretically derived which links the baryonic mass of a galaxy with the rotation speed Vc of its peripheral stars. Experimentally Vc is reached for a distance from the galactic nucleus Rc=Vc, and remains approximately constant for R>Rc.
The speed c is the product of the wavelength λ and the frequency f. A decrease in c leads to:
(a) that decreases λ, or (b) that decreases f (or both).
A decrease in f with time means that stars from more distant galaxies (in space and therefore also in time) should emit light with higher frequency than the light emitted by stars in our own galaxy. Which is equivalent to a BLUESHIFT. Then the hypothesis that f decreases over time must be excluded. The hypothesis remains that f remains constant over time and that λ instead decreases over time. This means that distant galaxies emit light with λ greater than the wavelength emitted by the stars of our galaxy, and therefore there is a REDSHIFT.
Furthermore, since z=Δλ/λ we also have z=Δc/c
Relation (1) gives for z the relation z=e^(HR/c0) -1
where R is the distance to the source and c0 is the speed of light at instant of emission t=0.
For HR/c0
Dear Giuseppe Pipino ,
GP: Evidently you have not read, even fleetingly, my article: Evidences for Varying Speed of Light with Time (scirp.org) In it I set out my hypothesis that c undergoes an annual decrease of -2.4 (cm/s)/year.
No, I haven't seen that but Webb et al measured the fine structure constant which depends on the speed of light and found that it has changed by less than 10 parts per million in the last 10 billion years.
- Badges
- Science topic