contrarian thinker

Let me begin by drawing your attention to the following critique of current Big Bang Theory (BBT)

"In 1929, a Cal-Tech astronomer named Edwin Hubble observed that objects which appeared to be much further away showed a more pronounced shift towards the red end of the spectrum. Scientists building on Hubble's discovery concluded that the farther an object was away from Earth, the faster it was receding, and calculated the relationship between distance and velocity, called the "Hubble Constant" and concluded on the basis of this one observed fact and the assumption that there was no other explanation for that observed fact that the universe was expanding."

"Perhaps the biggest contradiction with the Big Bang Theory is the question of the singularity. The "primordial egg" had to be a super-massive black hole. Therefore no amount of "bang", no matter how big, is going to thrust the universe out into, well, the universe.

Cosmologists eager to promote the Big Bang Theory have hit upon the "explanation" that the laws of physics, gravity., etc. simply did not apply in those first few moments of the universe. The present Cosmology theory is that the universe enjoyed a period of "rulelessness" of about 3 seconds, after which the elements formed and the fundamental forces of the universe, gravity included, were functioning as we see them today.

Ah, but there is a problem. The singularity formed by the primordial egg turns out to be rather large.

Estimates of the total mass of the universe vary wildly, given that the ends of the universe have not yet been determined. One estimate is found at http://www.rostra.dk/louis/quant_11.html of 2.6*10⁶⁰.

From the mass, you can calculate the diameter of the event horizon by finding the distance from a point mass that will have an escape velocity of c. Use sqrt(2GM/r) where M is the mass of the hole (the entire universe in this case) and r is the radius (classical), and G is the gravitational constant. Work it backward starting at c and you get c^2=2GM/r.

In short, at the moment in time when the Big Bang theorists claim the universe was functioning as it does today, complete with all fundamental forces, the entirety of the universe's mass was still well within the event horizon of its own gravity well. That the well was not the product of a true singularity is irrelevant, Newton's equation provides an equivalent gravity field for a singularity or a super dense mass in a localized region.

Therefore the Big Bang, as currently described, could not have produced the universe as we see it today. At three seconds, the time the theorists claim the universe started operating as we know it, it would have come under the influence of its own gravity and unable to reach an escape velocity exceeding that of light, collapsed back into itself."

As we can see, there is an intrinsic Catch 22 paradox when considering the mechanics and physics of the Big Bang. If nothing travels faster than light, then how could anything escape from a gravity well so powerful that light itself cannot escape?

In this paper I will argue that Red Shift is caused by two factors, not one. Doppler shift is one of these, and is bound to be observed wherever there is motion in an incandescent astronomical body moving relative to us. However, I will argue it is not the cause of the progressive and profound red shift seen with increasing intergalactic distance.

Consider the following organisation of equivalent-sized galaxies, each double the distance from our sun than the previous closer one.

Viewed by the Hubble telescope, the 4 observed galaxies might appear thus, applying the inverse square law resolution over distance...

Observation of the Universe by telescope has a resolution limit. Just as digital cameras have a resolution limit determined by the number of pixels. At this limit all visible incandescent objects will appear similar in size.

At the limit of observation four galaxies with differing red shifts might look like this..

If red shift is associated with distance from the observer, then the relative scales of these galaxies, assuming a doubling in distance as we move towards red, must follow a corresponding increase as shown in this diagram

In other words, the most distant observable objects logically also have to be the most massive.

It has been shown that light escaping from a gravity well undergoes a red shift in proportion to the depth of that well.

Quote:

In physics, light or other forms of electromagnetic radiation of a certain wavelength originating from a source placed in a region of stronger gravitational field (and which could be said to have climbed "uphill" out of a gravity well) will be found to be of longer wavelength when received by an observer in a region of weaker gravitational field. If applied to optical wave-lengths this manifests itself as a change in the colour of the light as the wavelength is shifted toward the red (making it: less energetic,longer in wavelength, and lower in frequency) part of the spectrum. This effect is called gravitational redshift and other spectral lines found in the light will also be shifted towards the longer wavelength, or "red," end of the spectrum. This shift can be observed along the entire electromagnetic spectrum.

The most distant observable objects logically also have to be the most massive. Therefore I propose that the bulk distribution of red shift found in the universe - that which correlates to distance - is simply due to the fact that light from the most distant observable objects is emerging from deepest gravity wells.

Quasars are supermassive objects that show high degrees of red shift, regardless of where they are in the universe. Here is a recent prime example...

January 10, 2005

Discovery By UCSD Astronomers Poses A Cosmic Puzzle:
Can A 'Distant' Quasar Lie Within A Nearby Galaxy?

By Kim McDonald

An international team of astronomers has discovered within the heart of a nearby spiral galaxy a quasar whose light spectrum indicates that it is billions of light years away. The finding poses a cosmic puzzle: How could a galaxy 300 million light years away contain a stellar object several billion light years away?

With Gravity Field Red Shift theory, this apparent anomalous observation is absolutely to be expected.

Now that we have (IMVHO) established that Red Shift is primarily a gravity effect with a superposition of Doppler shifts due to relative motion, perhaps it is time to look at the quantisation of Red Shift in a new light (if you will pardon the pun)?