Saturday, March 31, 2007

Eye in London Pt. 3 of 3


(Here are the last of the picture slides. Perhaps they were annoyed by "A Second Plane Has Hit the Towers," or the diagrammes of the London Eye going Big Bang. They may have considered the author a revolutionary, a moniker I would happily accept. Worrying about what others think about you is useless.)

Colleagues in Australia caused a bit of stir when they claimed to detect alpha changing. Since the evidence is still non-conclusive, we can stipulate that product hc is indeed constant, as are the photon energy and Chandrasekhar limit. This means that redshifts of distant objects are indeed caused by expansion. It also verifies Dr. Lieu and Dr. Hillman’s very important finding (ApJ 585, L77, 2003), that “Planck time” is an illusion.

Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. The most surprising prediction may already have been seen. Dr. Krauss says that supernova data “naively implied that the Universe was accelerating.” Redshifts are the only direct evidence of cosmic acceleration. (What was overlooked a child could ask.) What if v/c increases not because v is accelerating, but because c slows down?

When light of redshift Zed was emitted, c was faster by sqrt(1 + Z). Apparent redshift is therefore decreased. This factor is negligible for low redshifts, where zed increases linearly. An object of redshift 1.0 recedes at 60% of our present speed of light. That is only 42% of c at the time its light was emitted. The apparent redshift is just .57. Supernovae produce that light according to E=mc^2. Energy output is here doubled, for a magnitude shift of -.75. Connect the dots, and the upward curve of Type Ia redshifts is precisely predicted.

As you know, it was possible to believe that the Universe is accelerating due to some inferred repulsive energy. Now there is corroborating evidence from a nearby star. According to astrophysics, life should not have evolved here at all because at Earth’s formation the Sun was only about 70% as bright. Our average temperature would have been 10° below zero centigrade, frozen solid. Prof. Allen at Imperial says this can’t be true, for geology tells us Earth’s temperature was suitable for liquid water. This is called the “Faint Young Sun” paradox.

Here’s a hot young solution. The Sun also turns fuel to energy according to E=mc^2. Adjusting for change in c at various epochs, solar luminosity becomes a nearly level line. Some things are nearly constant, and the “solar constant” has allowed life to evolve over thousands of millions of years. This distinguishes Theory from “accelerating universe” ideas and models where c was higher only during an inflationary period. If c had not changed in precisely the amounts predicted, we would not have evolved to argue about it. A 2ND PLANE HAS HIT THE TOWERS. There are now two lines of evidence from truly independent sources indicating that c has slowed according to GM=tc^3.

More supportive data comes from the Lunar Laser Ranging Experiment. The PLANCK spacecraft will determine whether baryons are indeed 4.5%. Another indication would be discovery of supermassive Black Holes at high redshift. Dr. Blandford also alluded to discovery of ultra-high energy cosmic rays. All these experiments contribute to an exciting “c change” in physics.

Labels: , , , , ,

3 Comments:

Blogger nige said...

"Dr. Krauss says that supernova data “naively implied that the Universe was accelerating.” ... What if v/c increases not because v is accelerating, but because c slows down?

"When light of redshift Zed was emitted, c was faster by sqrt(1 + Z). Apparent redshift is therefore decreased. This factor is negligible for low redshifts, where zed increases linearly. An object of redshift 1.0 recedes at 60% of our present speed of light. That is only 42% of c at the time its light was emitted. The apparent redshift is just .57. Supernovae produce that light according to E=mc^2. Energy output is here doubled, for a magnitude shift of -.75. Connect the dots, and the upward curve of Type Ia redshifts is precisely predicted.

"As you know, it was possible to believe that the Universe is accelerating due to some inferred repulsive energy. Now there is corroborating evidence from a nearby star. According to astrophysics, life should not have evolved here at all because at Earth’s formation the Sun was only about 70% as bright. Our average temperature would have been 10° below zero centigrade, frozen solid. Prof. Allen at Imperial says this can’t be true, for geology tells us Earth’s temperature was suitable for liquid water. This is called the “Faint Young Sun” paradox.

"Here’s a hot young solution. The Sun also turns fuel to energy according to E=mc^2. Adjusting for change in c at various epochs, solar luminosity becomes a nearly level line. Some things are nearly constant, and the “solar constant” has allowed life to evolve over thousands of millions of years. This distinguishes Theory from “accelerating universe” ideas and models where c was higher only during an inflationary period. If c had not changed in precisely the amounts predicted, we would not have evolved to argue about it. ..."


Louise, thanks for the clear explanation, data and graphs here. Your redshift comparison curve is only for the Perlmutter data for supernovas, which apply to small redshifts up to Z = 1.

It will be interesting to make quantitative comparisons for much bigger redshifts, using the more recent gamma ray burster data. See: Bradley E. Schaefer, "Gamma-Ray Burst Hubble Diagram to z = 4.5," Astrophys. J. Lett. 583, L67 (2003), plus his newer results for redshifts beyond Z = 6.3plotted here.

Basic equations: Hubble's law: v = Hd, Lorentzian relativistic redshift: Z = (1 + v/c) / [1-(v^2)/(c^2)]^{1/2}. Distance modulus magnitude = -5 + 5 log_10 d, where d is distance in parsecs (1 parsec = 3.08568025 × 10^16 meters). Since you say that the apparent redshift of light emitted by distance stars is decreased because c was faster by (1+Z)^{1/2), for Z = 4.5 the light speed c should be faster than the current value of c, in your model, by a factor of 2.35. It will be interesting to make the calculations and see how well your model fits this higher redshift data!

6:36 AM  
Blogger L. Riofrio said...

Thanks, Nge, for i value your opinions. Let us hope that they reach an even wider audience. One of these days I will extend all this to higher redshifts.

6:40 AM  
Blogger nige said...

Louise, on the "faint young sun" paradox, your argument is that the energy E=mc^2 would have been greater 4,500 million years ago, keeping the Earth's temperature similar to that today.

For E=mc^2 (with varying c) to make increase the relative sun's power from 70% to 100% of today's value, we have the scaling law:

100/70 = (C/c)^2

hence C = 1.195c,

where C is the higher speed of light at 4,500 million years ago.

This would give a velocity of light 19.5% higher 4,500 million years ago.

Your formula GM = tc^3 says that c = (GM/t)^{1/3} so if the age of the universe is 15,000 million years, then the scaling law for c at a time of 10,500 million years (i.e. 4,500 million years ago) is simply:

c(15,000/10,500)^{1/3}

= 1.126c.

This can be compared to the value 1.195c, implied by data.

It is interesting. The latest string theory paper http://www.arxiv.org/abs/hep-th/0703280 gives an ad hoc calculation for the electron mass which is 6.5 times too high, so the agreement of your prediction to the data is remarkably accurate by comparison.

7:06 AM  

Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home

Locations of visitors to this page