### A Few Stood Against Many

"The world will know that free men stood up against a tyrant,

and a few stood against many."

Somehow that line from "300" seems applicable. Hopefully you are also in a place to enjoy the beautiful full Moon this week. This has turned into a busy week using observations to show the speed of light slowing today as predicted. Type Ia supernovae show c slowing at high redshifts. Earth's temperature history shows c slowing at lower redshifts. (For cosmologists, Earth's history covers redshifts up to approximately 0.3) Today's observations show that c is still slowing as we write. No amount of personal attacks can overcome that.

Labels: 300

## 11 Comments:

"For cosmologists, Earth's history covers redshifts up to approximately 3."

The age of the Earth is about 4.6 billion years, according to most observational evidence

z=3 corresponds to 11.48 billion years ago for a WMAP cosmology, or 11.41 billion years ago for an EdS Universe with H0=50

You're only a factor of 2.5 out.

To make z=3 correspond to 4.6 billion years ago requires Omega_m=1, Omega_l=0 and H0=125, for example.

anonymous, you're data is long out of date. The Hubble constant by WMAP data in 2003 is H = 71 ± 4 km/s/Mparsec. (A less accurate independent measurement by the orbital Chandra X-ray Observatory in 2006 is 77 ± 12 km/s/Mparsec.)

The 4,600 million light years corresponds to 1,410 Mparsecs, so using the H = 71, the recession velocity (

ignoring gravitational retardation of receding matter, which we know from Perlmutter's and other measurements has no net effect on recession, whether this is due to "dark energy" or a more simple mechanism) is v = Hr = 71 * 1,410 = 100,000 km/s.Using Z = (1 + v/c) / [1-(v^2)/(c^2)]^{1/2} with v = 100,000 km/s and c = 300,000 km/s gives:

Z = (1 + 1/3)/(1 - 1/9)^{1/2}

= 1.41

A redshift of Z = 3 corresponds to about the age of the Milky Way galaxy.

I just assumed c = 300,000 km/s above. If c was higher in the past, as Louise is suggesting, that would affect the calculation of Z.

Hey L. Riofrio,

Could you explain (in layman's terms) how the speed of light is slowing down in a separate post?

I've heard this theory before from others, but I think you are the first person that I know who has come up with a formula demonstrating this.

I'm very curious as to how this works (as I've heard about scientists accelerating the speed of light and even slowing it down to zero).

A pleasure hearing from you, Darnell. That post will appear sometime this week.

Darnell's comment about "... scientists ... slowing ... the speed of light ... down to zero ..." is interesting, especially since such slowing involves interactions with surrounding stuff,

when the variable c theory is compared to a variable mass theory of Halton Arp.

As I said in a comment over on Tommaso's blog about Arp:

"... In his 1998 book "Seeing Red: Redshifts, Cosmology, and Academic Science" (Apeiron 1998), Arp says:

"... "... particle masses change on cosmic time scales ... In .. Astrophysical Journal 405, 51, 1993, Narlikar and Arp present ... the formal ... mathematics ... and show how it fits the data ...

Mathematically it turns out that the conventional Big Bang solution and ...[the]... variable mass solution are the same if one makes ...[a]... conformal transformation ...".

It might be interesting to compare Arp's variable masses with Louise's variable c. ...".

Here is a more detailed excerpt from Arp's book "Seeing Red":

"... the conformal transformation tau = t^3 / 3 t_o^2 ... means that if we operate on the tau time scale, the time on which the matter of our galaxy runs, all the dynamical equations and solutions are the same as in the conventional solutions of the usual relativistic field equations.

If we look at another galaxy created more recently, however, their clocks appear to be runnning slow and their matter appears redshifted.

As time goes on, the particle masses in the different galaxies exchange signals with more and more the same total mass of matter and their clocks asymptotically approach the same rate.

This clock time is t, the cosmic time.

From the standpoint of the cosmic reference frame, the universe is not expanding.

Matter is intermittently materialized into it with clocks that appear to run very slowly at first and then evolve to more normal rates.

From the largest reference frame, the one where the time scale approaches t, the behavior of the sub unites, including our own galaxy can be most simply understood.

For local matter of our own epoch, all the usual physics operates as we know it - as we measure it with our own tau time scale.

Where things go horribly wrong is when we look out from our own galaxy and believe that the redshifts are velocities of recession instead of differing clock rates due to age differences.

The so-called time dilation for objects receding at high velocity is exactly the same function of redshift as for stationary objects whose redshifts are cuased by younger creations epochs.

This means we expect the same slower decay rates for supernovae light curves as in an expanding universe.

A much vaunted proof that the universe is expanding is that the surface brightness of galaxies varies as (1+z)^4 - but this too is the same in both theories since the mathematical equations are conformal transforms of each other. ...".

Have you looked at the details of Arp's model?

It seems to me that his variable mass may have a lot in common with your M = T and variable c .

Further, the conformal aspects described by Arp remind me of Irving Ezra Segal's conformal cosmology, which also might be useful in further work along those lines.

Tony Smith

Arp seems to be a victim of the belief that you can promote your own theory by noting that it is mathematically equivalent, by a conformal transformation, to the standard one!

In which case, why bother?

But there may be a difference :

"Matter is intermittently materialized into it with clocks that appear to run very slowly at first and then evolve to more normal rates."

What is this 'matter materialization'?? How can it happen? Does it violate local conservation of energy? Could we detect its consequences?

The question of matter density is relevant to 'M=t' or 'varying c' too.

Questions:

What is the 'mass of the universe' made of?

If there is no dark energy, is there also dark matter, or just baryons?

If the mass arises from particles, does the comoving mass density stay constant or change? How about the comoving energy density?

In what units should the mass or energy density of particles be measured?

If the comoving density in Planck units is changing (which is what M=t in Planck units should mean), is this due to a change in the particle mass in Planck units (or equivalently a change in the gravitational 'constant' G), or what?

I.e. does the ratio of particle mass to Planck mass change?

Can this be compatible with the experimental tests for possible variation of G, which generally depend on these ratios?

T

thomas d said, about Arp's variable m:

"... What is this 'matter materialization'?? How can it happen? ...".

A somewhat detailed exposition of a model with such characteristics is described by Hoyle, Burbidge, and Narlikar in their book "A Different Approach to Cosmology" (Cambridge 2000). See particularly chapters 17 and 18, and the summary chapter 22.

Tony Smith

PS - Hoyle, Burbidge, and Narlikar also give, in chapter 11 of that book, an account of Arp's treatment by the astronomy establishment. They said in part:

"... Arp was the subject of one of the most clear cut and successful attempts in modern times to block research which it was felt ... would be revolutionary in its impact if it were to be accepted. ...".

These thoughtful comments are appreciated.

Tony, I have met Narlikar and read parts of his book. He was even nice enough to listen to one of my talks. He continues to work on his alternative cosmology, while pointing out shortcomings in the fashionable models.

This model is not quite like the "tired light" cosmologies. The math says that redshifts are indeed caused by expansion. the amount of redshift is affected by change in c, making the Universe appear to accelerate.

Tony, the missing 95.5% is likely in primordial Black Holes, of which 23.87% would be in visible clusters and 71.62% will have collapsed into voids. Black Holes are much simpler to create than our complicated matter.

Both sides of M = t are constant, since "Planck time" is just a multiple of the observer's time. So, ratio of particle mass to Planck mass would not change. Variable G is worth being looked into, but present experiments seem to rule it out. These alternative cosmologies need to be investigated. I can certainly sympathise with Arp.

Just a note of clarification on 'variable G'. No one is advocating a variable LOCAL G; only a G that varies with scale.

I woild like to know more about this topic because looks interesting.

Post a Comment

<< Home