Re: Looking for other proof of universe

CuriousG

http://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=644285

The above thread had a good discussion, but I did not want to derail it so I created this new one.

I am confused and hope some of you can clarify things with a newb. Go easy with me!

There is no doubt of the exact validity of the doppler shift law in vacuum.

However, I've come across measurements of deviations from Doppler's law for light propagating in a gas.

[1] R. M. Santilli, "Experimental Verifications of IsoRedShift with Possible Absence of Universe Expansion, Big Bang, Dark Matter, and Dark Energy," The Open Astronomy Journal, 124 (2010), santilli-foundation(dot)org/docs/Santilli-isoredshift.pdf

[2] G. West and G. Amato, "Experimental Conformation of Santilli's IsoRedShift and IsoBlueShift," Journal of Computational Methods in Sciences and Engineering, Vol. 12, pages 169-188 (2012), santilli-foundation(dot)org/docs/Confirmation-IRS-IBS.pdf

[3] R. M. Santilli, G. West and g. Amato. "Experimental Confirmation of the IsoRedShift at Sun at Sunset and Sunrise with Consequential Absence of Universe Expansion and Related Conjectures, " Journal of Computational Methods in Sciences and Engineering, Vol. 12, pages 165-188 (2012), santilli-foundation(dot)org/docs/Confirmation-sun-IRS.pdf

Since at large distances, the intergalactic space is not empty, Santilli argues that his measurements of anomalous redshift on earth implies the possibility of no expansion of the universe - instead, light is merely losing energy to the intergalactic medium.

I checked with a number of spectrometers who have privately re-done these experiments and have apparently confirmed the anomaly in earth's atmosphere.

The point in which I am confused relates to the connection of the above measurements with the expansion of the universe.


Can anybody illuminate me by proving or disproving that Santilli's measurements of anomalous redshift in air has no cosmological implications?

Quite honestly, I have been attracted by Santilli's views, because I too have serious difficulties in accepting that galaxies at the edge of the universe must travel at superluminal speeds due to the need of v/c to be bigger than 1. This appears as a clear violation of Einstein's Special Relativity as I hope all of you would see.

I have difficulty in accepting the exotic expansion of the universe because, as worked out mathematically by Santilli, the *acceleration* of the expansion implies earth being at the center of the universe.

Please express your views.

With appreciation,

CuriousG

mfb

No! No!
Special relativity is fine to describe local events, but for cosmology you need general relativity. There, the velocity of distant objects depends on your coordinate system - you can choose coordinates where the speed of all galaxies is close to 0 (and cannot exceed c), if you like.

I would expect that those matter-induced redshift models have serious numerical issues which require calculations to check, but some things I can see:
- The observed redshift is extremely uniform in all space directions, while the matter distribution is not (on a scale of ~100 million light years).
- A non-expanding universe violates GR or is extremely unstable
- Without expansion, no big bang. How does the model explain all the evidence for that? CMB, chemical composition, quasars, evolution of galaxies and stars, and so on?

The journals look very suspicious...

No.

Chronos

A quote from Santilli's book - Il Grande Grido, may help put matters into perspective -
"... under the deceptive vest of democratic peer review, the current U.S. academic community in physics is a most totalitarian (and internationally powerful) scientific organization which imposes a most questionable form of slavery, that of the human mind."
This is eerily reminiscent of complaints levied by other 'luminaries', such as Halton Arp [re: Seeing Red]. While he has papers published in mainstream literature, much of his work appears in the Hadronic Journal, of which he is founder and editor. Most reputable theoreticians find a way to propose new ideas through traditional media in relatively modest and defensible steps; and are sensitive and soberly respectful of the also traditional skepticism of their peers. Attacking the messenger is not an effective strategy and suggests a lack of discipline.