Cosmic Expansion vs. Galactic Density - Revision history

DeHilster at 18:38, 30 August 2018

2018-08-30T18:38:47Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 14:38, 30 August 2018
Line 87:		Line 87:

	[[Category:Scientific Paper\|Scientific Paper]]		[[Category:Scientific Paper\|Scientific Paper]]
			[[Category:Scientific Paper Full\|Cosmic Expansion vs. Galactic Density]]
	[[Category:Gravity]]		[[Category:Gravity]]
	[[Category:Relativity]]		[[Category:Relativity]]
	[[Category:Cosmology]]		[[Category:Cosmology]]

DeHilster at 20:48, 24 August 2018

2018-08-24T20:48:15Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 16:48, 24 August 2018
Line 4:		Line 4:
	\| author = [[Raymond H Gallucci]]		\| author = [[Raymond H Gallucci]]
	\| keywords = [[Galactic Density; Cosmic Expansion; Simulation; Steady-State]]		\| keywords = [[Galactic Density; Cosmic Expansion; Simulation; Steady-State]]
	\| published = 2015		\| published = 2015, 2018
	\| num_pages = 4		\| num_pages = 4
	}}		}}

DeHilster: /* Introduction */

2018-08-24T16:14:38Z

Introduction

← Older revision		Revision as of 12:14, 24 August 2018
Line 19:		Line 19:
	''A cosmological test based on the zCOSMOS observations carried out using the Very Large Telescope at the ESO Paranal Observatory is established to test the dichotomous cosmology ''\footnote{The dichotomous cosmology is an alternative to the expanding Universe theory, and consists of a static matter Universe, where cosmological redshifts are explained by a tired-light model with an expanding luminous world. In this model the Hubble constant is also the photon energy decay rate, and the luminous world is expanding at a constant rate as in de Sitter cosmology for an empty Universe. <ref>Y. Heymann, '' The Dichotomous Cosmology with a Static Material World and Expanding Luminous World '' , PROGRESS IN PHYSICS, vol. 10 (3), pp. 178-181, July 2014.</ref> } ''against a specific class of expanding Universes: Universes with a Hubble parameter which does not vary over time. The rationale of the test is to slice the zCosmos galactic survey into small redshift buckets. For each redshift bucket we compute the number of galaxies of the bucket divided by the volume of the bucket which gives the galactic density of the bucket. Using this procedure a curve of the galactic density versus light travel time is obtained. Then the theoretical galactic density curve of the cosmology is obtained by simulation by generating galaxies for each redshift bucket, and compute the number of visible galaxies (those not covered by foreground galaxies) using an average galactic radius. Finally, by comparing the galactic density curve of the simulation with that of the survey we can accept or reject a cosmology. This test corroborates the dichotomous cosmology while it rejects the expanding Universe classes that were considered for the test. ''		''A cosmological test based on the zCOSMOS observations carried out using the Very Large Telescope at the ESO Paranal Observatory is established to test the dichotomous cosmology ''\footnote{The dichotomous cosmology is an alternative to the expanding Universe theory, and consists of a static matter Universe, where cosmological redshifts are explained by a tired-light model with an expanding luminous world. In this model the Hubble constant is also the photon energy decay rate, and the luminous world is expanding at a constant rate as in de Sitter cosmology for an empty Universe. <ref>Y. Heymann, '' The Dichotomous Cosmology with a Static Material World and Expanding Luminous World '' , PROGRESS IN PHYSICS, vol. 10 (3), pp. 178-181, July 2014.</ref> } ''against a specific class of expanding Universes: Universes with a Hubble parameter which does not vary over time. The rationale of the test is to slice the zCosmos galactic survey into small redshift buckets. For each redshift bucket we compute the number of galaxies of the bucket divided by the volume of the bucket which gives the galactic density of the bucket. Using this procedure a curve of the galactic density versus light travel time is obtained. Then the theoretical galactic density curve of the cosmology is obtained by simulation by generating galaxies for each redshift bucket, and compute the number of visible galaxies (those not covered by foreground galaxies) using an average galactic radius. Finally, by comparing the galactic density curve of the simulation with that of the survey we can accept or reject a cosmology. This test corroborates the dichotomous cosmology while it rejects the expanding Universe classes that were considered for the test. ''

	As discussed in <ref>Astronomy Report, '' Hubble finds most distant primeval galaxies '' , January 9, 2010 (http://www.astronomyreport.com/hubble finds most distant primeval galaxies/).</ref> : "The teams are finding that the number of galaxies per unit of volume of space drops off smoothly with increasing distance ~~<math display="inline">â€¦</math>~~ " As discussed in <ref> '' Why does the Apparent Density of Galaxies Drop Off at Larger Distances? '' , http://curious.astro.cornell.edu/about-us/97-the-universe/galaxies/cosmology/531-why-does-the-apparent-density-of-galaxies-drop-off-at-larger-distances-advanced (1997).</ref> :		As discussed in <ref>Astronomy Report, ''Hubble finds most distant primeval galaxies'' , January 9, 2010 (http://www.astronomyreport.com/hubble finds most distant primeval galaxies/).</ref> : "The teams are finding that the number of galaxies per unit of volume of space drops off smoothly with increasing distance" As discussed in <ref> ''Why does the Apparent Density of Galaxies Drop Off at Larger Distances?'' , http://curious.astro.cornell.edu/about-us/97-the-universe/galaxies/cosmology/531-why-does-the-apparent-density-of-galaxies-drop-off-at-larger-distances-advanced (1997).</ref> :

	''If we define the 'density of galaxies' as the number of galaxies per unit volume, then the density does in fact decrease as time goes on (it was greater in the past than it is now) ... Imagine that you're looking at a very distant galaxy in one part of the sky, and then compare it to another very distant galaxy in another part of the sky. The angular separation of those two galaxies can be very large. So you could say that it 'looks' like they're billions of light-years apart. But yet in the very distant past, when the universe was much much smaller than it is now, they were physically very close together. So you can't really measure the density of the universe at that early time by counting up galaxies and dividing by the volume they appear to occupy just as you would in a universe that wasn't expanding. The expansion of the universe means that objects that were very close together at the time they emitted the light that we're now seeing are spread out over the sky in a way that wouldn't happen in a universe that wasn't expanding. ''		''If we define the 'density of galaxies' as the number of galaxies per unit volume, then the density does in fact decrease as time goes on (it was greater in the past than it is now) ... Imagine that you're looking at a very distant galaxy in one part of the sky, and then compare it to another very distant galaxy in another part of the sky. The angular separation of those two galaxies can be very large. So you could say that it 'looks' like they're billions of light-years apart. But yet in the very distant past, when the universe was much much smaller than it is now, they were physically very close together. So you can't really measure the density of the universe at that early time by counting up galaxies and dividing by the volume they appear to occupy just as you would in a universe that wasn't expanding. The expansion of the universe means that objects that were very close together at the time they emitted the light that we're now seeing are spread out over the sky in a way that wouldn't happen in a universe that wasn't expanding. ''

DeHilster at 16:13, 24 August 2018

2018-08-24T16:13:05Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 12:13, 24 August 2018
Line 9:		Line 9:

	'''Read the full paper''' [http://www.naturalphilosophy.org/pdf/abstracts/abstracts_paperlink_7316.doc here]		'''Read the full paper''' [http://www.naturalphilosophy.org/pdf/abstracts/abstracts_paperlink_7316.doc here]

	==Abstract==		==Abstract==

	Observing galactic density as a function of increasing distance (and, correspondingly, earlier times given the travel time of light) should provide evidence as to whether a 'steady-state' (non-expanding) or Big-Bang-driven expanding universe is the more defensible cosmology. Working independently, but later discovering additional recent work in this area by Heymann, I attempt to address this question by simulating galactic densities for the two types of cosmological model. Results suggest that the non-expanding universe may be more consistent, or at least less inconsistent, with both observation and expectation. Further, they are consistent with conclusions drawn by Heymann from his recent studies.==Introduction==		Observing galactic density as a function of increasing distance (and, correspondingly, earlier times given the travel time of light) should provide evidence as to whether a 'steady-state' (non-expanding) or Big-Bang-driven expanding universe is the more defensible cosmology. Working independently, but later discovering additional recent work in this area by Heymann, I attempt to address this question by simulating galactic densities for the two types of cosmological model. Results suggest that the non-expanding universe may be more consistent, or at least less inconsistent, with both observation and expectation. Further, they are consistent with conclusions drawn by Heymann from his recent studies.

			==Introduction==
	In a 2011 study <ref>Y. Heymann, '' Building Galactic Density Profiles '' , PROGRESS IN PHYSICS, vol. 4, pp. 63-67, October 2011.</ref> , Heymann concluded that "the galactic density appears to be constant over time, which would corroborate the steady state cosmology of Bondi and Gold <ref>H. Bondi and T. Gold, '' The Steady-State Theory of the Expanding Universe '' , MONTHLY NOTICES OF THE ROYAL ASTRONOMICAL SOCIETY, vol. 108 (3), p. 252 (1948).</ref> and Hoyle, et al." <ref>F. Hoyle, G., Burbridge, J., Narlikar, '' A Quasi-Steady-state Cosmological Model with Creation of Matter '' , THE ASTROPHYSICAL JOURNAL, vol. 410, pp. 437-457 (1993).</ref> A more recent 2014 study by Heymann <ref>Y. Heymann, '' A Monte Carlo Simulation Framework for Testing Cosmological Models '' , PROGRESS IN PHYSICS, vol. 10 (4), pp. 217-221, October 2014.</ref> suggests "a universe where the material world is static and the luminous world is expanding. This cosmology enables the reconciliation of the static universe of Einstein with observations of the expanding Universe." <ref>Y. Heymann, '' The Dichotomous Cosmology with a Static Material World and Expanding Luminous World '' , PROGRESS IN PHYSICS, vol. 10 (3), pp. 178-181, July 2014.</ref>		In a 2011 study <ref>Y. Heymann, '' Building Galactic Density Profiles '' , PROGRESS IN PHYSICS, vol. 4, pp. 63-67, October 2011.</ref> , Heymann concluded that "the galactic density appears to be constant over time, which would corroborate the steady state cosmology of Bondi and Gold <ref>H. Bondi and T. Gold, '' The Steady-State Theory of the Expanding Universe '' , MONTHLY NOTICES OF THE ROYAL ASTRONOMICAL SOCIETY, vol. 108 (3), p. 252 (1948).</ref> and Hoyle, et al." <ref>F. Hoyle, G., Burbridge, J., Narlikar, '' A Quasi-Steady-state Cosmological Model with Creation of Matter '' , THE ASTROPHYSICAL JOURNAL, vol. 410, pp. 437-457 (1993).</ref> A more recent 2014 study by Heymann <ref>Y. Heymann, '' A Monte Carlo Simulation Framework for Testing Cosmological Models '' , PROGRESS IN PHYSICS, vol. 10 (4), pp. 217-221, October 2014.</ref> suggests "a universe where the material world is static and the luminous world is expanding. This cosmology enables the reconciliation of the static universe of Einstein with observations of the expanding Universe." <ref>Y. Heymann, '' The Dichotomous Cosmology with a Static Material World and Expanding Luminous World '' , PROGRESS IN PHYSICS, vol. 10 (3), pp. 178-181, July 2014.</ref>

	''A cosmological test based on the zCOSMOS observations carried out using the Very Large Telescope at the ESO Paranal Observatory is established to test the dichotomous cosmology ''\footnote{The dichotomous cosmology is an alternative to the expanding Universe theory, and consists of a static matter Universe, where cosmological redshifts are explained by a tired-light model with an expanding luminous world. In this model the Hubble constant is also the photon energy decay rate, and the luminous world is expanding at a constant rate as in de Sitter cosmology for an empty Universe. <ref>Y. Heymann, '' The Dichotomous Cosmology with a Static Material World and Expanding Luminous World '' , PROGRESS IN PHYSICS, vol. 10 (3), pp. 178-181, July 2014.</ref> } ''against a specific class of expanding Universes: Universes with a Hubble parameter which does not vary over time. The rationale of the test is to slice the zCosmos galactic survey into small redshift buckets. For each redshift bucket we compute the number of galaxies of the bucket divided by the volume of the bucket which gives the galactic density of the bucket. Using this procedure a curve of the galactic density versus light travel time is obtained. Then the theoretical galactic density curve of the cosmology is obtained by simulation by generating galaxies for each redshift bucket, and compute the number of visible galaxies (those not covered by foreground galaxies) using an average galactic radius. Finally, by comparing the galactic density curve of the simulation with that of the survey we can accept or reject a cosmology. This test corroborates the dichotomous cosmology while it rejects the expanding Universe classes that were considered for the test. ''		''A cosmological test based on the zCOSMOS observations carried out using the Very Large Telescope at the ESO Paranal Observatory is established to test the dichotomous cosmology ''\footnote{The dichotomous cosmology is an alternative to the expanding Universe theory, and consists of a static matter Universe, where cosmological redshifts are explained by a tired-light model with an expanding luminous world. In this model the Hubble constant is also the photon energy decay rate, and the luminous world is expanding at a constant rate as in de Sitter cosmology for an empty Universe. <ref>Y. Heymann, '' The Dichotomous Cosmology with a Static Material World and Expanding Luminous World '' , PROGRESS IN PHYSICS, vol. 10 (3), pp. 178-181, July 2014.</ref> } ''against a specific class of expanding Universes: Universes with a Hubble parameter which does not vary over time. The rationale of the test is to slice the zCosmos galactic survey into small redshift buckets. For each redshift bucket we compute the number of galaxies of the bucket divided by the volume of the bucket which gives the galactic density of the bucket. Using this procedure a curve of the galactic density versus light travel time is obtained. Then the theoretical galactic density curve of the cosmology is obtained by simulation by generating galaxies for each redshift bucket, and compute the number of visible galaxies (those not covered by foreground galaxies) using an average galactic radius. Finally, by comparing the galactic density curve of the simulation with that of the survey we can accept or reject a cosmology. This test corroborates the dichotomous cosmology while it rejects the expanding Universe classes that were considered for the test. ''

	As discussed in <ref>Astronomy Report, '' Hubble finds most distant primeval galaxies '' , January 9, 2010 (http://www.astronomyreport.com/hubble finds most distant primeval galaxies/).</ref> : "The teams are finding that the number of galaxies per unit of volume of space drops off smoothly with increasing distance <math display="inline">â€¦</math> " As discussed in <ref> '' Why does the Apparent Density of Galaxies Drop Off at Larger Distances? '' , http://curious.astro.cornell.edu/about-us/97-the-universe/galaxies/cosmology/531-why-does-the-apparent-density-of-galaxies-drop-off-at-larger-distances-advanced (1997).</ref> :		As discussed in <ref>Astronomy Report, '' Hubble finds most distant primeval galaxies '' , January 9, 2010 (http://www.astronomyreport.com/hubble finds most distant primeval galaxies/).</ref> : "The teams are finding that the number of galaxies per unit of volume of space drops off smoothly with increasing distance <math display="inline">â€¦</math> " As discussed in <ref> '' Why does the Apparent Density of Galaxies Drop Off at Larger Distances? '' , http://curious.astro.cornell.edu/about-us/97-the-universe/galaxies/cosmology/531-why-does-the-apparent-density-of-galaxies-drop-off-at-larger-distances-advanced (1997).</ref> :

	''If we define the 'density of galaxies' as the number of galaxies per unit volume, then the density does in fact decrease as time goes on (it was greater in the past than it is now) ... Imagine that you're looking at a very distant galaxy in one part of the sky, and then compare it to another very distant galaxy in another part of the sky. The angular separation of those two galaxies can be very large. So you could say that it 'looks' like they're billions of light-years apart. But yet in the very distant past, when the universe was much much smaller than it is now, they were physically very close together. So you can't really measure the density of the universe at that early time by counting up galaxies and dividing by the volume they appear to occupy just as you would in a universe that wasn't expanding. The expansion of the universe means that objects that were very close together at the time they emitted the light that we're now seeing are spread out over the sky in a way that wouldn't happen in a universe that wasn't expanding. ''		''If we define the 'density of galaxies' as the number of galaxies per unit volume, then the density does in fact decrease as time goes on (it was greater in the past than it is now) ... Imagine that you're looking at a very distant galaxy in one part of the sky, and then compare it to another very distant galaxy in another part of the sky. The angular separation of those two galaxies can be very large. So you could say that it 'looks' like they're billions of light-years apart. But yet in the very distant past, when the universe was much much smaller than it is now, they were physically very close together. So you can't really measure the density of the universe at that early time by counting up galaxies and dividing by the volume they appear to occupy just as you would in a universe that wasn't expanding. The expansion of the universe means that objects that were very close together at the time they emitted the light that we're now seeing are spread out over the sky in a way that wouldn't happen in a universe that wasn't expanding. ''

			The second discussion suggests that the galactic density back in time (i.e., at greater distance) should be larger than closer in time (at nearer distance) despite the observation of decreasing density. Given the currently accepted cosmology of an alleged Big Bang followed by an (ever?) expanding universe, does this align with observation and expectation?

	The second discussion suggests that the galactic density back in time (i.e., at greater distance) should be larger than closer in time (at nearer distance) despite the observation of decreasing density. Given the currently accepted cosmology of an alleged Big Bang followed by an (ever?) expanding universe, does this align with observation and expectation? \cnpsheading\section{A Fairly Simple Analysis} To examine this, I developed two sets of simple simulations, one that assumes no cosmic expansion (essentially a 'steady state' universe) and one that assumes expansion. In each, I randomly placed 100 galaxies over a square area (working in two dimensions rather than three for visual and computational convenience - the conclusions apply equally to three dimensions), one of size 6 x 6 = 36 square random units and the other of size 2 x 2 = 4 square random units. The larger simulates the non-expanding universe, the smaller the one that expands. Within each square I placed a circle whose diameter matched the sides of the square and determined how many of the 100 simulated galaxies fell within the circle. The expected number is <math display="inline">\frac{\pi (3^2)}{36} = \frac{\pi (1^2)}{4} = 0.785</math> times the 100 galaxies, or 78.5 galaxies on average. Only those within the circles were treated as observable, the remaining 21.5, on average, being too distant for light to have reached the observer (or, in the case of the expanding universe), beyond the universe itself. Each set of simulations was run five times to obtain a spread of results.		==A Fairly Simple Analysis==
			To examine this, I developed two sets of simple simulations, one that assumes no cosmic expansion (essentially a 'steady state' universe) and one that assumes expansion. In each, I randomly placed 100 galaxies over a square area (working in two dimensions rather than three for visual and computational convenience - the conclusions apply equally to three dimensions), one of size 6 x 6 = 36 square random units and the other of size 2 x 2 = 4 square random units. The larger simulates the non-expanding universe, the smaller the one that expands. Within each square I placed a circle whose diameter matched the sides of the square and determined how many of the 100 simulated galaxies fell within the circle. The expected number is <math display="inline">\frac{\pi (3^2)}{36} = \frac{\pi (1^2)}{4} = 0.785</math> times the 100 galaxies, or 78.5 galaxies on average. Only those within the circles were treated as observable, the remaining 21.5, on average, being too distant for light to have reached the observer (or, in the case of the expanding universe), beyond the universe itself. Each set of simulations was run five times to obtain a spread of results.

	===Non-Expanding Universe===		===Non-Expanding Universe===
Line 55:		Line 61:

	<figure id="fig:six">		<figure id="fig:six">
	[[Image:Raymond-HV-Gallucci-PhD-PE-Cosmic-Expansion-vs.-Galactic-Density-~~2018~~-RayGallucci04-F5.png\|thumbnail\|300px\|<caption>Expansion from Simulation of 100 Random Galaxies for Non-Expanding Universe at Time 0++ (Latest)</caption>]]		[[Image:Raymond-HV-Gallucci-PhD-PE-Cosmic-Expansion-vs.-Galactic-Density-2c018-RayGallucci04-F5.png\|thumbnail\|300px\|<caption>Expansion from Simulation of 100 Random Galaxies for Non-Expanding Universe at Time 0++ (Latest)</caption>]]
	</figure>		</figure>

DeHilster at 16:07, 24 August 2018

2018-08-24T16:07:43Z

@@ Line 9: / Line 9: @@
 '''Read the full paper''' [http://www.naturalphilosophy.org/pdf/abstracts/abstracts_paperlink_7316.doc here]
-==Abstract==
+==Conclusion==
-[[Category:Scientific Paper|]]
+[[Category:Scientific Paper|Scientific Paper]]
 [[Category:Gravity]]
 [[Category:Relativity]]
 [[Category:Cosmology]]

Maintenance script: Imported from text file

2017-01-01T17:12:07Z

Imported from text file

← Older revision		Revision as of 13:12, 1 January 2017
Line 14:		Line 14:
	Observing galactic density as a function of increasing distance (and, correspondingly, earlier times given the travel time of light) should provide evidence as to whether a ‘steady-state’ (non-expanding) or Big-Bang-driven expanding universe is the more defensible cosmology. Working independently, but later discovering additional recent work in this area by Heymann, I attempt to address this question by simulating galactic densities for the two types of cosmological model. Results suggest that the non-expanding universe may be more consistent, or at least less inconsistent, with both observation and expectation. Further, they are consistent with conclusions drawn by Heymann from his recent studies.		Observing galactic density as a function of increasing distance (and, correspondingly, earlier times given the travel time of light) should provide evidence as to whether a ‘steady-state’ (non-expanding) or Big-Bang-driven expanding universe is the more defensible cosmology. Working independently, but later discovering additional recent work in this area by Heymann, I attempt to address this question by simulating galactic densities for the two types of cosmological model. Results suggest that the non-expanding universe may be more consistent, or at least less inconsistent, with both observation and expectation. Further, they are consistent with conclusions drawn by Heymann from his recent studies.

	[[Category:Scientific Paper]]		[[Category:Scientific Paper\|]]

	[[Category:Gravity]]		[[Category:Gravity]]
	[[Category:Relativity]]		[[Category:Relativity]]
	[[Category:Cosmology]]		[[Category:Cosmology]]

Maintenance script: Imported from text file

2016-12-30T18:18:30Z

Imported from text file

New page

{{Infobox paper
| title = Cosmic Expansion vs. Galactic Density
| url = [http://www.naturalphilosophy.org/pdf/abstracts/abstracts_paperlink_7316.doc Link to paper]
| author = [[Raymond H Gallucci]]
| keywords = [[Galactic Density; Cosmic Expansion; Simulation; Steady-State]]
| published = 2015
| num_pages = 4
}}

'''Read the full paper''' [http://www.naturalphilosophy.org/pdf/abstracts/abstracts_paperlink_7316.doc here]

==Abstract==

Observing galactic density as a function of increasing distance (and, correspondingly, earlier times given the travel time of light) should provide evidence as to whether a ‘steady-state’ (non-expanding) or Big-Bang-driven expanding universe is the more defensible cosmology. Working independently, but later discovering additional recent work in this area by Heymann, I attempt to address this question by simulating galactic densities for the two types of cosmological model. Results suggest that the non-expanding universe may be more consistent, or at least less inconsistent, with both observation and expectation. Further, they are consistent with conclusions drawn by Heymann from his recent studies.

[[Category:Scientific Paper]]

[[Category:Gravity]]
[[Category:Relativity]]
[[Category:Cosmology]]